Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-01-05MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chamber, Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Kenefick (7:10), Paone, Winchell, Porter (7:20), Schumacher, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Mahaffey requested that Consent Calendar Item A-3, Conformance with General Plan 82-1, be pulled for separate vote. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY PAONE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 8 AND DECEMBER 15, 1982, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTES: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Porter ABSTAIN: Paone, Mahaffey AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Paone, Mahaffey, NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Porter ABSTAIN: Schumacher ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONSENT AGENDA ITEM A-3 (CGP 82-1) WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Kenefick REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-7 (Continued from December 15, 1981) Applicant: Dr. I. Page Sowers To permit a 6 by 12 foot freestanding pole sign to be erected on public right-of-way located on the north side of Adams Avenue approximately 530 feet east of Magnolia Street. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission January 5, 1982 Page 2 Savoy Bellavia explained the request and the grant of encroachment into the public right-of-way which the applicant has received from Public Works. George Tindall noted that this permit is sub- ject to the approval of the Planning Commission and will become void if the special sign permit is denied by the Commission. Slides were presented showing the size and location of the two existing signs on the subject property. The public hearing was opened. Dr. Sowers addressed the Commission to describe how trees hide his present identification sign and pose difficulty to his patients in finding his office. He urged approval of the request, saying that the property in question is actually under his ownership and the City has only an easement across it, that he must move either the trees or the present sign, and that other similar medical centers have far better identification than that granted to his facility. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the pro- posal, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the actual ownership of the right-of-way in which the applicant proposes to locate the new sign and whether or not that right-of-way will ever be used for City purposes. George Tindall, City Engineer, explained that Public Works had been reluctant to act on a prior request for vacation, as the parcel provides an "island" between an arterial highway and a frontage road and it had not been considered practical to vacate this buffer. He noted, however, that if the City determined to vacate the entire frontage road it would become a different situation. Alternative solutions were discussed in an attempt to find a place on the property where a sign could be located so that it would be easily visible and still conform to the City's sign code. Secretary Palin informed the Commission that one possibility would be to remove the shrubbery and trees that are presently blocking view of the sign from the street and possibly. also take down the block wall between Dr. Sower's property and the adjacent commercial development. This could allow placement of a monument sign within a conforming location and provide proper identification for the uses in the center. It was also pointed out that most of the trees that block the present sign are located on private property over which the City has no control. Other points reviewed by the Commission were the question of an il- luminated sign and the precendent-setting nature of an approval of a sign of this type. Staff corrected an error in the code section cited in the staff report to the proper section, S. 9760.28(b). A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY KENEFICK TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-7 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDI- TIONS: -2- 1-5-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission January 5, 1982 Page 3 FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that strict compliance with the ordinance code will result in substantial economic hardship due to lack of identification of businesses con- ducted on the premises. 2. The applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances that do not apply to property in the same zoning classifi- cations, in that the configuration of the land and the exaggerated setback from the highway are substantially diff- erent from conditions applying to other similarly zoned properties. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The other identification sign located on the premises shall be removed. 2. A license agreement shall be entered into with the City per- mitting this use of public right-of-way subject to termina- tion on no more than 30 days' notice by the -City. 3. The applicant shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from any claims resulting from acts of commission or negligence as stated in the letter from Public Works dated October 7, 1981. 4. The sign placed in the right-of-way shall be monument sign consistent with the code and with no internal illum- ination. Discussion followed the motion concerning the time frame speci- fied for termination and the replacement or modification of the existing identification/directory sign. Mr. Paone agreed to amend his motion to state that "The other sign will be removed and replaced by a directory sign which is in all.respects con- sistent with the City's Sign Code." Upon being questioned as to the acceptability of these conditions, Dr. Sowers indicated that he would be willing to accept them if the Commission will impose the same conditions upon every other like medical complex in the community. Extensive discussion took place on the size and location of the sign and the question of economic hardship. THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE ABOVE AMENDED CONDITIONS FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell NOES: Bannister, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -3- 1-5-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission January 5, 1982 Page 4 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-7 WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AS SUGGESTED BY THE PRIOR MOTION WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE NEW SIGN TO BE LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY COULD BE A POLE SIGN AND THAT IT COULD BE ILLUMINATED. THIS MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Mahaffey NOES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY PORTER THAT SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-7 BE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that strict compliance with the ordinance code will result in a substantial economic hard- ship. Signing presently located on the site is adequate to identify the existing medical center, which has continued in existence since the 1960's. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional or extraordin- ary circumstances that do not apply generally to the properties in the same zoning classifications as demonstrated by other com- mercial uses within the general area. The applicant is able to identify the medical center under the present circumstances. Granting the special permit would perpetuate the use of a non- conforming sign and violate Section 9760.28(d) of the ordinance code which expressly prohibits signs within the public right-of- way. Discussion ensued, considering among other facts the time when the accessway 'into the frontage street from Adams had been changed from its original configuration to align with a street entering a project to the south. THE MOTION TO DENY FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Porter, Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Secretary Palin informed the Commission that the lack of four affirma- tive votes on any motion would result in automatic continuance to the next meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO RECONSIDER THE PRIOR MOTION FOR APPROVAL MADE BY COMMISSIONER BANNISTER. MOTION TO RECONSIDER CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1 -4- 1-5-82 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission January 5, 1982 Page 5 THE MOTION BY BANNISTER, SECOND BY MAHAFFEY, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-7 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS WAS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that strict compliance with the ordinance code will result in substantial economic hardship due to lack of identification of businesses conducted on the premises. 2. The applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances that do not apply to properties in the same zoning classification, in that the configuration of the land and the exaggerated set- back from the highway are substantially different from condi- tions applying to other similarly zoned properties in the City. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The new 6 x 12 foot freestanding sign which shall replace the existing pole sign on the property may be an illuminated sign and shall comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code in all respects except for its location in the public right-of-way. 2. The other existing identification/directory sign on the property shall be replaced by a directory sign which is in all respects consistent with the City's present sign code. 3. A license agreement shall be entered into between the applicant and the City permitting this use of the public right-of-way, subject to termination by the City at any time upon 30 days' written notice of revocation of the permit. 4. The applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any claims resulting from acts of commission or negligence, as stated in the letter to the applicant from the Department of Public Works dated October 7, 1981. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, NOES: Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Paone, Winchell, Mahaffey The applicant was advised of the appeal period and procedure. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10067/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-31 Applicant: Mansion Properties, Inc. To permit construction of a 194-unit planned residential develop- ment located on the north side of Palm Avenue approximately 800 feet southwest of 38th Street. -5- 1-5-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.S. Planning Commissign January 5, 1982 Page 6 Savoy Bellavia described the project and directed the Commission's attention to a letter from Bob Rende of Orange County discussing the design of the bikeways and their relationship to adjacent uses. Commissioner Porter asked for clarification relative to the build - out of this project versus the resolution of the sewerage problems that exist in the area. George Tindall explained the scheduling for Reach 3 of the Coastal Trunk Sewer Line, which will extend through the downtwon from Lake to Goldenwest Street, and Reach 4, which will continue on to the bluff line. He said that the Sanitation Dis- trict anticipates that Reach 3 will be under construction by the spring of this year and Reach 4 will be constructed by the developer concurrently with the Seacliff project under a reimbursement agree- ment; he assured the Commission that these facilities will be in- stalled prior to any of the units in the project being issued occu- pancy. Sizing will be adequate to handle the anticipated require- ments for the area. The public hearing was opened. Dave Eadie addressed the Commission briefly. There were no other persons present to speak in regard to the project, and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-31 WAS APPROVED THROUGH THE USE OF A SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-31: SPECIAL PERMIT: The Commission has granted special permits to waive code require- ments in the following area: 1) trash collection at individual units instead of from a central trash area; and 2) building separation of ten (10) feet in lieu of the code -required twelve and one-half (12-1/2) feet. FINDINGS- SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. The project will promote better living environments, inasmuch as the,project is an integrated part of an overall planned residen- tial neighborhood. These residential units have been designed to minimize vehicular traffic while integrating greenbelt areas into the living environment. 2. The project has provided better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, land- scaping, site layout and design, and the plan has incorporated architecture that has created interesting shapes, planes, and areas and which has incorporated landscaping in order to soften and enhance the hardscape design of the buildings and has utilized -6- 1-5-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission January 5, 1982 Page 7 land planning techniques that reduce conflicts between the vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The orientation of most of the units has been designed to integrate with greenbelt spaces. 3. The project will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, welfare or convenience of the neighborhood or the City in general nor detrimental or injurious to the values of the property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. This project has been designed as an integrated part of a totally designed neighborhood and has been integ- rated into the natural constraints of the land and surround- ing areas. 4. The project will be consistent with the objectives of the planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. This project has been designed to maximize the features of the natural terrain and to mitigate the majority of the environmental effects on the surrounding property. FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-31: 1. The proposed project as presented is consistent with the land use designation on the subject property. 2. With the granting of the special permit, the proposed plan as presented is in substantial compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 931, Planned Unit Development, and will be in keeping with the intent of said ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADDED CONDITIONS: 1. All applicable conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 77-23 adopted on August 4, 1979, shall apply. 2. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated December 21, 1981, shall be the approved site plan, floor plans, and elevations. 3. Both entrance streets from Cherryhill Drive ("A" Street) into the tract and the main entry gate shall be posted with "No Parking" signs per City specification 415. 4. All proposed gates shall be equipped with the Knox locking system, dual -keyed for police and fire access. 5. An approved means of limiting noise from the oil well which is within 100 feet of three (3) proposed units shall be sub- mitted for the approval of the Fire Chief. 6. All roads within the tract shall be indicated as fire lanes. 7. An easement adequate to accommodate all underlying utilities shall be established over the property presently identified -7- 1-5-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission January 5, 1982 Page 8 as "B" Street. Said easement shall comply with all standards set forth by the Department of Public Works. 8. An adequate paving strip shall be provided over the area pre- sently identified as "B" Street to accommodate both fire and utility maintenance vehicles. Said paving strip shall be approved by the Departments of Fire and Public Works. AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10067 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 41.7 acre parcel of land zoned R2-PD-0 is proposed to be constructed having less than 6 units per gross acre. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of housing. Therefore, the project as proposed complies with the City's General Plan. 3. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width and, through the use of a special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City, as well as in compliance with State Map Act and supple- mental City subdivision ordinances. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADDED CONDITIONS: 1. All applicable conditions of approval for Tentative Tract No. 10067 adopted August 4, 1979, shall apply. 2. The tentative tract received and dated December 21, 1981, shall be the approved tentative tract. AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None -8- 1-5-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission January 5, 1982 Page 9 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10068 Applicant: Mansion Properties, Inc. To permit a 186-lot planned residential development on 16.17 acres located on the north side of Palm Avenue at the future in- tersection of Palm Avenue and 38th Street. The public hearing was opened. Dave Eadie made himself available to respond to any questions the Commission might have. No persons were present to speak in regard to the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10068 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 16.7 acre parcel of land zoned R2-PD-0 is proposed to be constructed having less than 12 units per gross acre. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the imple- mentation of this type of housing. Therefore, the project as proposed complies with the City's General Plan. 3. The size, shape, frontage, street width are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standards and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City subdivision ordinances. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADDED CONDITIONS: 1. All applicable conditions for Tentative Tract No. 10068 dated August 14, 1979 shall apply. 2. Tentative Tract No. 10068 received and dated December 21, 1981 shall be the approved tentative tract. AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-10 (Revised) :,Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposed revision to Article 933 and 970 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to establish criteria for the permitting and opera- tion of game arcades. r -9- 1-5-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission January 5, 1982 Page 10 Staff member Jeanine Frank made a brief presentation on the revised code amendment. She noted that the staff would like to change the words "coin operated" to "commercially operated" to allow for the use of tokens or tickets being used for the machines instead of coins. Commissioner Porter suggested that the wording be changed which re- quires a person 18 years or older to be present during operating hours to require that a supervisory employee 18 years or older be in attendance at all times. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was present to speak to the matter. Commissioners discussed the possible requirement of a business license for all game machines and the difficulty of policing such a procedure. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-10 WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED BELOW FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AMENDMENTS: 1. The words "commercially operated" shall be inserted to replace the words "coin operated" in the ordinance. 2. There shall be at least one supervisory employee on the premises at all times during operating hours. AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Savoy Bellavia discussed the scheduling of a study session/Subdivision Committee meeting on January 12 at 7:00 to review TT 11673 and Condi- tional Use Permit No. 81-34, applications filed for the Seabridge Specific Plan at the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Beach Boule- vard by the Mola Development Corporation. One other tract, a develop- ment on Countess Drive/will also be reviewed at that meeting. Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken by the City Council for the information of the Commission. Of particular interest were the develop- ment limits set by the Council for Zone Changes 81-3 and 81-11 at 2.7 and 2 units per acre, respectively. The Council has also estab- lished a joint meeting for January 25 at 6:30 p.m. to meet with the Commission to review the Community Enhancement Program and some devel- opments for inclusion in the implementation for the downtown area. -10- 1-5-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission January 5, 1982 Page 11 COMMISSION ITEMS: The Commission discussed the question of licensing individual game machines. The consensus developed from this brief discus- sion that no recommendation would be sent to the City Council in this regard at this time. The Commission adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to a meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 12, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. in Room B-6 of the Civic Center. :df Grace H. Winchell, Chairman -11- 1-5-82 - P.C.