Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-01H.B. Planning Commission January 4, 1983 Page 2 Commissioner Livengood requested that Item H-1 on the agenda be acted on at this time. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17: As requested at the December 21, 1982 meeting, staff prepared the wording on the findings for approval on Zone Change 82-17. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER THE FINDINGS AS PRESENTED BY STAFF ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-17 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: Higgins, Schumacher REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-65/USE PERMIT NO. 82-44/NEGATIVE DECLA- RATION NO. 82-41 (Referred by BZA; Continued from 12-21-82) Applicant: Huntington Breakers Limited A conditional exception request to allow a reduction in the front yard setback; 25% compact parking; a reduction in the minimum square footag of the one -bedroom units; and a 15 foot increase to the permitted buil ing height. The use permit is a request to permit the construction of a 342-unit apartment complex on property located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, approximately 1300 feet south of Atlanta Avenue. Savoy Bellavia stated that there was one correction in the conditions of approval on the Use Permit request. Number 13 on page 3 of the staff report shall read, "All buildings including the semi -subterran- ean parking structures, shall be fire sprinklered and/or constructed in accordance with all applicable fire prevention regulations . . ." Commissioners Higgins and Schumacher stated that they listened to the tape of the previous meeting and would be eligible to vote on the matter. Commissioner Livengood requested that a finding be added to reflect the flood plain regulations. Commissioners had some concern about the drawings being conceptual in design and not detailed. Mr. Bellavia stated that detailed drawings will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Brief discussion took place regarding the parking percentage, the height of the buildings and the notifica- tion radius. The public hearing was opened and closed at the December 21, 1982 meeting, however, Mr. Harlow responded to various questions from Commissioners. He also stated that, on behalf of the applicant, was agreeable to the conditions regarding fire sprinklers. the he 41 Commissioner Higgins suggested that a finding be added relative to H.B. Planning Commission January 4, 1983 Page 3 additional height of the structure; that this has been brought about by the fact that the net developable acreage is less than a normal site of the same gross acreage because the frontage road has taken acreage away. He further stated that the net acreage is less than that of a comparable site; the additional height is taking advantage of the view potential and more usable open space has been created. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-41 WAS CERTIFIED AS ADEQUATE AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CON- DITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-65 WITH ADDED FINDINGS. THIS FAILED TO OB- TAIN FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter NOES: Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: Paone, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-65 AND USE PERMIT NO. 82-44 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JANU- ARY 18, 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Porter questioned staff regarding the mandatory processing date which is January 18, 1983. It was determined that the applicant's concurrence for a continuance was not necessary as the date of the next meeting is January 18, 1983; at which time detailed drawings will be presented. USE PERMIT NO. 82-26 - APPEAL (Continued from 12-21-82) Applicant: Donald Stine & Associates Appellant: Ross A. DeLaHaye The Board of Zoning Adjustment, at their November 10, 1982 meeting, ap- proved this use permit to permit the remodeling and expansion of an existing bank building located in a shopping center on the south side of Warner Avenue, approximately 500 feet west of Goldenwest Street. The appellant (owner and operator of the adjacent Straw Hat Restaurant) objects to the traffic circulation plan which, he feels, is a safety factor. The public hearing was opened and closed on December 21, 1982. Savoy Bellavia gave a slide presentation of the traffic circulation plan developed by the Public Works Department. Commissioners dis- cussed the possibility of a signal on Warner Avenue. Les Evans of H.B. Planning Commission January 4, 1983 Page 4 Public Works felt that a signal would not be the best solution as it may hamper traffic flow on that arterial. Vice Chairman Porter reopened the public hearing. Ross De la Haye, the appellant, presented his objections to the traffic circulation plan. He felt that not only were his customers in danger of possible accidents in the parking area, but also customers from Carl's Junior would be endangered. Gary Vilhauer, representing World Savings, stated he did not feel the bank expansion was creating traffic problems; that these existed prior to the bank remodel request. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed the possibility of encouraging City Council to look into the feasibility of providing signalization at the main en- trance of the shopping center and elimination of left turn movement from the driveway between Carl's Junior and the bank building. Some discussion took place regarding an adjacent shopping center proposed for a now -vacant corner. Commissioner Schumacher cited a similar prob- lem with access in and out of the post office on Warner Avenue. Com- missioners also discussed the driveway in front of Standard Brands Paint store. Vice Chairman Porter stated he would not be in favor of the traffic circulation plan as presented by staff because it is only "a temporary solution". ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY NO. 82-26 WAS DENIED AND THE BOARD UPHELD, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS VOTE: FINDING FOR APPROVAL: LIVENGOOD THE APPEAL OF USE PERMIT OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S APPROVAL WAS 4f AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING All reasons and findings imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments at its November 10, 1982 meeting, shall apply. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All conditions imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments at its November 10, 1982 meeting shall apply. 2. A traffic circulation plan shall be submitted as outlined by staff which includes the closure of the northeasterly entry to the bank parking area and the location of a 3-way stop sign at the main entrance and the road in front of Straw Hat Pizza and speed bumps provided in the parking access lane adjacent to Straw Hat Pizza; this plan, when approved, shall become the approved traffic layout for the area. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Porter ABSENT: Paone, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None Vice Chairman Porter requested that the "view graph" layout be part of the record. H.B. Planning Commission January 4, 1983 Page 5 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-8 (Continued from 12-21-82) Applicant: Target Stores, Division of Dayton -Hudson A request to permit two freestanding pole signs 50 feet in height and each having an area of 195 square feet at property located at the southwest corner of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. Commissioners Schumacher and Higgins stated that they did listen to the tape of the previous meeting and would be eligible to vote on the matter. The public hearing was opened and closed at the December 21, 1982 meeting. No new testimony was taken, however, the applicant, Mr. Jacobs, was present to answer questions. Commissioner-Livengood restated that he was in favor of granting the sign permit for a period of two years, because he felt it was an improve- ment with smaller square footage than the original sign. Commissioner Schumacher asked the applicant how many wall signs he anticipated. Mr. Jacobs said there would be one wall sign over the entrance. Staff felt that visibility on Adams, due to the height of the trees, could actually be increased if the sign was lowered. Commissioners discussed comparable sign permit requests; however, none could be cited where the sign in question was 50 feet high. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 82-8 FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONCURRENCE TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. Discussion took place on the motion. Commissioner Higgins asked staff if enforcement in the form of posting bonds, had been done in the past. Mr. Palin responded that although there have been occasions where the City required a bond to be posted, this had not been done for quite some time; further, that to enforce compliance with the two-year period, it was stated as a condition for approval. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she felt "just as much can be accomplished" by a wall sign. THIS MOTION FAILED TO OBTAIN FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Livengood, Winchell NOES: Higgins, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: Paone, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Livengood stated he would change his vote to "no" in order to render a decision which would allow the applicant to appeal to the City Council. The possibility of denying the sign permit was discussed in regards to whether the applicant's cost savings should be determined by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Porter felt that since the applicant was stating economic hardship as the reason for the request, that his cost savings was applicable to the discussion. Commissioner Schumacher stated that if the request was approved this could start a precedent. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. H.B. Planning Commission January 4, 1983 Page 6 82-8 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 substantial economic hardship. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that do not apply generally to the properties in the same zone classifications as demonstrated by other commercial uses within the area. 3. Granting of this request would constitute a grant of special privi- lege because the signs have been fully amortized in accordance with Section 9760.46 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The existing signs are out of scale with the rest of the signs in the general area and properly placed monument signs would provide proper identification along both Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street and the building will be allowed maximum wall signs under Article 976. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-9 (Continued from 12-21-82) Applicant: Signarts Inc. c/o Jerry Kleveter A request to permit the installation of a double-faced, illuminated freestanding sign at a height of 50 feet on property located in the North Huntington Center, approximately 60 feet west of the San Diego Freeway. Staff suggested that the concept of a proposed code amend- ment allowing freeway -oriented signs. Commissioner Winchell asked how many more potential businesses might be advertising along the freeway. at that center. Staff responded that the other proposed plan was for a movie theater. There was a brief discussion about the "Rusty Scup- per" sign also located in the North Huntington Center. The Vice Chairman reopened the public hearing. Jerry Kleveter, repre- senting Signarts, stated he agreed with the findings in the staff re- port. The public hearing was closed. An informal straw vote was taken with Commissioners Higgins, Livengood, Winchell and Porter supporting the staff's recommendation for approval. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-9 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed sign is compatible with the City Council's intent to H.B. Planning Commission January 4, 1983 Page 7 allow freeway -oriented signs. 2. Another sign (Rusty Scupper) of similar dimensions, has been approved within the same zone. 3. The proposed sign does not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Mirjahangir, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None A five-minute recess was called. Commission resumed at 9:30 P.M. SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-7 Applicant: Jimmy McGee's Night Club A request to permit a freestanding pole sign 14 feet in height with an area of 40 square feet at property located at the southwest corner of Warner Avenue and Springdale Street. The public hearing was opened. Jimmy McGee, the applicant, stated he would like the sign permit granted. He felt he had an economic hard- ship because of the location of his night club (being in a corner of a shopping center) and the fact that there is no directory sign in the center and most of the tenants were unwilling to contribute to the expense of a directory sign. Tom Emery, a tenant of Century 21 in the same center, spoke in favor of granting the sign permit for the club, but also added that he would be willing to help pay for a directory sign. Art Nichwitz, a resident in the City and an employee for Jimmy McGee's stated that -the sign was necessary for exposure of the club. The public hearing was closed. Secretary Palin stated that a planned sign program was necessary for this shopping center and many like it along Warner Avenue, however, he further stated that because of "piecemeal" development, this was a situation where there are multiple owners in the center. He was also concerned about the cluttered look of street signs. Commissioner Liven - good agreed with Mr. Palin and stated he could not support the appli- cant' request for a special sign permit. Commissioners discussed other situations like this one that had come up in the past. But in most of these situations the problem of multiple ownership did not exist making it easier to accomplish a planned sign program in each case. The CC&R's were considered, however, signs were not stipulated in that agreement. Commissioner consensus was that a directory sign would be the best means of advertising for the center. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-7 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that strict compliance with the H.B. Planning Commission January 4, 1983 Page 8 ordinance code will result in substantial economic hardship. Other options are available to the applicant, including a planned sign program. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that do not apply generally to the properties in the same zone classification 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 options available that fall within the scope of the ordinance, as outlined in Finding No. 1. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Paone, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-10 Applicant: Joe Banks/The Signs & Services Company A request to permit one freestanding pole sign and one freestanding directory sign in a shopping center located on the southwest corner of Springdale and Edinger. Commissioners had some questions on similar projects where a building sign was already existing and a request was made for another sign. Staff stated this was for Brentwood Savings and was granted under a Conditional Exception at the time. The public hearing was opened. Joe Banks, the applicant, introduced the architect on the project to explain the remodeling of the entire center. Shrim Scrubs, stated that the center was over 20 years old and would be receiving a "face-lift". He felt that, not only the signs, but the center would also be vastly improved. He also said the gas station on that corner would no longer be there. Commissioners ques- tioned the applicant about the existing sign in the planter. The ap- plicant explained that he had a problem with maintenance of the planter. Commissioners were curious about the existing sign identifying the Vons Market and the possibility of other tenants in the center using the existing market sign for directory advertising. The applicant felt that because they were the major tenant in the center that they have exclusive use of the sign identifying their market. The public hear- ing was closed. Some discussion took place regarding the landscaping in the parking lot. The applicant publicly stated that he would be removing the old signs. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 82-10 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Since there is an existing freestanding sign identifying the sub- H.B. Planning Commission January 4, 1983 Page 9 ject businesses, strict compliance with the ordinance code will result in a substantial economic hardship. 2. Because of the configuration of the existing shopping center and the location of the businesses, the applicant has demonstrated that an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance does apply generally to the property. 3. The granting of this special sign permit will not constitute the granting of a special privilege since the subject businesses pre- sently have a freestanding sign. 4. The location of the sign will not impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation nor will it impact adjacent signing in the subject center. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Building permits for the proposed exterior elevation remodel shall have been issued prior to issuance of building permits for the sign. 2. The plot plan and sign elevations received and dated December 6, 1982, shall be the approved sign location and elevations. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 82-6 Applicant: Safeway Stores Incorporated A request to permit the extended use of a nonconforming freestanding pole sign located on the east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 500 feet north of Terry Street. The applicant, Jeff Dierck, stated that the lease on the building is for a 10 year period and he wanted to use the sign for as long as the life of the lease. Commissioner Winchell asked staff about the existing sign. Mr. Bellavia explained that after two years, for the center to comply with the sign code, either the existing sign would have to be removed or the sign which is not being used by "Marshalls". Commissioner Porter felt that as far as the sign corridor, Beach Boulevard is a major problem. He said that although he would approve an administrative action on the sign for two years, he would not approve a special sign permit for the life of the sign. Secretary Palin added that as the trees mature on Beach Boulevard, the visibility of this sign would be blocked at the present height of the sign. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION H.B. Planning Commission January 4, 1983 Page 10 NO. 82-6 WAS APPROVED FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDI- TIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Administrative Action will become effective as soon as the City receives a letter from the property owner concurring with the re- moval of the modified sign according to the condition of approval listed below. 2. The continued use of the nonconforming sign will be allowed for a period of two years. At the conclusion of the two-year period, the sign shall be made to conform to all provisions of the Hun- tington Beach Ordinance Code. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: Freeway Oriented Signs (Continued from 12-21-82) Commission consensus on the proposed code amendment to apply to free- way oriented signs in the City, was not to pursue it any further. The reason for this decision was based on the fact that applications were anticipated to be very limited. (Item E-2 on the agenda was deleted.) City Council Action at the January 3, 1983 Meeting Secretary Palin listed the highlights of the City Council meeting. He said that the Council approved the code amendment dealing with loca- tional criteria for game arcades. He further stated that the interim affordable housing item was continued to their next meeting, with a possibility of being referred back to the Planning Commission for pos- sible reorganization of the committee dealing with this issue. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Commissioners were asked to set tentative schedules for a tour through the Huntington West Condominium conversion site. ADJOURNMENT: There being meeting was January 18, no further adjourned 14R3_ business before the Planning Commission, the at 11:00 P.M. to the next regular meeting on MZfrcus Port r, Vic hair an