Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-13APPROVED ON 1-4-84 r MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 83-13 AND A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-31 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10067, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir OES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 83-5 (Continued from 12-6-83) Applicant: McDonalds Corporation c/o John Ramsey A request to permit a 100 square foot freestanding sign at an existing restaurant located on the north side of Edinger Avenue, approximately 250 feet east of Edwards Street. Staff emphasized that the issue was not the size but the location of the sign. And also, that the BZA had approved a use permit for a play area that had expired and signing was a part of that expired entitlement. The public hearing was reopened. Donald Nelson, representing McDonald's Restaurant, stated that the proposed sign would be 20 feet high with approximately 100 square feet of sign space. He noted that the previous sign was over 27 feet high and 350 square feet in size. He pointed out (in a slide presentation) that there are trees that buffer the restaurant from the adjacent residential property to the rear and another parking lot separating the facility from residential on the east. Commissioners, after viewing the applicant's slides, noticed that the applicant would get much better visibility from a monument sign. The applicant, however, disagreed, stating that he preferred to be at the same eye level as his competitors. Commissioner Erskine asked the applicant if he had conducted a survey to show a lower sign at a competitive disadvantage. He replied that he had not, but he said as a general rule, "the bigger the sign, the better the sale". Bob Deguise addressed the Commission, stating his objection to the color of the sign, asking McDonald's to be a good neighbor and cooperate with the adjacent residents. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Higgins asked for clarification on the issue. Mike Adams replied that if the sign were located in the planter area, there would be no problem. Chairman Porter stated that he believed appropriate action would be to deny the request and make suggestion relative to the Commission's reasoning, assuming it would be appealed. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 83-5 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The granting of a special sign permit for the subject property will constitute the granting of a special privilege because the proposed sign may be located within an area of the subject property that will not create traffic visibility problems and will comply with all aspects of the sign code. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated that strict compliance with the ordinance code will result in a substantial hardship. Identification for the existing restaurant can be accomplished by the use of wall signs and locating a conforming sign within the central landscape planter of the subject property. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter moved Item C-3 ahead of C-2 due to the fact that there were several people in the audience to address Item C-3, a conditional use permit for a dance club. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-32 Applicant: Linda Pierce/Lee Biancur A request to permit a non-alcoholic dance club on the west side of Beach Boulevard, approximately 200 feet north of Adams Avenue. Mike Adams gave the staff presentation. At issue, among other things, was the parking requirements. Staff recommended denial. Commissioner Higgins asked if there was a facility of this nature located at -2- 12-13-83 - P.C. Magnolia and Warner. Mr. Barnes stated that one was requested for that location, but was denied. Commissioner Erskine asked staff about parking requirements for the adjoining restaurant (Playa Castillo). Mike Adams stated that that facility had sufficient parking. Commissioner Schumacher said that it bothered her that there were only two exits on one side of the building. Tom Poe, Fire Department, stated that this was sufficient. He also stated that the restroom facilities were sufficient, this in answer to a concern voiced by Chairman Porter. Commissioner Livengood asked staff if the tenants of the shopping center were notified of the hearing. Glen Godfrey stated that all affected property owners were notified; notification of tenants is not required. The public hearing was opened. Lee Biancur, the applicant, added to the staff report the information that he plans to charge 33 per person for admittance on week days and $5 per person on weekends. He added that this was less than other clubs charge. He disagreed with the staff's findings for denial. He said that as far as the parking was concerned, he believed since half of his prospective clientele was not of the driving age, he did not think that as much parking would be required. He said that he took a count of how many cars were now used for the other tenants in the shopping center, and also noted that people who were going to the adjacent restaurant were using the shopping center parking illegally. He said that as far as staff's other concern on the volume of the music, that the music will be either juke box or disk jockey and this could be controlled by management. He said that if there were any complaints he would be willing to install sound proofing materials. He said it was his desire to provide a much needed service in this city. He added that he plans to have off -duty policemen on the premises in the beginning to insure security, and that later this will be replaced with his own security force. Commissioner Schumacher asked if it was legal to conduct searches, as stated in the applicant's letter. He responded that yes, it was quite legal and a common practice even at high school football games. Commissioners agreed that this was a noble gesture and concept, however, they asked if the applicant had considered other locations in the City. He said that this location was chosen after considerable searching and that most owners were "nervous" about his idea. Don Lindholm, Director of the Wycliff apartments immediately adjacent to the shopping center, voiced his objection to approval of the application. He agreed with the findings for denial listed in the staff report. He agreed with the Commission's view that this was a good cause, but did not think it was an appropriate location. He said that persons using his facility were travelers who needed their sleep. He also said that he believed that his ample parking area would not go unnoticed. Dick Mortimer, a resident in an adjacent apartment complex, stated he also was opposed to this particular use. He said that the wall which separates their complex from the shopping center is lower than their second floor. This exposes their bedroom window to any noise and would, in his opinion, directly impact his unit. He asked his -3- 12-13-83 - P.C. neighbors who were present to oppose the dance club to stand; they numbered about 15. Art Grant spoke in favor of the applicant's request. He said that there was a need in the community for this type of facility and suggested that if it does not work out the City has the option of revoking the license. Tracie Biancur, daughter of the applicant, stated for the record that the teenagers in this City need a place to go to get away from the daily pressures of society. Larry Nieswender, Manager of Wycliff, stated that he also was opposed to the location of the proposed dance club. He was in agreement with the staff's findings and added that even the legal noise level would be unacceptable to him. Bob Lipps, resident of the apartment complex on the lower level and to the north of Mr. Mortimer's, stated he was also opposed to the location of the dance club. He said that "if our baby doesn't sleep, we don't sleep". Gary Petersen, a police officer in the City of Newport Beach, stated he was in favor of the dance club at the proposed location. He stated that if the club produced valid complaints then the permit could be pulled. -i Sue Apgar, employee at Wycliff, was opposed to the location, stating that she agreed that overflow parking would certainly take place at the Wycliff residence. She said it was not a compatible use. Larry Silon, a resident of the apartment complex, was opposed to the location, stating that 50% of the residents in the complex were small children who need their rest. Steve Bohannon, owner of the adjoining sandwich shop, said he did not see how the noise could get any worse than it was already (from the restaurant), and agreed with the applicant, that control was needed in the center and the proposed use would provide that needed control. Mary Lois Troyer was opposed to the use citing parking requirements and the possibility of loitering occurring on the property. She added, however, that she believed that it was a needed facility in the community, but not at that location. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Higgins was concerned about other uses in the shopping center changing. Commissioner Schumacher asked if there was a raised median in Adams Avenue restricting turning movements. Mike Adams said there was no raised median. She was concerned about traffic circulation, but recognized the need in the community for a place for teens to go. Commissioner Erskine suggested that staff be directed to work, maybe with Parks and Recreation, with the applicant to find a suitable location for this needed use. -4- 12-13-83 - P.C. Commissioners Schumacher, Porter and Livengood formed a committee to deal with this problem in the community. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-32 WAS TABLED WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO FIND A SUITABLE LOCATION FOR THE DANCE CLUB, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-31/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12089/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-47 Applicant: Mola Development Corporation A request to construct a 111-unit condominium development on property located north of Warner Avenue between Lynn and Sims Streets. The applicant submitted a request for continuance to the meeting of January 4, 1984. Mike Adams stated that the present zoning would allow a total unit count of 81. Chairman Porter was concerned about the proximity of the proposed development to existing oil tanks. Mike Adams stated that, in the proposed project, structures would be set further back than in the previously approved project. Commissioner Winchell asked for some —statistics that would show how many people would be living there and how many cars might be added to the streets. Mr. Adams stated that this was discussed in the subdivision committee meeting, and staff would be getting those figures to them, with a chart comparing this proposal to the previously approved project. Commissioner Livengood asked to what extent the City can go to guarantee affordability with this project, in light of density bonuses. Chairman Porter asked for some analysis (from the City Attorney's Office) or how development agreements could be implemented. The public hearing was opened and closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-47, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-31 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12089 WERE CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 4, 1984 MEETING, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A recess was called by the Chairman. Commission resumed at 9:15 PM. ;DISCUSSION ITEMS: Condominium Conversion Ordinance (Code Amendment No. 83-16) -5- 12-13-83 - P.C. Jim Barnes gave a brief staff presentation of the proposed ordinance, outlining the City's progress toward its development. He distributed copies of a letter he received from the Board of Realtors with their comments. Chairman Porter thought this would be an appropriate subject for a study session; Commissioner concensus agreed. The Chairman was interested in receiving any public comments at this time, so the public hearing was opened. Norbert Dall stated that he had a written statement which was enroute, so he would not elaborate on his comments this evening. He agreed with a study session to speak to this item. Richard Harlow, a member of the Housing Committee, stated that a committee report went out and a lot of information was contained in that report. Judy Severy, Board of Realtors, said she did not wish to reiterate the comments contained in the letter which was distributed to the Commission this evening. The public testimony period was closed. Commissioner Erskine stated that he was not around when the condominium conversion ordinance was first before the Commission and would like more of a history in reports from staff. Commissioner Schumacher noted that during earlier discussion on condominium conversion, there was talk of this action being inflationary. She would like to see some other communities' concerns stated in the report. Commissioner Erskine suggested contact the City of Orange to see what their experience has been. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS A STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-16, CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE, WAS SCHEDULED FOR 5:30 P.M. IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING IN JANUARY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Livengood suggested that a meal be served to the Commissioners. Pay and Play Racquetball Signing Commissioner Schumacher, who requested the report, said that what she wanted to discuss was the fact that the City does not have any rules or ordinances governing this type of facility. She suggested that guidelines need to be addressed in this and other areas where the City enters into agreements and contracts on public property. Secretary Palin commented that in this particular instance, no permit was ever issued for the neon sign. He suggested that the Planning Commission -6- 12-13-83 - P.C. recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a sign design theme for all City -owned property. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO DEVELOP SIGN DESIGN THEME FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY AND PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Miscellaneous Reports Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Staff reported back to the Commission on the following subjects: speed bump requirements (there are none), progress of shopping center at Springdale and Edinger, traffic signal at Yorktown and Newland, curb cuts for handicapped access and flood plan requirements for unit additions within an R1 zone. The report was noted and filed. Zone Change No. 83-13 (Referred back to Planning Commission from the City Council This was regarding a piece of City -owned property at Banning and Magnolia. Staff gave a brief presentation, explaining the City -council's reasoning for requesting that a "0" be placed on the property, which was to preclude the area from becoming a park or a parking lot. Commissioner Schumacher suggested, after reading the list of permitted uses for ROS, that the property be used as a bird sanctuary. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-13 WAS REFERRED BACK TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1. That no development shall occur on the property, and 2. That the only permitted use of the property shall be as a bird sanctuary. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Commissioner Schumacher stated she would not be able to attend the -January 4, 1984 meeting. -7- 12-13-83 - P.C. Commissioner Livengood thanked staff for revising the last page of the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:01 P.M. to the next regular meeting of January 4, 1984. aesmW. P lin, Secretary Marcus M. Porter, Chas jlm tl -8- 12-13-83 - P.C.