Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-24Approved May 15, 1984 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 1984 - 7:15 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, - Civic Center California Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-13 Applicant: Sunco - Michael Jenkins A request to permit a greenhouse addition to a single-family dwelling to encroach one (1) foot into the required five (5) foot side yard setback on property located at 6561 Vesper Circle. Michael Adams reported that this item had been referred by the Board of Zoning Adjustments to the Commission. He presented slides describing the proposal, and indicated staff's feeling that the addition could be made within the code requirements. The public hearing was opened. Mike Jenkins, applicant, addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. He said that to build the addition within code constraints would mean almost double the cost because such a structure would have to be custom designed, while the requested addition is a standard,.stock item. The room is intended only for growing plants and will not be a habitable area. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the proposed construction, including dimensions and ceiling height, how access would be taken to the structure, and height of adjacent fencing. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-13 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 24, 1984 Page 2 FINDINGS: 1. Although the property is irregular in configuration, the size of the lot satisfies the minimum size of 6,000 square feet and exceeds the minimum frontage of sixty (60) feet. 2. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 84-13 would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. 3. The subject property was legally subdivided and developed in a manner consistent with applicable zoning laws. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-12/ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-75 APPEAL Applicant: Chevron USA, Inc. To permit a security kiosk within the 50 foot setback for an exist- ing service station located on the southwest corner of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Staff reported that the existing site is subject to a 50 foot build- ing setback from both Warner and Goldenwest; pump islands may be located no closer than 15 feet and the canopy no closer than 7 feet. There is a code provision allowing for encroachment into the setback provided extra landscaping is provided on a foot for foot basis, but the applicant has not requested that option. Staff is recommend- ing upholding the Board of Zoning Adjustments' denial. The public hearing was opened. Lloyd Johnson, representing Chevron, Inc., addressed the Commission in support of the appeal. He explained that the proposed kiosk is part of a new pre -pay marketing concept begun by his company over the past year. One hundred thirteen of these units are in operation, 10 of which are inside the main buildings. Those 10 units, although' less expensive for the company to install, are not working out well because customers find them inconvenient to use. Mr. Johnson expressed his willingness to comply with the new sign code and to put in the extra planter area if granted the reduced setback. He indicated that the finding of hardship could be based on the extra distance customers would be required to travel and the decreased sales volume resulting to Chevron because of customer dissatisfaction. There were no other persons to speak to the matter, and the public hearing was closed. -2- 4-24-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B.,Planning Commission April 24, 2984 Page 3 Commissioner Higgins pointed out that this is a new type of operation occurring in new and remodeled service stations, and suggested a continuance to allow staff time to study the code and submit recommendations or suggested changes to the ordin- ance to accommodate changes in market techniques. The Commission discussed the conditions of approval imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Staff noted that even if the extra landscaping proposed by the applicant were installed the site still would not comply to code in that regard. Possible traffic impacts from sight angle blockage and congestion were reviewed, as well as the comparative distances necessary for a customer to travel to either the proposed kiosk or to a cashier's pay booth installed in the main service station unit. Commissioner Mirjahangir concurred with Mr. Higgins' appraisal and favored a continuance; however, the consensus of the Com- mission was that there was no proven hardship and approval would detract from the existing site. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-12 WAS DENIED AS NO LONGER REQUIRED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: Higgins, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS IN DENY- ING THE APPEAL TO REQUEST NO. 1 OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-75 (THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A KIOSK TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK), WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant is unable to demonstrate hardship. 2. The kiosk can be relocated to accommodate all of the appli- cant's present and future needs within the main structure, which would provide the security and observation of the pump operation. 3. As the subject property can be re-established meeting code - required setback, such a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. AYES: Winchell? Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher NOES; Higgins, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -3- 4-24-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 24, 2984 Page 4 The remainder of the Administrative Review 83-75 stands as approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The applicant was advised of the appeal period and procedure. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-9 Applicant: World Oil Market A request to modify an existing gasoline station to a convenience store on property located at the southwest corner of Adams Avenue and Magnolia Street. A letter has been received from the applicant requesting a continu- ance of this request. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CONDITIONAL USE PER- MIT NO. 84-9 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 5, 1984, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: NQne ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-1 Applicant: The Architect's Group A request to permit a 57 square foot freestanding sign and a 13 square foot garden wall sign on property located on the south side of Adams Avenue approximately 200 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Michael Adams outlined the proposal and indicated minor modifica- tions to the staff report. Commissioner Schumacher noted that the approval of the Seabridge Specific Plan within which the subject project is located had been conditioned to require a planned sign program for the overall development, and questioned the consideration of a special sign permit to grant an exception to sign standards which have not yet been established for the area. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Simon, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission to agree with the suggested conditions of approval except for the 40 foot setback from the entrance to the center. It was his feel- ing that no sight impairment would result from locating the sign at the location in which the applicant wishes to place it. He also said he had no objections to the preparation of a planned sign program for the entire project; however, he is not represent- ing that developer and could not initiate the program himself. The public hearing was closed. -4- 4-24-84 - P.C, Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 24, 1984 Page 5 The Commission reviewed the respective heights of the proposed monument and garden wall signs, the visibility of the signs from various locations on Adams Avenue and the possible effect on the visibility of the sign for the adjacent restaurant, and the possibility of joining the two adjacent restaurants on one monu- ment sign. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-1 TO THE MEETING OF MAY 1, 1984. Staff and the Commission discussed procedural aspects. Secretary Palin informed the Commission that the request, if continued be- yond the mandatory processing date of June 5, 1984, would be automatically denied. After review, it was the consensus of the Commission that no action should be taken on this proposal until the required planned sign program has been submitted, and the maker of the motion and second withdrew the motion. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-1 WAS TABLED PENDING RECEIPT OF A PLANNED SIGN PRO- GRAM FOR THE ENTIRE SEABRIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT, BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RECREATION ELEMENT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-5 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposal to add a Recreation Element to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach which contains an inventory of existing and proposed public recreational facilities, a discussion of recrea- tional needs in the City, and a set of policies for providing and maintaining a system of public parks to meet the community's needs. Staff submitted information to amend the element based on the dis- cussion held by the Commission at its study session on this matter which had immediately preceded this meeting. This errata sheet covered all the Commission's prior concerns with the exception of re -naming the blufftop landscaping project. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one appeared to address the Commission regarding the Element. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-5 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -5- 4-24-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 24, 1984 Page 6 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE RECREATION ELEMENT WAS APPROVED THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1318 AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AMENDMENTS: 1. The revised document shall contain the revisions outlined in the errata sheets submitted by staff. 2. The map in the document showing existing and future recrea- tional facilities shall be replaced with a new map marked C-11. 3. The Commission recommendation that the blufftop landscap- ing be referred to as the "Blufftop Parkway" shall be included. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 84-1, AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-3 PREZONE CHANGE NO. 83-11 - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONTINUANCE DATE Florence Webb reported that the Fieldstone Company has appealed the action taken by the Commission at its April 3 meeting to the City Council. She also informed them that the deadline for processing the EIR 83-3 is August 17, 1984; if the environmental document is not acted upon prior to that date, it is automati- cally considered approved. An attorney's opinion has been re- ceived in the department indicating that, because of the continuance to a date certain, the Commission's finding of inadequacy for the EIR is not an appealable action. Staff is requesting that the Commission reconsider its prior action and continue these matters to the regular meeting of June 5, 1984, in order to allow suffi- cient time to permit certification of the EIR by the City Council by the deadline date. The request was considered by the Commission. Staff reviewed the progress being made by the Coastal Commission, the Coastal Conservancy, the County and the City in the overall plan for the Bolsa Chica. After extensive discussion it was determined not to reconsider the zone change request of the land use element -6- 4-24-84 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 24, 1984 Page 7 amendment but that, in light of the time constraints, some modifica- tion of the environmental review document date was justifiable. Commissioner Livengood asked that both the document and the public notification be processed in time to allow the Commission two weeks for review and to give the concerned public ample notice of the meeting. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-3 WAS RECONSIDERED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-3 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1984, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DOCUMENT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMIS- SION FOR REVIEW BY JUNE 5, 1984 AND THAT THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION AT ITS APRIL 3, 1984 MEETING WILL BE RESPONDED TO IN THE REVISED DOCUMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Schumacher, Mirjahanair NOES: Winchell, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS: Mike Adams described how the format for the proposed developer agreement resolution was established and reviewed the provisions contained in the proposal. Commissioner Erskine inquired why this was presented at this time and if it would be possible to delay it, as he said there are pending bills in the State Legislature relating to developer agree- ments which might have an effect on the City's proposal. Secretary Palin replied that he could not recommend any further delay, point- ing out that as the agreements are proposed to be adopted by resolu- tion they could easily be amended later by resolution if that were found advisable. Commissioner Porter expressed the opinion that he would prefer to see legislation such as this adopted by ordinance rather than by resolution, saying it should be a part of the code. After further review, Commissioner Erskine again said he would like to see a continuance to enable staff to obtain some guidance from the City Attorney, to look at legislative bills pending in Sacramento, to investigate the County's developer agreement regulations, and to ascertain how many Orange County cities are using developer agree- -7- 4-24-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 24, 2984 Paae 8 ments and how many of that number established the agreements via resolution as opposed to ordinance. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER DEVELOPER AGREE- MENTS CONSIDERATION WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 15, 1984, WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO RESPOND TO THE ABOVE CONCERNS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417 Applicant: Mansion Properties, Inc. Staff explained that the attached information merely depicts the phasing schedule for the final tracts included in Tenta- tive Tract 11417. No action by the Commission is required. DISCUSSION ITEMS: CODE AMENDMENTS 83-3 AND 83-25 (Industrial Articles) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach These amendments dealt with setbacks and screening in the industrial districts. Staff is asking that the Commission direct that they be brought back as a new code amendment. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE INDUSTRIAL CODE AMENDMENT FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 5, 1984, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins. Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None PENDING ITEMS: Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Staff will have a report on the pending items for the May 1, 1984 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Staff requested that the Commission reconsider its action on Code Amendment NO. 83-30 taken at its last meeting. New word- ing is beina proposed to define a landfill, as follows: "For 1 -8- 4-24-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Plannina Commission Anril 24. 1984 Paae 9 the purposes of this section, land disposal site shall mean any landfill sites authorized as such where land disposal as defined by the California Administrative Code has occurred," as opposed to the definition proposed at the April 17 meeting. Mike Adams explained the staff's feeling that the intent of the code amend- ment would be to regulate landfills where the orimary activity would be excavation without develonment occurring at the same time; excavations that occur with development can be regulated through the regular entitlement process. Staff and Commission discussed the intent of the code amendment and the logistics of handling a reconsideration. It was pointed out that this would require a continuation in order to give those Commissioners who were not at the last meeting an opportunity to review the record in order to be able to participate in a deci- sion, further delaying the amendment. The Commission then agreed to take no action and allow the amendment to go up to Council with staff presenting both alternative wordings to define a landfill under the ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Schumacher requested that information be prepared for the next meeting addressing the concerns expressed by residents of the neighboring housing tract at the heliport hearing regarding traffic and parking, Commodore Circle, and code violations alleged to be occurring at surrounding industrial and commercial uses. Commissioner Livengood distributed information from the Environ- mental Board and discussed the lack of response in the Graham Place EIR to the Board's concerns. He also commended staff for the ex- cellent work done in its preparation of the Recreation Element. Commissioner Porter described observed parking problems at the shopping center at Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street. Commissioner Higgins requested that a service station in the Five Points vicinity be checked out for possible signing violations. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked that conditions at the abandoned service station at Springdale Street and Heil Avenue be investi- gated. This will be checked out by Land Use staff. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE A LETTER OF COMMENDATION TO ATTORNEY ART DE LA LOZA FOR HIS WORK AS LEGAL COUNSEL TO THE COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT; None ABSTAIN: None -9- 4-24-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 24, 2984 Page 10 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin reviewed actions taken at the City Council meeting of April 16, 1984, for the Commission's information. There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. :df Marcus M. orter, h irman -10- 4-24-84 - P.C. 1