Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-10APPROVED ON 7-24-84 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1984 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF JUNE 5 AND JUNE 19, 1984, WAS APPROVED, WITH DIRECTION THAT THE DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BE COVERED IN MORE DETAIL IN THE FUTURE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood requested that the Commission be supplied with the density calculations which were transmitted to the City Council in regard to the condominium conversion ordinance. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-28 (Appeal) Applicant: 30th Street Architects To permit a 47-space reduction in the required parking for a medical facility located on the south side of Newman Avenue ap- proximately 200 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Staff reported that a request for continuance has been received from the appellant to permit further analysis of the parking. The Commission discussed procedure. Legal counsel Jim Georges advised that no continuance can be beyond the mandatory processing date of July 31, 1984 unless both involved parties waive the time. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 10, 1984 Page 2 Richard Blumenthal, representative of the applicant, addressed the Commission to say that he is prepared to make his presentation at this meeting and under no circumstances would his firm agree to a continuance beyond two weeks from today. Tom Harman, attorney for the appellant, and Harold Graham, project coordinator, also spoke briefly relative to their respective positions in favor of and opposing a continuance. The Commission discussed the interconnection of parking between the subject project and the adjoining Humana Hospital complex (Agenda Item C-2) and the proposed expansion of the hospital. Commissioner Higgins expressed dissatisfaction with the criteria used by the applicant in his parking calculations and, after review, staff was directed to prepare an independent analysis of said criteria. Jim Georges informed the Commission after review of the code that when an application is appealed from the Board of Zoning Adjustments the Commission must make a decision within 60 days after the close of the Board's public hearing or the appeal shall be automatically denied. Representatives of the applicant, the appellant, and Humana Hospital all concurred to a suggestion that they meet with City staff within the next two weeks and attempt to resolve the overall parking situa- tion within the complex. Commissioner Livengood pointed out the possibility of future expan- sion beyond that being proposed by the hospital at this time, and asked that this be checked out -to see how that future expansion would affect the parking ratios. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-28 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JULY 24, 1984, TO PERMIT ALL CONCERNED PARTIES TO MEET AND PREPARE A CIRCULATION AND PARKING PLAN FOR THE TOTAL COMPLEX, AND STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PURSUE AN INDE- PENDENT ANALYSIS OF PARKING RATIOS FOR BOTH THE SUBJECT PROJECT AND THE HOSPITAL COMPLEX, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 84-15 App: Humana Hospital (Cont. from June 19, 1984) To permit the addition of 20,020 square feet of floor area to the Huntington Humana Hospital located south of Newman Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. -2- 7-10-84 - P.C. Ili Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 10, 1984 Page 3 As noted in the discussion on the previous item, a representa- tive for this applicant has concurred with a continuance for two weeks. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-16 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-15 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JULY 24, 1984 TO PERMIT ALL CONCERNED PARTIES TO MEET AND PREPARE A CIRCULATION AND PARKING PLAN FOR THE TOTAL COMPLEX, AND STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PURSUE AN INDEPEN- DENT ANALYSIS OF PARKING RATIOS.FOR BOTH THE PRECEDING AND THE SUBJECT PROJECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 84-33 (Appeal) Applicant: Aminoil USA An appeal to the requirement for an entire derrick to be of soundproof construction -for a request to modify and expand an existing oil and gas development located on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway -between 18th and 19th Streets. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS`'THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL, LEAVING THE USE PERMIT AS APPROVED AND REVISED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING AD- JUSTMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins,.Winchell;-Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT..NO., .84-12 ;(Cont. from June 19, 1984) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A request to amend the code to permit fortunetelling within the C4,_Highway Commercial District, subject to the approval of an administrative review application by•the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Staff reported that final court action is still pending on related litigation regarding this matter -and recommended post- poning action until a final decision has been reached. -3- 7-10-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 10, 1984 Page 4 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-12 WAS TABLED UNTIL A FINAL DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT REGARDING THE SUBJECT USE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-8 Applicant: Edwards-Lindborg/Dahl A request to remove the "0" (oil producing) suffix from all por- tions of Tracts 11805 and 11473 which will not remain under oil pro- duction on the east side of Edwards Street approximately 900 feet south of Ellis Avenue. Michael Adams reported that this zone change is to comply with a condition suggested when the subject tracts were approved and will serve to implement a policy to remove the oil designations from all properties not under oil production at present. He briefly des- cribed the five sites within the subject tracts to which the oil operations will be confined. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one was present to speak for or against the subject zone change. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-8 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 82-3. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-18 Applicant: Dixie C. Olinger To permit the operation of a child day care facility in an exist- ing family home at 15581 Oakshire Lane. -4- 7-10-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 10, 1984 Page 5 Michael Adams presented slides showing the location of the facility, noting that it is in operation legally with six child- ren. However, recent changes in State law require that the operator include her own three children in counting, making it necessary to go through this request to increase the number she can care for in her home to nine. Mr. Adams also pointed out that one letter of dissent has been received relating to this request. The public hearing was opened. Dixie Olinger, applicant, spoke to request granting of her ap- plication and to explain her present compliance with licensing requirements. Stuart Chafner, owner of property near the subject parcel, spoke to inform the Commission of two swimming pools, one on his property and one on the property directly behind Ms. Olinger's home. He said that grading for the neighbor's pool had resulted in a change of elevation such that it now is comparatively easy for children to climb the fence from Ms. Olinger's back yard into the neighbor's yard and thence into his (Mr. Chafner's) property. He expressed grave concern about the safety of the children, saying he does not oppose the granting of the permit per se but that he would like something to be done to make it much more difficult for the children to enter the adjoining properties. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. Staff and the Commission discussed the fencing requirement; Ms. Olinger stated that the fence is all right on her side, but if a suggested field inspection re- veals any inadequacy she will be happy to bring it up to code. It was noted, however, that the fencing requirement is placed on the property installing the pools and not on the neighboring property. Staff will make an investigation to ensure that the fence is adequate. Commissioner Erskine suggested that if a problem is perceived to exist it should probably be brought to the attention of the Social Services Agency. A'MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECONDED BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-18 WITHTHE FINDING-S AND CONDITIONS AS SUGGESTED BY STAFF. Commissioner Livengood expressed concern with the possibility of future expansion of the facility as the applicant's children grow and move away from home, saying that it could expand to nine out -of -family children. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN PERMITTED IN THE FACILITY TO 6 OUT-OF- -5- 7-10-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Qommis5i,on July 10, 1984 Page 6 HOUSEHOLD .AND 3 FAMILY MEMBERS. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Other items discussed by the Commission included the trees on the rear portion of the applicant's property which it was felt might be climbed by the children as a means of gaining access to the fence and then to the swimming pools. The applicant said that she has cut some limbs to make this more difficult; increased supervision would also help to keep children out of the trees. Commissioner Erskine noted that the letter of protest from Mr. Frazier had mentioned boarders. Ms. Olinger said that on occasion she does have one or two college students living in the dwelling, but this is not a long- term thing. Commissioner Winchell suggested amending Condition No. 2 to require an onsite inspection of the fence, and Chairman Porter asked that the project have an added condition imposed to require the communica- tion of the Commission's concern with the adjacent swimming pools to the County Social Services Agency. Both the maker of the motion and the second agreed to these amendments. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-18 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. 4. The granting of a conditional use permit is consistent with the development standards contained in Section 9331 of the Hunting- ton Beach Ordinance Code.. 5. The proposal is in compliance with the provisions of the recently enacted State law. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plan received and dated June 4, 1984 shall be the approved layout. -6- 7-10-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 10, 1984 Page 7 2. The use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the ordinance code and any requirements of the Building Division or the Fire Department. Staff shall make an onsite inspection to ascertain that the fencing complies with the code require- ments for height. 3. The use shall be limited to a total of nine (9) children. 4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Department of Social Services for the State of California. 5. A copy of this approval shall be provided to the Department of Social Services to make them aware of the adjacent loca- tion of two swimming pools and the potential hazard they may present. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-30/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-5 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach An amendment to the ordinance code requiring that the excavation of land disposal sites be subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Jim Barnes reported that this ordinance was taken to the City Council with two significant changes from the ordinance recom- mended by the Planning Commission. These changes are in the defini- tion of a landfill and in a new section (Section 11) added to provide exemptions from the provisions of the ordinance for soils test drilling, power or transmission poles, and the drilling of oil or gas wells. Staff reviewed the history of the hearings before the Planning Commission and explained that the change in the word- ing on the definition had arisen as a result of comments from en- tities within the City concerned with how such a definition might be interpreted. The Council sent the.ordinance back for review and report from the Ascon Ad Hoc Committee and the Planning Commission; the Committee has reviewed and opposed the exemption section. Commission review and discussion ensued. It was the unanimous opinion of the Commission that their original intention had been to protect the public from hazards resulting from disturbance or opening up of any kind of a hazardous waste site'and to provide exemptions to that provision would not serve that purpose. It -7- 7-10-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 10, 1984 Page 8 was further determined that the Commission had originally intended to include within the ordinance any land disposal site, whether it had been authorized as such by a public agency or not. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE PLANNING COM- MISSION RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY ADOPT THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE SUBMITTED TO THEM BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED, HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND MADE A THOROUGH STUDY IN MAKING ITS ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-09 Applicant: Nuttal Uchizono Associates To permit modification to the approved site plan for a 113-unit planned residential development located on the south side of Garfield Avenue approximately 300 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Staff reported that the request is to eliminate two of the original floor plans shown in the previously approved entitlement (C.U.P. 80-4). This change does not substantially change the building footprints or site layout. The request does vary some of the building separations, but staff has analyzed these and minimum code requirements are still met. Stan Uchizono was present to elaborate on the staff report. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-09 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated May 30, 1984 shall be the approved layout. 2. The development shall be subject to park and recreation fees which are presently in effect. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ' ABSTAIN: None -8- 7-10-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 10, 1984 Page 9 RESOLUTION NO. 1258 Applicant: Adelta Management A request to expand the resolution for a mixed -use development to permit a beauty shop/supply business within an industrial/ commercial complex located on the south side of Heil Avenue east of Gothard Street. The Commission discussed the original intent of the mixed -use concept, which had been to provide uses complementary to the ex- isting industrial uses, and questioned whether or not this intent was being eroded by inclusion of additional types of businesses. Staff informed the Commission that the changes suggested to the subject resolution were in part to bring the resolution into con- formance with what is already existing within the project. In addition, staff noted that in this particular project all the com- mercial uses are concentrated into the two buildings along the Gothard frontage, with the industrial uses located further back on the property; this gives almost the impression of a strip commercial project. Questions were raised about the percentages of both the mixed use and the floor area allowances which have alreddy been used in this project, and the matter of providing adequate parking was also reviewed. Noting that the applicant's request had indicated that he was asking to put in the same type of business that exists in another mixed -use development across the street, the Commission expressed concern that uses are going in illegally and indicated it may be time for an extensive review'of the entire mixed -use concept. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR RESOLUTION NO. 1258 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JULY 24, 1984, AND STAFF DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1. Review of the resolution permitting the mixed -use develop- ment across the street from the subject site to see if the uses therein fall within the ordinance and resolution re- quirements. 2. Review of the mixed -use development allowed by Resolution No. 1258 to ascertain if the 35 percent total commercial for the entire complex and the 50 percent floor space allow- ance along the arterial are being complied with. 3. An analysis of the dynamics of the marketplace to ascertain why so much commercial is choosing to move into the indus- trial district. This is to include costs of both manufactur- ing and retail space within the City and a review of the impact of the mixed -use concept upon occupancy of other retail and commercial space in the community. -9- 7-10-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 1U,'1984 Page 10 AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: Michael Adams reported the Southern California Edison has requested by letter that they be allowed to continue a mulching operation west of Edwards and south of Ellis Avenue. Staff is requesting direction to prepare a code amendment to include such uses in Divi- sion 9 in the Temporary Uses subject to conditional use permit. At the same time staff would like to analyze other temporary uses which could also be included, such as outside storage facilties for contractors' equipment. The Commission discussed the desirability of such uses in the area. Commissioner Higgins noted that the code amendment could be struc- tured to give control through screening provisions, time limitation, and a review process. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A CODE AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE CATEGORIES IN TEMPORARY USES SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UNCLASSIFIED USES, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: ) AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PENDING ITEMS: Staff reported no further information to add to the list. After comments by the Commission, staff was directed to add the Dance Permit ordinance and the presentation which is going to be made to the Environmental Board regarding negative declaration process to the list of pending items. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner.Higgins discussed methods which might be utilized to protect major arterial intersectons and adjoining properties from piecemeal development by small parcels. Staff was directed to pre- pare an outline of existing programs which could be utilized; this report will be before the Commission at its second meeting in August for further discussion of methodologies which might evolve on which to base a request for direction from City Council. -10- 7-10-84 - P.C. E Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 10, 1984 Page 11 Commissioner Erskine requested information on the time frame for removal of a sign on Adams Avenue (a sign on a van adver- tising a commercial business). Commissioner Porter asked that the scenic corridor concept be re -analyzed in conjunction with the arterial intersection program. Commissioner Livengood directed staff to investigate to see if the recent revisions to the Downtown Circulation Plan are included in the Department of Public Works Traffic Division Annual Report, 1983. Mr. Livengood also asked for a report back from'Public Works regarding use of left hand only turn signals in regard to reduc- tion of accidents at intersections, and possible inclusion of such a discussion into the traffic studies. There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ames W. Palin, Secretary Marcus M. Porter, Cha' an :df -11- 7-10-84 - P.C.