Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-05APPROVED MARCH 5, 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, February 5, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine Schumacher, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 1985 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Erskine B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Livengood requested clarification on Item C-3 Special Sign Permit No. 85-1, which staff recommended continuance until a Planned Sign Program is submitted, to determine whether the applicant also wanted to continue this item. The applicant stated that he would like to have it heard tonight. Chairman Livengood stated that the Commission would then hear the item as scheduled on the agenda. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: C-1 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-5 Applicant: Myers and Co. A request to permit the installation of a 7'x 7',25' high freestanding sign and a 9'x 9' cabinet sign on an existing pole sign. The Planning Commission at the meeting of January 22, 1985 continued Special Sign Permit No. 84-5 and directed staff to work with the applicant in order to develop a planned sign program for the center. Staff met with the applicant, Home Depot on January 23, 1985 and discussed several alternatives. The result was that they would submit revised plans showing three monument signs on Edinger (Liquor Store, Home Silk, and Home Depot) and one monument sign on Goldenwest (Licorice Pizza and Home Depot) with matching bases. This was based on staff's understanding that Home Depot is the current property manager and has control over the existing and proposed signs. On January 28, 1985, staff observed that the Home Silk Shop sign had been installed after a stop work order had been issued. Since this was done without proper inspections and in an unapproved location, staff has referred the matter to the City Attorney. The applicant for Special Sign Permit No. 84-5 has revised his plans due to non -cooperation with the sign company representing Home Silk. The revised sign program did not include the home Silk Sign. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN: Stan Janocha, Superior Electrical Advertising representative for Home Silk Shop, stated that his reason for erecting the sign was because of the hazard the holes dug for the sign presented being left unfilled over the weekend and the fact that he had obtained a building permit to erect the sign. He requested that the home Silk Shop sign be allowed to stand where it is, stating he did not like the condition in the staff report stating that the sign has to be amoritized over a two year period and removed. William Sailor, representative for Home Depot, stated that in order to operate his business, he had to obtain a use permit since the building had not been used for 6 months. He wanted to make sure that there would be room for his sign when the Planned Sign Program was approved. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. Mike Adams stated, in reference to the Home Silk Sign, the term Used in the inter -office memorandum stating that the plot plan and site plan misrepresented the location may have been improper, however, the site plan submitted was incomplete and misleading. The staff determined by field inspection that the site plan was submitted with an oblique angle photograph which made it difficult to determine that the existance of a drive aisle. The complete information that we needed to adequately review the application was not presented to the staff. An existing freestanding sign must have at least 600 feet separation from another freestanding sign. Commissioner Winchell questioned staff if a planned sign p.rogram was a requirement of that site. Mike Adams answered in the affirmative and indicated that staff and home Depot had been working on a plan. Commissioner Winchell questioned why Home Silk did not have to apply for a use permit. Mike Adams stated that the building had not been vacant for more than six months. (1835d) -2- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85 Glen Godfrey of the staff stated that there had been negotiations on the part of the Home Silk Shop and Home Depot with regard to working out an agreement to come to the Planning Commission for a Planned Sign Program. Discussion ensued as to how the Home Silk Sign would fit in with the Planned Sign Program in that a new site plan for Home Silk Sign has been submitted but not yet approved. The understanding of all parties was to put things on hold; thus the continuance of the item from the January 22, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. Subsequent to that, Home Silk Shop installed the sign even though a stop work order had been issued. Commissioner Schumacher stated that at the last meeting it had been mentioned that there was nothing holding Home Silk back from installing their sign. She stated that she was very disappointed in the action the sign company took knowing that the commission placed the sign program on hold in order to work out something to benefit the entire center. Commissioner Erskine questioned staff as to their intended design for the sign. Mr. Godfrey stated that staff had been considering a combination pylon sign for Home Silk and Home Depot. Commissioner Erskine asked if that was now impossible due to the fact that the Home Silk Sign had already been installed. Staff responded that it made the working out of a program very difficult. Commissioner Rowe affirmed that it was made very clear in the last meeting that all concerned in this application were to wait until something was worked out to everyone's benefit He felt that the sign company should have waited that two weeks requested of them. Secretary Palin raised two points that needed to be made. One regarding the removal of the Zody's sign by Superior presumably without their permission which was to be the trade off for the Home Depot sign in that Home Depot had replaced Zodys in that building. Home Depot was considered the major tenant in this center. When the sign company represented Home Silk installed their sign in defiance of the stop work order they pre-empted any other sign at that location. There was some question about.the legality of the Zody's sign removal. The other point with regard to the two holes for the footing of the sign and the so called hazard as represented by Mr. Janocha stretched creditability when he had not yet repaired the two holes left in the drive aisle at the first proposed location. Stan Janocha stated that he was never informed of the meeting with staff and the other applicants held on January 23, 1985. He stated that as far as the removal of the Zody's sign, that he -had a signed letter from Texaco granting the removal of the sign. He stated that he did not have the letter with him. Commissioner Livengood requested that no mention of the Home Silk Sign be made in the motion. Staff was directed to take whatever action necessary may it be legally or administrative to remedy or reverse this action taken by Superior Sign Company. (1835d) -3- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85 ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-5 WITH THE EXCLUSION OF HOME SILK SHOP WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY ThE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Findings for Approval: 1. Strict compliance with Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will result in'a substantial economic hardship because several of the tenant buildings do not have adequate street exposure. 2. The proposed freestanding monument signs will not adversely affect other signs in the area because the size, design and location proposed will assure compatibility with the surrounding area. 3. The proposed signs will not be detrimental to the property located in the vicinity because the design for signage is consistent with the general character of the commercial area. 4. The proposed signs will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision because they are a minimum of 25' from any drive approach and located within a landscaped area. Conditions of Approval• 1. The site plan and elevations dated February 5, 1985 shall be in accord with the attached Map No. 1 dated February 1, 1985 and with the following modifications for review and approval by the Director of Development Services: a. All freestanding signs shall be provided with a stucco base to match the Home Depot Building. b. Wall signs shall be incorporated into the center's plan so that future tenant signs will reflect a common design. C. Any landscaping removed shall be replaced elsewhere on the premises. d. Licorice Pizza Sign shall be used as a multiple tennent sign. 2. Provide evidence that current property owner has authorized the application and approves of all conditions stated. (1835d) -4- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85 3. A Planned Sign Program which incorporated all the freestanding and wall signs shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Development Services prior to the issuance of any building permits for future signing. C-2 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-11 Applicant: General Neon and Plastic Sign Co. At the Planning Commission Meeting of January 22, 1985, the Commission continued Special Sign Permit No. 84-11, a request for new signing at Standard Brands and directed staff review the applicant's alternative sign plans as indicated at.that meeting. The applicant is now proposing a 15 foot high freestanding sign which represents a significant improvement over the existing 35' high pole sign. The proposed sign will be more in scale with the building and surrounding area. Staff recommends reducing the pole sign to 12 feet in height so as to be below the foilage of the street trees for better visibility to passing motorists. The applicant indicated that a lower profile sign would be acceptable provided the city allow the removal of the pine trees located in the front landscape planter and the City agrees to trim the street trees along Warner Avenue. Staff responded that the pine trees can be removed provided they are replaced with a number of smaller size trees or with intensified landscaping as approved by the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. Also proposed is a minimal reduction of wall signage on the north and east elevations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Joel Kudler, authorized representative for Standard Brands, requested the granting of the proposed application with moderate alterations which he felt were attractive not only to the city but also to Standard Brands. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood polled the Commission in regards to the wall signing to determine support for the applicant or the staff. Commissioner Schumacher suggested "Home Decorating" on north or the east elevation but not on both. Commissioner Erskine expressed support for the applicant stating the wall signs were not that big and the low profile ground sign would be an improvement. Commissioner Porter stated he supported the suggestion of Commissioner Schumacher. The Commission took a straw vote on the sign on the south elevation whether it be illuminated or non -illuminated. Commissioner Schumacher questioned staff if the applicant had requested an illuminated sign. Glen Godfrey stated yes. Commissioner Rowe moved for a non -illuminated sign on the south elevation by the following straw vote: (18350) -5- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85 AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir The Commission took a straw vote on the 15 foot high 101.5 square foot freestanding sign with boxed supports by the following vote: AYES: Rowe, Winchell Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir Commissioner Schumacher suggested that the decision be left up to the applicant which sign to remove from the north or east elevation. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING'VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Findings for Approval: 1. Strict compliance with Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will result in a substantial economic hardship because a substantial reduction of existing sign area will occur. 2. The proposed freestanding sign and wall signs will not adversely affect other signs in the area because the size, design and location proposed will assure compatibility with the surrounding area and the existing 35 foot high pole sign will be removed. 3. The proposed 15 foot freestanding sign will not be detrimental to the property located in the vicinity because the design for signage is consistent with the general character of the adjacent commercial area. 4. The proposed 15' freestanding sign will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision because the sign is of a monument design and 70 feet from any driveway, contained within a landscaped planter area. Conditions of Approval: 1. The site plans and elevations dated January 25, 1985 shall be revised and resubmitted prior to the issuance of building permits depicting the following modifications: (a) (b) The freestanding sign with boxed supports shall be a maximum of 15 feet in height. The sign on the south elevation shall not be internally illuminated. 1 (1835d) -6- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85 (c) Existing signs on east and north elevations for the Standard Brands would be allowed with "Home Decoration" on only one of the two facades. (d) Prior to the removal of the existing pine trees, a revised landscape plan limited to low profile plant materials shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Development Services. 2. The large storage bin located at the northwest corner of the site shall be removed within 30 days. C-3 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-1 Applicant: J.C. Penney/George MacNevin Special Sign Permit No. 85-1 is a request to remove four 228 sq.ft. "Penney's" wall signs, one on each side of the J.C. Penney's building within Huntington Center. A special sign permit is required because the total wall sign area equals 520 sq.ft. which exceeds the maximum permitted area (300 sq.ft.) by 220 sq.ft. The building is part of Huntington Center and within the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan requires that all signing be part of a Planned Sign Program. After a brief discussion, the Commission, with the applicant's concurrence, decided to continue Special Sign Permit 84-11 to the next regularly scheduled meeting on February 20, 1985. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE MOTION WAS PASSED TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-1 TO FEBRUARY 20, 1985 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine Porter Mirjahangir C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-36 Applicant: Chevron USA Conditional Use Permit No. 84-36 is a request to convert the service bays at the Chevron Station on the southwest corner of Beach Blvd. and Main Street into a convenience market. Section 9430.8 (b) lists convenience markets with gasoline sales as a permitted use subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: R.J. Soball, representative for Chevron U.S.A., gave a brief presentation on the project mainly in regards to the traffic and parking situation. He stated that he had a traffic engineer present who would be giving a presentation. (1835d) -7- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85 Patrick Feedler, Traffic Engineer, reviewed traffic patterns that would exist if Chevron were to incorporate staffs recommendation. He discussed the disadvantages of staff's proposal and the advantages of Chevron's proposal (these proposals were accompanied with transparencies). There were no other persons to speak for or against the request item. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rowe stated that he traveled up Main street frequently and felt strongly against this item due to the flow of traffic in that area. He felt that this would simple make an existing traffic problem more complex. i Commissioner Erskine stated that he agreed with Commissioner Rowe that this is a critical intersection and felt that there should not be any additional activity in this area. Commissioner Livengood stated that he felt staff's proposal wasn't as workable when compared to the two graphics presented. He -stated that adding another activity in this intersection would really create problems. He also stated that the parking layout made no sense and was extremely tight Glen Godfrey concurred with the Commission on their comments and also to the fact that staff's proposal did not work too well either. He stated that the applicant's proposal looked good on paper but it would never work in the field. Any intensification of use or activity at this location would only increase the potential for accidents. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY ROWE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-36 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Findings for Denial: 1. The proposed service station/convenience market will cause circulation problems and create a hazardous traffic situation on surrounding streets due to the location of the access drives and increase of vehicle movements in and out of the site. 2. The proposal does not conform to Article 943 in that the minimum eight parking spaces are not provided in a safe and convenient manner on the site. 3. The proposed use will be detrimental to property located in the vicinity and to the general health, safety and welfare of persons working and driving in the vicinity due to the location and number of access drives and the anticipated volume of traffic. (1835d) -8- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85 4. The site layout and design of the proposed use.does not give proper consideration to the surrounding uses, streets and driveways. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-37 Applicant: Ted Szuba A request to establish an 1,100 square foot sandwich shop (Lunch Bucket) in anindustrial building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Andrew Jay Blaser stated that he was not disputing the use, but was requesting the Commission and Staff to take a look at the park in regards to the other uses in the adjacent area not having landscaping or any type of screening. His concern was that the park needed general clean up. Ted Szuba, applicant, spoke in behalf of his project stating that he had the consent and support of adjacent neighbors. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher talked in regards to Andrew Blaser's concerns about the autoshops and cars being parked in front. She question if the code allowed this and is screening not required. Mike Adams stated that he could not really address the question in detail because he did not have before him the conditions of approval on the other tracts. All auto repair work must be done within the structure and not in the area designed for parking. Commission Livengood asked the applicant if he complied with all the recommended conditions that staff has proposed. Ted Szuba stated that he complied. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-37 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS• 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a sandwich shop in an industrial district will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity or to the property and improvements in the vicinity. (1835d) -9- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85 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 Article 953, Light Industrial District, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code which permits restaurant uses. CONDITIONS• 1. The site plan,'floor plans', and elevations dated December 20, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. The signing for the business shall be limited to one attached identification sign located on the restaurant suite itself and is subject to a separate approval. 4. The use approved by this permit shall be limited to 1,100 square feet; any expansion shall be subject to approval of a new entitlement by the Planning Commission. 5. The addition of more than ten tables or forty seats for sit-down dining shall be subject to approval of a new entitlement by the Planning Commission. 6. Any operation of a catering business from the restaurant shall be limited to two employees and a maximum of one truck or van. 7. The hours of operation shall be 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Any expansion in the number of hours the restaurant remains open for business shall be subject to the approval of a new entitlement by the Planning Commission. C-6 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-1 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Zone Change No. 85-1 is a request to rezone approximately 38 acres from R2 (5.5)-CZ, Medium Density Residential, 5.5 units per acre, Coastal Zone to Rl-CZ, Low Density Residential, Coastal Zone. Currently, the subject property allows 5.5 units per acres. All existing structures conform to the density and development standards of the R1, low density, zoning district and the low density (1835d) -10- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85 residential General Plan designation. This zone change request will make the zoning consistent with the General Plan and the zoning in the surrounding area. Commissioner Winchell questioned how the 5.5 was placed in the R2 zone. Mike Adams explained that the zone was an R2 PD 14 the developer wanted to develop at Rl standards so under the R2 PD he proposed a limitation on the density of 5.5 units per acre. There were no persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-1 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mir]ahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None C-7, 8, 9, 10 ZONE, CHANGE NO. 85-3/ CODE AMENDMENTS 85-3, 85-4 AND 85-5 IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE FOR THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Applicant: City of Huntington Beach On April 12, 1984 the California Coastal Commission acted to certify the City's Coastal implementation package with suggested modifications. The City took actions to adopt these modifications. Coastal staff has reviewed the adopted modifications and indicated a few areas requiring further clarification before administrative approval can be given. There were no persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ROWE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-3 AND CODE AMENDMENTS NO. 85-3, 85-4, AND 85-5 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, MirDahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None D. Items not for Public Hearing E. Discussion Items: E-1 General Plan Amendment Filing Deadlines Commissioner Porter suggested consolidating suggested dates. Commissioner Erskine requested staff guidance and have staff come back with a recommendation at the next Planning Commission Meeting. (1835d) -11- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85 E-2 E-3 F. F-1 I. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM WAS APPROVED. (7 AYES, 0 NOES) Sign Code Amendment Outline and Time Schedule Code Amendment No. 84-11. Commissioner Erskine suggestea that banners and sidewalk figures be added to item #2. He also suggested an inventory of all non -conforming signs in the city be prepared.. Commissioner Porter suggested that target areas such as Beach Boulevard, Edinger and Warner Avenue be identified and have stricter requirements as far as Planned Sign Programs. Commissioner Porter also suggested obtaining a'film "Street Graphics" to be viewed at the study session for the sign code amendment. Commissioner Livengood suggested that item #12 include more information on square footage. Study Session Items for February 12, 1985 Meeting. Commissioner Livengood requested that the Commission review the discussion items list for the study session meeting. The suggestion was made that the Downtown Design Guidelines be added to the meeting agenda. Pending Items Pending Items List: Commissioner Schumacher questioned the City Attorney in regards to 8.51 (area along Goldenwest). Mr. Sangster stated that the city could prosecute landowners who were using their property for unauthorized uses. Commissioner Porter asked staff if they had had any response from Seabridge Project in regards to television services. Mike Adams stated that Mola Development had sent a letter but it had not been received by the city. Commissioner Porter requested that staff review the tape from Commission Meeting when this item was approved to see exactly what services were to be provided to the residents. Commissioner Erskine clarified his concerns on item 85-10. He also expressed concern in regards to a banner sign supported by a scaffold located at the Seabridge Project. Mike Adams stated that staff would investigate this. Commissioner Livengood requested that the Commission review 85.16 prior to the next meeting. Development Services Items: James Palin reported on the City Council Meeting. (1835d) -12- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85 I 1 a. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. at the study session on February 12, 1985. lcp Tom L e I good, Ch irman (1835d) -13- P.C. Minutes 2/5/85