Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-20APPROVED MARCH 5, 1985 MINUTES- HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Plain Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, February 20, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine Schumacher, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Porter CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Livengood requested that the minutes of February 5, 1985 be completed and submitted at the.next regular meeting. B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: B-1 Planning Commission concerns on the Redevelopment Pro3ect Areas. Chairman Livengood stated that the Commission would discuss the written report at the end of the meeting. He stated that City Council and Mayor Bailey submitted a letter asking if the Commission would look at a full day for a joint study session to evaluate outside facilities such as signs, flood control, parking authorization etc. REGULAR AGENDA -ITEMS: C-1 SPECIAL -SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-10 (continued from February 5, 1985) Applicant: Artech Signs, Inc. 11 1 . Special Sign Permit No. 84-10 is a request to maintain the replacement of a cabinet sign at the top of an existing non -conforming 40 feet high freestanding sign structure. The sign is located on the south side of Edinger Avenue approximately-500 feet east of Sher Lane. The new "OLE'S" internally illuminated cabinet sign has a bright yellow background, bright red lettering, and a bright red strip around the edge of the cabinet. The applicant has initiated a special sign permit because the existing sign is inconsistent with Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Applicant John Armatich spoke accompanied by Earl Mosley of Artech Signs, and Mike Liberan of Ole's. he stated that it was not their intent to install the signs without permits. He stated that he is requesting a special sign permit to allow the sign to stand for at least two years because he had such a large investment in the project. He stated that he was never told about the redevelopment area. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell stated it indicated on the staff report that on October 19, 1985 an Administrative Action was initiated and.at that time the sign was non -conforming. She questioned.if ptaff had informed the applicant that they needed a special sign permit. Mike Adams stated that the project did not quality as administrative action due to the fact that the applicant replaced the whole can instead of changing just the sign face. Commissioner Winchell asked staff if,an-administrative action would have come in front of the Planning Commission and if the applicant was aware of this procedure. Mike Adams stated yes that the applicant was informed of the procedure. Chairman Livengood stated that the applicant indicted, due to the errors, that he would support a plan to remove the sign in two years. Commissioner Livengood questioned the Commission if_they would consider a two year time limit on approval of this sign. Secretary Palin stated that this type of action may set a precedence where other applicants will come in changing the face etc. without a permit and then come before the Commission for Approval)under.__ entitlement thereby sanctioning an illegal act. Commissioner Rowe stated that he concurred with Secretary Palin's comment. Commissioner Winchell asked staff if the wall signs were in — conformance. Mike Adams stated that the wall signs were,also., installed without permits. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she agreed with Commissioner Rowe and Secretary Palin. She stated that she would like to see the sign removed because it was out of character with the whole center. She felt that the applicant should have followed the legal procedure. (1915d) -2- P.C. Minutes Commissioner Erskine stated that he supported Commissioner Schumacher. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ROWE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 84-10 WAS DENIED BASED ON THE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, MirDahangir NOES: Livengood ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Erskine Findings for Denial:, il ' 1. Strict compliance with Article 976 will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant-in•that adequate exposure of the business can be provided by more appropriate signage. 2. The proposed sign may adversely affect other signs in the area and would establish a precedent within a Redevelopment Project Area. 3. The 40 foot high sign will be detrimental to the property located in the vicinity of such sign. 4. The size and design and location of the proposed 40 foot sign may obstruct vehicular traffic. C-2 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-1 Applicant: J.C. Penney/George MacNevin: At the Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 1985, the Commission continued Special Sign Permit No. 85-1, a request for new signage at Penney's in Huntington Center, and directed staff to prepare an alternative action for approval of applicant's request. Staff has received confirmation from the Center's Management Company that a Planned Sign Program is currently being prepared and will be submitted for review and approval within the next two months,. The Planned Sign Program will address existing and proposed, exterior and freestanding signage within Huntington Center as part of the Redevelopment Project Area. It is required as part of the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Plan which will develop a common sign theme by incorporating consistent design elements such as letter style, colors, etc. Commissioner Livengood commented on Condition No. 3 stating that this item should be negotiated and suggested deleting it. Mike Adams stated that that condition should be dropped. (1915d) -3- P.C. Minutes THE PUBLIC HEARING ,WAS OPEN: George MacNevin, Representative for J.C. Penney, spoke in behalf of his project stating that he had reviewed all the findings and conditions and was in agreement with them. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. 1 , - Commissioner Winchell stated that the total wall sign should be stated in Findings No. 1 and 2 as to what we are doing. Commissioner Schumacher suggested taking out Finding No. 1. Commissioner Erskine stated that he felt the finding was appropriate. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE- AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND 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 the total wall sign.area,of-300 square feet allowed is insufficient to provide adequate sign exposure for the Penney's building which is setback 600 feet from Edinger, 1500 feet from Beach Boulevard, and 1000 feet from the San Diego Freeway. 2. The proposed wall signs will not adversely affect other signs in the area because they are a substantial reduction from the existing wall signs of 760 square feet to 520 square feet. 3. The proposed wall signs will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of sign; and will be compatible with the surrounding area. 4. The proposed wall signs will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. Conditions of Approval• 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated January 4, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a letter from the property owner shall be submitted guaranteeing that.the Penney's signs shall be made to conform to the Huntington Center Planned Sign Program within 6 months of approval of the Planned Sign Program. (1915d) -4- P.C. Minutes C-3 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-67 Applicant: E. Van Vlahakis: Conditional Exception No. 84-67 is a request to allow a 6 ft high wall to encroach four (4) feet into the required 15 ft frontyard setback; a request for variance from Section 9103.1. This application was referred by the Board of Zoning Adjustments to the Planning Commission for action based on the Board's finding that there are more variances in the neighborhood than compliances. There were no persons present to speak for or against the proposed pro3ect. Chairman Livengood questioned staff if the applicant had been notified of the meeting. Mike Adams stated yes. Commissioner Winchell questioned staff if the applicant was notified that he needed the 15 foot setback. Mike Adams stated yes. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-67 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Mir3ahangir NOES: Livengood, Erskine ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. 2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enDoyment of substantial property rights. 3. The subject property was legally subdivided and developed in a manner consistent with applicable zoning laws. 4. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. 5. Encroachment into the required setback is not compatible with setbacks established for properties in the vicinity and would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon those properties. (1915d) -5- P.C. Minutes 6. Swimming pool permit was issued in compliance with current City Codes. Approved plan depicted wall to be constructed on bond beam and at the fifteen (15) foot setback line. C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-28 Applicant: Marie Juergas: The applicant, Marie Juerges has requested a continuance from the February 20, 1985 meeting to the March 5, 1985 meeting. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-28 TO MARCH 5, 1985 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-1 Applicant: Suzie Kyung Hong: Conditional Use Permit No. 85-1 is a request to maintain a massage establishment in accordance with Article 975 - Adult Entertainment Businesses. On November 6, 1981, the City Council adopted a zoning ordinance (Arti,cle,975 - Adult Entertainment Businesses) which established locational criteria for massage parlors. The ordinance requires that massage parlors (and all adult entertainment businesses) be located in a C2, C3 or C4 zone and that the nearest point of the building or structure used as a part of the premises where the business is located be at least 200 feet from residentially zoned property, 500 feet from any lot upon which there is located a church or educational institution utilized by minors, and 1,000 feet from any lot on which there is located another adult entertainment use. Further, all such uses were required to obtain conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. All adult entertainment businesses which were in existence at the time of adoption of the ordinance and which were rendered non -conforming because of the locational criteria, were given three years to relocated to an appropriate location or be discontinued. The amortization period was to expire on November 6, 1984; however, it was extended six months to June 2, 1985. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS OPENED: Robert DePiano spoke on behalf of the applicant stating that the Attorney's opinion was that the business was in conformance at the time and he would be willing to drop the conditional use permit if the commission were to take the Attorney's opinion. He stated that the staff report was very clear. He stated that there have not been any problems with the police and that they recommend the application be approved. (1915d) -6- P.C. Minutes There were no other persons to speak for or against the -proposed project, and ,the, public hearing was -.closed. Chairman Livengood expressed his concern that only about 6 or 7 home owners had been notified due to the flood control channel. Commissioner Erskine also stated that he could not see the merit of not notifying people on the other side of the flood control channel. Commission discussed this point to expand public notice beyond the 300 foot notice requirement area. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she could not support approving this permit due to the fact that across Warner Avenue in Fountain Valley City Limits is an amusement park frequented by minors. Commissioner Erskine questioned staff as to whether this Massage Parlor is conforming. Mike Adams stated yes, that th.is.one is conforming by location criteria alone. Commissioner Schumacher questioned staff if the closest school was beyond 500 feet. Mike Adams stated yes. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she could not understand how the business conforms when it is within 500 feet where minors are present (referring to across the street in Fountain Valley). Commission review ensued. Due to the controversy of this item, Commission along with the applicant's concurrence, decided to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 85-1 until March 5, 1985 and to expand the notification area to the neighboring residential area. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY,ERSKINE THE MOTION WAS -PASSED TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-1-TO MARCH 5, 1985 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None C-6 ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-21/CONDITI0NAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-39 Applicant: Mobile Oil Corporation: Zone Change No. 84-21 is a request to change the zone.from C2 to C2-SS as required by.Article 948 Conditional Use Permit No. 84-39 is a request to establish a new self-service service station with convenience market. S.9430.8 (b) lists convenience markets with gasoline sales as a permitted use subject to approval of a conditional use permit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN: Jim Huntsberry, Representative for Mobil Oil, stated that he agreed with all of staff's recommendations. He stated that he would -like to maintain the driveway on Bolsa. Chairman Livengood Approval regarding Huntsberry agreed. suggested adding "d" to Suggested Conditi-ons of a customer convenience window included. Mr. (1915d) -7- P.C. Minutes There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-21 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-39 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood Erskine Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Findings for Approval Zone Change No. 84-21: 1. A change of Zone from C2, Community Business District, to C2-SS, Community Business District - Service Station, is consistent with the General Plan designation of General Commercial and intent and purpose of Article 948. 2. The proposed zone change is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit No. 84-39: 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 proposed convenience market with gasoline sales is compatible with surrounding land uses, which include commercial uses to the east, west, north, and south. 4. The proposed convenience market substantially complies with the provisions outlined Article 943 of the Ordinance Code. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan received and dated February 6, 1985 shall be revised to include the following: a. Relocation of building to provide 20 feet clear width drive along west side of building. b. Closure of the Bolsa Avenue driveway nearest the intersection and replaced with landscaping. (19150) -8- P.C. Minutes C. Relocation of parking space No. 7 to be parallel adjacent to Bolsa Avenue landscape planter. d. The inclusion of a customer convenience window in the building. 2. No building permit shall be issued until Zone Change"No. 84-21 becomes effective. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services-'and:Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical,equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 4. Landscaping shall comply with S. 9430.8.1(b) and all applicable sections pertaining to landscaping within Article 948 of-the'Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. - 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 6. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 7. All signs shall comply with Articles 943, 948 and 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 8. Development'shall"meet-all local and State regulations regardirig'installation and-operatiori'of all underground storage tanks. 9. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets.` ' 10. Ali building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 11. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 12. A detailed`soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (1915d) -9- P.C. Minutes 1 Livengood expressed concern about the public notice involved with the BZA. Chairman Livengood stated that he was concerned about what items went to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Commissioner Winchell suggested the idea of a subcommittee to review BZA issues. Chairman Livengood appointed himself and Commissioner Winchell volunteered to serve on the committee. F. Pending Items: Commissioner Schumacher expressed concern about the "head" shops in Huntington Beach. She questioned if there was some type of code regulating these uses. Attorney Sangster sited the section of the Municipal Code which governs "head" shops. Commissioner Schumacher also expressed concern about satellite dish antennas being considered roof aparatus. Mike Adams stated yes, and that they are required to be screened. Staff is also working on a code amendment to further regulate dish type antennas. G. Oral Communication: City Attorney Sangster reviewed the proposed revised bylaws. H. Planning Commission Items: Commission discussed the time and date of the next study session which will take place March 5, 1985 at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Livengood handed out a schedule of the Planning Commission meeting dates showing the months that have an extra Tuesday suggesting these dates for possible study sessions. Chairman Livengood also handed out a memorandum addressed to Mayor Bailey for the Commissions review in regards to the Redevelopment Projects in Downtown Area with the recommendations of the Planning Commission from the study session. a. Adjournment: Adjourned at 10:27 p.m. to the next regular meeting and study session combined on March 5, 1985. �W.in, Secretary Thomas Live -fig od, Ch,zeirm n (1915d) -12- P.C. Minutes 13. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. C-7 ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-8 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach: On November 5, 1985, the City Council directed staff to pursue acquiring property for a proposed mobilehome park in the vicinity of the existing mushroom farm and to proceed with rezoning property not in conformance with the general plan designation or with the Huntington Central Park Master Plan. The minutes state that if the land could not be purchased for the mobilehome park that it be designated as part of the park rather than to have it develop as any more intensive type of use. Whether or not the mobilehome park is developed, the current Light Industrial zoning is incompatible and inconsistent. The Planning Commission public hearing this evening is the first step in responding to the Council's request. Chairman Livengood questioned staff if there would be any effect on the Holly property proposal. Mike Adams stated that Holly property was south of Ellis Street. Commissioner"Schumacher questioned staff if the designation calls for low residential density. Mike Adams stated one unit per acre. Commissioner Schumacher questioned staff if the reason for this item is to put a mobilehome park on it. Mike Adams stated not necessarily. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Ted Grussing, representing Nancy Smiley,'ekpressed concern about the value of the property dropping due to the Zone Change.The public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood questioned staff if the action to be taken is a zone change from M1 to RA -CD, he stated that the Commission needed direction on this. Mike Adams stated that the reason for this'zone change was to make the property consistent with the General Plan. He stated that the rezoning is not for the Mobile Home Park but to bring the plan into conformance. Commissioner Schumacher questioned staff on the market value of the property if the zone is changed. Chairman Livengood asked the City Attorney what the value of the property was with the zone change. Attorney Sangster stated that that was not a legal question. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (1915d) -10- P.C. Minutes AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D. Items not' 'for' Public Hearing" " ' E. Discussion Items E-1 Proposed Code Amendment t'o Article No. 975 (Adult Entertainment Businesses-) Commission questioned the timing on this item. Mike Adams stated that it could be brought back for a public hearing in 30 days, Attorney'Sangster stated he agreed. Livengood questioned if this code amendment would be posted in the newspaper for public notice, staff stated yes. Commissioner Winchell suggested looking at additional criteria in regard to distance from facilities utilized by minors and to include family oriented facilities geared towards minors. E-2 SIGN CODE AMENDMENT Input from Planning Commission Commission voted to discuss this item at a study session on March 5, 1985 E-3 OLDTOWN AND TOWNLOT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 Limiting "Bootleg" &ni s" I - The Commission discussed the intent of the ordinance. Staff stated that the ordinance would help limit the conversion of single family dwellings to multiple rental units to some degree; however, the problem is pervasive and will be difficult to control and enforce. E-4 Review of Article 981 Board of Zoning Adjustments Commission discussed and reviewed Article 981, Chairman 1 (1915d) -11- P.C. Minutes