Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-05APPROVED MARCH 19, 1985 MINUTES J HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, March 5, 1985 - 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter (arrived late), Mirja anger COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 5, 1985 ana February 2U, 1985 ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE MINUTES WERE APPROVED ( 5 AYES 0 NOES, SChUMACHER AND ERSKINE ABSENT) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-28 Applicant: Marie Juerges At the Planning Commission meeting of February 20, 1985 the Commission continued this item to the meeting of March 5, 1985, at the request of the applicant. Conditional Use Permit No. 84-28 is a request to permit the continuation of a massage establishment (Viking Massage). The applicant is Marie Juerges. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: There were no persons to speak for or against the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell asked staff to clarify why this site met the locational criteria when Rancho View School was within 500 feet. Mike Adams stated these particular school offices were not used for children but utilized for adult education classes only. Commissioner Winchell questioned Attorney Sangster as to whether or not he had a problem with the suggested Condition No. 2. Attorney Sangster stated that the condition was tine the way it stood and that it accurately covered the Municipal Code. Chairman Livengood questioned Attorney Sangster if this condition was needed since it was already in the code. Attorney Sangster stated yes, in case there are problems with violations of the conditions. ON MOTION BY ROWE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-28 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None Findings for Approval: 1. The massage establishment will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and is not detrimenta to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborh because it is located within a commercial center. 2. The massage establishment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plana 3. The access to and parking for the massage establishment will not create an undue traffic problem. 4. The massage establishment complies with the locational standards of Article 975 because the subject building is greater than 200 feet from property zoned residential, greater than 500 feet from a church or education institution utilized by minors, and greater than 11000 feet from any other adult entertainment business. Conditions of Approval: 1. The site plan dated February 15, 1985 shall be the approved plan. 2. The massage establishment and employees shall continuously comply with Chapter 5.24 and Article 975 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (2029d) -2- 3/5/85 [J 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review and rescind this conditional use permit approval in the event that there is any violation of the terms of this approval or there is a violation of the applicable zoning laws; any such decision shall be proceedea by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and be based on specific findings. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-1 Applicant: Suzie Kyung Hong The Planning Commission at their February 20, 1985 meeting continued Conditional Use Permit No. 85-1, a request to permit the continuation of a massage establishment (Kawaii Tan and Spa), and directed staff to expand the public notification area. The public notification radius was enlarged to 500 feet adding nineteen Huntington Beach residential property owners to the notification list. On February 21, 1985, staff mailed thirty-nine public hearing notices to surrounding property owners. As of February 28, 1985, no written or verbal responses have been received. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN: Bob Depiano, Attorney representing Suzie Kyung Hong, stated the reason the item was continued was due to the request of the Planning Commission to notify 20-40 more neighbors within the new proposed 500 square foot area. He stated that no letters or communication against the pro3ect have been received. He also stated that here has been no communication as far as minors being influenced by the patrons. ' Chairman Livengood asked Mr. Depiano if he has a chance to look at the the findings and conditions. Mr. Depiano stated yes. Chairman Liveng000 asked Mr. Depiano if he was in agreement with the addition of the new finding. Mr. Depiano stated yes. David Bourke, Manager of the property in question, spoke in behalf of his tennant. He stated that Kawaii Tan and Spa had a very good rapport with all of the other tennants. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY ROWE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-1 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None (2029d) -3- 3/5/85 Findings for Approval: 1. The massage establishment will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and is not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in tie neighborhood because it is located within a commercial/office center. 2. The massage establishment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 3. The access to and parking for the massage establishment will not create undue traffic problem. 4. The massage establishment complies with the locational standards of Article 975 because the subject building is greater than 200 feet from property zoned residential as of November 1981 when the Ordinance was approved, greater than 500 feet from a church or educational institution utilized by minors, and greater than 1,000 feet from any other adult entertainment business within the City of Huntington Beach. Conditions of Approval: 1. The site plan dated January 7, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. The massage establishment and employees shall continuously comply with Chapter 5.24 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Co and Article 975 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review and rescind this conditional use permit approval in the event that there is any violation of the terms of this approval or there is a violation of applicable zoning laws; any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and be based on specific findings. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-2/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-02 Applicant: Kathryn Whitley/Judith Cuningham Conditional Use Permit No. 85-2 is a request to permit a sandwich shop in an existing industrial building Section 9530.01 (c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinahce Code, allows restaurants as a permitted use in the M1 zone district subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Jeff Abramowitz of staff stated that the applicant is proposing a 1,231 square foot sandwich shop serving both dine -in and take-out food orders. The shop would operate during the day from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (20296) -4- 3/5/85 Saturday. The floor plan depicts a dining room of 515 square feet the remainder of the suite includes the kitchen, food preparation area, and bathrooms. The proposal, then, is for a reduction of ten parking spaces from the required thirteen spaces. The applicants have submitted a letter (attached) outlining the justification for the conditional exception including a request for shared parking on the site. They indicate that they expect a large portion of the business to be take-out and that they are in addition providing a delivery service for fooa items. The 515 square foot dining room, however, will accomodate approximately 34 people. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Kathryn Whitley ana Judith Cuningham, applicants, statea that they could come up with five additional parking spaces by taking out the rear roll up door behind the restaurant. They stated that they felt five spaces were adequate due to the fact that the business was mainly a catering service. They stated that the wora restaurant did not apply to them. They stated that the reason they had tables and chairs in the project was for walk-in clients. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood asked staff if additional parking spaces could be developea in this project legally. Jeff Abramowitz of staff stated the he would have to analyze the area. He stated if it was possible, the applicant would have to get approval on a site plan amendment for additional parking spaces. Commissioner Rowe stated that he found the concerns about the parking persuasive. Commissioner Winchell asked staff to clarify the parking space required per hundred square feet issued and this includes the entire preparation area of the restaurant. Jeff Abramowtiz stated that the gross floor area is included in this figure. Commissioner Winchell questioned if this has anything to do with sitting capacity. Mike Aaams of staff stated that there is more sit down dining than parking available. Commissioner Winchell stated that she would endorse the business but the parking is too much of a problem. Chairman Livengood asked what the required parking was for an industrial building. Jeff Abramowitz of staff stated one space per 500 square feet. Chairman Livengood suggested that in the Findings for Denial item No. 1 indicate that the applicant is only providing 3 space to the 13 required. Commissioner Mirjahangir concurred with Chairman Livengood's suggestion. Ken Whitley, applicant's husband, asked the Commission to consider off -premise parking. Chairman Livengood stated that based on the public hearing and staff's presentation, he could not see how the applicant was going to maintain enough parking for the project. (2029d) -5- 3/5/85 ON MOTION BY WINChELL AND SECOND BY ROWE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-2 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-02 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS B THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a sandwich shop at the proposed site will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity or to the property and improvements in the vicinity because adequate parking, three parking stalls to the required 13, is not provided on the site for the intensity of the use proposed. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will aaversely affect the general plan of the City of huntington Beach since the restaurant, due to its location and other characteristics, will create increased traffic circulation and parking problems incompatible with other uses in the inaustrial district. 3. The granting of a conditional use permit is inconsistent with the development standards contained'in Article 953, Light Industrial District,'with respect to the proposed site layout, location ana parking-. 4. 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 circumstance 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.- 5. Exceptional circumstances do not apply -that deprive the subject property of,privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-3 Applicant: Barbara A. Cooper Leonard Conditional Use Permit No.' 84-3 is a request to establish a child day care facility for seven to twelve children in a single family dwelling. Currently, the applicant has four children in her care with a county license to care for up to six chilaren. Mike Adams of staff stated that the child day care facility is proposed to be located within a single family subdivision on a cul-de-sac street south of Warner Avenue and west of Goldenwest Street. Currently the applicant is caring for four children in her home with a county license which permits 6 children. The granting o (2029d) -6- 3/5/85 the Conditional Use Permit as requestea would permit the applicant to care for a maximum•of twelve children. ,y The applicant indicated that the hours of operation are between 7:15 am. and 5:15 p.m. The pick up and drop off times are staggered during the morning and evening hours to reauce the need for parking. As the number of clients attending this facility increases, the accompanied traffic impact will change. At this time, the staff aoes not view the additional vehicle trips generated per day as significant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Albert Brown, homeowner in the proposes project's neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that he took the liberty of polling the neighborhood and received 17 names on a petition opposed to the noise the children presented. He stated that 10 of the 17 names on the petition live on the same street. He stated that this increase of children would be detrimental. David Sander, homeowner in the proposed project's neighborhood, spoke in opposition of the project. He stated that he worked rotating shift work and the noise of the children prevented him from getting adequate sleep. Helen Deon spoke in opposition to the project stating that she can always hear the children. She stated that her husband works nights and she suffers from an illness that requires her to maintain a lot of sleep day and night. She stated that the proposed project would be detrimental to her and her husband's well-being and felt the children were not cared for in a proper manner. Barbara Cooper Leonard, applicant, stated that her husband also works nights. She felt there is a great need for day cares centers. Her day care service was her way of contributing to filling that need. She stated that she was surprised by her neighbors actions, except for Mr. Brown whom she feels has animosity towards her for another reason, no one has ever expressed their feelings to her personally. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed project and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood asked staff if day care centers need a conditional use permit to operate. Howard Zelefsky of staff stated that if the day care center consists of more than 6 children, a conditional use permit is required.. Chairman Livengood asked staff if the city was in any way involved in licensing this type of business. howard Zelefsky of staff stated the city did not, however, the fire department and the state licensec and monitored these types of uses.. Commissioner Rowe stated that he was surprised at the response of the neighbors. He asked staff if there was a procedure notifying the neighbors. Howard Zelefsky stated that the neighbors were notified 10 days prior to the hearing. (2029d) -7- 3/5/65 Chairman Livengood commented on the project being located in a cul-de-sac. He stated that most families move into cul-de-sacs to have privacy. He stated that he would not be opposed to the projec if the neighbors were not opposed. Discussion ensued against the Commission regarding the traffic noirse and other impacts to the neighborhood from this type of activity. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ROWE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-3 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed day care facility will have a detrimental effect due to noise upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the-neighborhooa; and is detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed aay care facility is not consistent with the objectives of the General Plan and will not substantially with the provisions of'Article 933 of the huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3. goals an( comply The access to the parking and number of�vehicles trips the Uay rc facility will create, will cause undue traffic problems for this neighborhood. 4. The proposed day care facility is not compatible with existing and other proposed uses in the neighborhood. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-5 Applicant: Eugene Tasca Effective as of October 1984, dancing and/or live entertainment as a primary or secondary use requires approval of a conditional use permit (S.9430.8 d). The applicant has recently opened a restaurant at the subject site and proposes to have a piano bar. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Eugene Tasca, applicant, spoke on behalf of his project. he stated that he was in agreement with all'of the findings and conditions presented. Commissioner Mirjahangir questioned Mr. Tasca as to whether or not he was going to modify the floor plan in order to install this piano bar. Mr. Tasca stated yes and that he has submitted floor plans. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked Mr. Tasca if he was eliminating the space from storage or seating area. Mr. Tasca stated that he was (2029d) -6- 3/5/85 decreasing the occupancy. Mike Adams of staff stated that the occupancy will not be increased with the proposed lay out. Staff has required the same occupancy as was required with the original t entitlement. Any omcrease in occupancy will require that sprinklers be installed. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project, and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY ROWE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-5 WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mir)ahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed piano bar will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and is not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed piano bar is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and will substantially comply with the provisions of the Huntington Beach ordinance code. 3. The access to and parking for the piano bar will not create undue traffic problem. 4 The proposed piano bar is compatible with existing and other proposed uses in the neighborhood. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations receivea and aated January 28, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. The occupant load shall be limited to 102 persons. Any increase in this occupant load will require the installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review and rescind this conditional use permit approval in the event that there is any violation of the terms of this approval or there is a violation of applicable zoning laws; any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and be based on specific findings. (2029d) -9- 3/5/85 C-6 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-21 - ARTICLE 948 - SERVICE STATION STANDARDS Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 84-21 proposes to allow service station sites at the intersection of all arterial highways as shown on the Circulati Plan. Section 9481.1 presently allows service stations on only major and/or primary arterial highways. This amendment will allow several existing nonconforming sites the opportuniy.in order to rebuild to satisfy current customer needs and still comply with the service station development standards in Article 946. After a brief discussion, the Commission, with the concurrence of staff decided to continue Coae Amendment No. 84-21 to the next Planning Commission Meeting of March 19, 1985. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-21 - ARTICLE 948 WAS CONTINUED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None C-7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-6 - ARTICLE - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 85-6 will increase the floor area square footage allowed for minor accessory structures and not be subject to setbac requirement, by amending Section 9730.22 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Coae. The public Hearing was opened, but no one was present to speak for or against the item, and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ROWS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-6 - ARTICLE 973 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None D. Items not for Public hearing D-1 Negative Declaration No. 85-7 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR'NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-7 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Rowe, Winchell, Liveng000, Mirjahangir None Schumacher, Erskine, Porter, None i (2029d) -10- 3/5/85 Tentative Tract No. 12368 ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TENTATIVE, TRACT NO. 12368 IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-7 WAS APPROVED BY ThE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None Discussion Items COMMISSIONER PORTER WAS PRESENT E-1 General Plan Amendment Filing Deadlines ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR RESOLUTION NO. 1340 WAS APPROVED WITH CHANGES TO THE DEADLINES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengooa, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None E-2 Code Anienament No. 85-2 (Oldtown/Townlot)Commission review ensued. Commissioner Rowe questioned the percentage of single family residents being used as multiple units. Mike Adams stated that staff would research this, but an accurate figure will be difficult to come up with. Commissioner 4inchell stated that she wants to maintain single family units in the Downtown Section. Commissioners Livengood and Mirjahangir agreed with Commissioner Winchell. F. Pending Items: A pending list was not submitted by staff. H. Planning Commission Items: Commissioner Porter stated that he arranged a meeting with cable systems and Mola Development to discuss the current problem of tennents having to pay for cable in this particular development discussed. Chairman Livengood made a change in the bylaws and requestea that these be permanently placed in the packets. Commissioner Winchell brought the memorandum that Chairman Livengood prepared for the City Council to staff's attention with suggested changes. Chairman Livengood agreed with the changes and requested that this item be prepared for him to pick up later in the week. I Development Services Items: (2029d) -11- 3/5/85 Mike Adams informed the Commission that City Council invitea the Commission to a study session on March_18, 1985 in regard to the Coastal Element land use concepts. Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken by the City Counci at its most recent meeting for the information of the Commission. J. Adjournment: There was no further business, and the meeting was aajournea at 9:57 p.m. to the City Council Study Session on March 18, 1985. s W. Palin,-Secfetary omas Livengood,77 air an (2029d) 1 r'l (2029d) -12- 3/5/85