Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-18APPROVED AUGUST 5, 1985 MINUTES s HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter r a anger COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Winchell A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on May 22, 1985. A-2 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on June 4, 1985. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY'MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 22, 1985 AND JUNE 4, 1985 TO THE JULY 2, 1985 MEETING TO REVIEW CORRECTIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Dean Albright expressed concern about the Satellite Dish Code Amendment as proposed by staff stating that he felt in some respects the code amendment was to restrictive. Chairman Livengood requested that two Planning Commission members be included in the review of :the Holly Proposal with the City -.Council. Commissioner Schumacher and Commissioner Erskine stated that they would represent the Planning Commission and Commissioner'Rowe would act as an alternate. C. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS C-1 CODE,AMENDMENT NO. 85-12 (ADULT ENTERTAINMENT) City of Huntington Beach On May 7, 1-985, Code Amendment No. 85-12 was scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission: Thee Commission did not open the public hearing, however, and continued the item until such time_ as the City Council acted to extend the amortization period for non -conforming adult entertainment businesses. On May 21, 1985, the City Council extended the amortization period by 90 days. Code Amendment No. 85-12 is now back before the Planning Commission for public hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Hugh Coffin spoke in opposition to the amendment as proposed. Steven Lausch spoke in opposition to the amendment as proposed. Roland Clark spoke in opposition to the amendment as proposed. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood stated that the ordinance should incorporate or grandfather all'the existing adult entertainment uses in the city. Commissioner Schumacher asked staff what 5.70 and 5.24 of the Municipal Code stated. Bob Sangster stated that it was a process the Police Department uses to issue permits. Commissioner Schumacher asked if all people have to come under the municipal code to obtain a permit. Bob Sangster stated yes. Commissioner Erskine stated that he felt the ordinance addressed what the City Council, the public and the Planning Commission has been looking for.. Commissioner Porter stated that he was against the ordinance stating that the conditional use permit should not run concurrently with the police permit, required by Chapters 5.70 and 5.24 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. He stated that the Municipal Code chapters referred to adequately regulate the operation.of massage parlors and there has been no indication that this code has been overturned in the courts thereby not making it applicable to the situation. Chairman Livengood stated that he agreed with Commissioner Porter and also stated that he did not want to exclude four operators who have been in business for several years with no complaints against them and he also stated that the four businesses should be grandfathered in. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-12 (ADULT ENTERTAINMENT) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Livengood, Porter ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED (2796d) -2- P.C. 6-18-85 Commissioner Porter motioned to approve Code Amendment No. 85-12 eliminating the sentence in Section 9752 tying the conditional use permit with the police permit and eliminating d & e in Section 9754.2. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she would be voting against the motion because she felt that the feeling of the community is that they do not want the massage parlors in the neighborhood commercial areas. She stated that staff came up with an ordinance with strict criteria that the community expressed they wanted in the past. Commissioner Erskine stated that he concurred with Commissioner Schumacher's comments and would also be voting against the motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-12 WITH PROVISIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher, Erskine ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-4 On June 4, 1985, the Planning Commission continued Coastal Development Permit No. 85-4, a request to construct a 105-unit condominium project on 3.07 acres of property on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between 12th and 13th Streets until the June 18, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. The Planning Commission directed Staff to transmit the approved plans (Conditional Use Permit No. 84-19 and Tentative Tract 12238) to the City Council in order to confirm that the project is consistent with Council's intent on the Downtown Specific Plan. A letter from Chairman Livengood has been transmitted to Council and a memo from James Palin to Charles Thompson has also been prepared (both of which are attached to this report). In addition, Staff met with the Attorney's office to discuss the actions which are appropriate for the Planning Commission to take on this project. The conclusion was that a final decision has been made on the entitlement request (Conditional Use Permit No. 84-19) and that Commission should only be making findings in relationship to the Coastal Development Permit (CDP No. 85-4). Staff has expanded the findings for approval from the previous staff report (June 4, 1985). City Attorney Bob Sangster stated that the conditional u$e permit was granted some time ago and the conditional use permit'is not the issue before you. He stated that this is not a rehearing of the conditional use permit, but strictly a consideration of the Coastal Development Permit under standards applicable to Coastal permit (2796d) -3- P.C: 6-18-85 applications. He stated that the standard by which you judge this t application is not what the density requirements or other requirements are,,but-_whether-the particular project meets the existing standards. Commissioner Livengood stated that he would like..to elaborate -on findings for approval number two as far as traffic''circulation and parking provided. THE POBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Frank,Mola, applicant, spoke in support of his project. He stated that --he has- been ­_Involved with this project since 1978 and has worked with staff -during this time in all aspects. He stated that he felt he has-me't all parking requirements but stated that the Commi'�sion should focus on the Coastal Act to which he has complied. James Smith-,-adjacent--property owner spoke in opposition of the project as far -as the. -.parking situation. Lance�Chaco spoke in,opposition to the project stating that the building was -to intense for.the,area-and the parking would not be adequate. Dick;Harlow,-representative of Mola, spoke in,support of the project stating that the_;project.meets all the-requirement-s-of,the Downtown area: There:were no other persons.to speak for or against the proposal and the, -public hearing was closed. Mike,A'dams of staff stated that not only were property owners within 300 feet of the project notified but also residents within 100 feet were notified;. Commissioner Rowe asked if the Commission was approving condominiums or apartments. He stated that he was not going to vote in favor of apartments. Commissioner Erskine+.expressed concern,that this., project was portrayed as a --condominium project and that Mola should continue with -.this: -concept.- Frank Mola stated.that.he has not changed anything in the project and that the project is still condominium s,tandar-d,,stating.it is the.same project the Commission approved before,,- Commissioner Schumacher asked why the project needed a Coastal,-•Development.permit.--Mike Adams of staff stated that there are findings that are unique -to the Coastal Development Permit process,that.need to be made. Commissioner'Schumacher stated that staff is telling us that because we approved the other two permits -based on -the Local, -Coastal Program that we cannot deny the Coastal Development Permit. Mike Adams stated that that was not the message staff meant -to get across. He stated that -you cannot deny the coastal development permit on issues which are more appropriate to the,conditional-use permit process. You can deny it on the fact that -you can not make the unique findings for a coastal development permit -approval. (2796d) -4- P.C. 6-18-85 L Commissioner Schumacher stated that when the conditional use permit was approved, the idea of the project was owner occupied not just a massive apartment building. She stated that she felt the density issue was reason enough to deny the coastal development permit stating that density is not just units but also the number of people who live in these units. Attorney Sangster stated in reference to the project being condominium versus apartments, under State law and the City's ordinance there is nothing that requires the owner or developer in this case to sell the condominiums. The fact that they are condominiums but are held by the owner for purposes of rental because of various marketing or financial consideration does not change the density. Chairman Livengood asked staff if view corridors are a concern in the Coastal Permit process. Attorney Sangster stated that visual and physical access are issues under the Coastal Act. Commissioner Erskine stated that the Commission needs to find reason to deny this project. Commissioner Erskine stated that he was prepared to make a motion on merits of the structure complying with the Downtown Specific Plan even though he stated he did not want it to become an apartment project. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that the Commission had a public hearing a year ago and we went over the Downtown Specific Plan at that time, and the public had an opportunity to provide input. He stated that the project has already received approval of a conditional use permit and he did not feel it was fair to the applicant to deny the opportunity to go ahead with the project now. Commissioner Rowe stated that his concern was it being presented as a condominium project and now being an apartment project and also the impact on neighborhood parking. Commissioner Porter stated that his concern with the conversion to apartment is that there is no commitment to the upkeep and he stated that he would be voting against the project. He stated that this should go to City Council to be resolved. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-4 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Schumacher, Porter ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED (2796d) -5- P.C. 6-18-85 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO DENY COASTAL PERMIT NO. 85-4 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter NOES: Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Commissioner Livengood changed his vote to denial in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to appeal the Commission Action. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. Although the proposed project can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan project, it will,be adversely impacted by additional on street parking. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-11 (TRACTS 11473, 11805) Applicant: Eric Mossman On June 4, 1985, the Planning Commission continued action on Conditional Use Permit No. 85-11 due to the length of the agenda. The staff recommendation for approval with findings and conditions remains unchanged from the June 4, 1985 staff report. Conditional Use Permit No. 85-11 is a request to amend previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. 82-3 to allow a reduction of side yard setbacks to an aggregate of 20 feet with a minimum of 8 feet on one side, and to allow the optional use of block walls through the project and an 8 foot soundwall on Edwards Street. The project is Country View Estates (Tracts 11473 and 11805) on the east side of Edwards Street, south of Ellis Avenue which was originally approved on April 7, 1982. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom Madden, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project. He addressed the consideration of a fence stating that he was concerned about the tract being open. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher expressed concern about the openness of the oil wells in this location. Tom Shaw of staff stated that there is a 100 foot set back for oil wells from residential but the presence of a fence would reduce this. (2796d) -6- P.C. 6-18-85 Commissioner Schumacher asked staff if oil wells within 100 feet from residential must be screened. Tom Shaw stated yes. Mike Adams of staff stated that all existing wells in this project area have a block wall around them as part of the project. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she hesitated to grant this request because in the future the city may not want this area walled in. She stated that she would like a condition that this application come back for review on the conditional use permit so we can maintain what we want out there. Mike Adams stated that upon any new entitlements in this area we will require a review of this conditional use permit. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-11 WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-11: 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 proposed reduction of side yard setbacks to an aggregate of 20 feet with a minimum of 8 feet on one side will not substantially reduce the open space feel of the project. 5. The proposed 8 foot sound wall on the western property line adjacent to Edwards Street is reasonable to mitigate vehicular noise along the arterial. (2796d) -7- P.C. 6-18-85 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, -OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-11: 1. Original Condition of Approval No. 16(b) (CUP 82-3) is amended to,read as follows: b. Side Yard Setbacks: An aggregate of 20 feet with a minimum of 8 feet on a side. 2. Original Condition of Approval No. 2 (CUP 82-3) is amended to include the following sentence at the end of the condition: "An 8 foot sound wall shall be permitted on the western property boundary adjacent to Edwards Street pursuant to design review by the Department of Development Services." 3. All other conditions previously approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 85-11 shall continue to apply. 4. Solid fencing will be allowed around the entire perimeter of the rear yards, provided that the fencing is of wood construction and such fencing is not constructed beyond the front facade of the house. All fencing shall be subject to an annual review and/or a review upon any other entitlement in the area. In addition, further review will be required on fencing upon the adoption of any specific plan, development standards or other zoning for the area. C-4 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-7/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.-85-21 Tait & Associates, Inc. Zone Change No. 85-7 is a request to add the service station suffix (Article 948) to the existing base zone of C4, Highway Commercial. The applicant intends to demolish the existing service station on the site and construct a new service station, the SS suffix is required in order to permit the new construction. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom Turner, Civil Engineer of the project, stated that the applicant planned on removing all of the facility and constructing a modern station and stated that the driveway would be best addressed when the applicant comes back with the specific plan. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter asked staff if the driveway located 100 feet north of the property line is going to be improved. Staff stated yes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-7 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-21 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None L MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. A change of zone from C4,"Highway Commercial District, to C4-SS, Highway Commercial 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 surrounding commercial uses. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-24/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12268/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-27/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-7/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-34 - "Palm Court" On June 4, 1985 the Planning Commission continued the subject applications at the request of the developer to allow time for revisions to the plans The subject request is for a mixed use development consisting of 205 senior apartment units, 30 assisted care units, 30 convalescent care units, 14,500 square feet retail commercial and 2,400 square feet office. Because the project is located in two distinct zoning districts, and is a mixed use project, there are several ways to analyze it for compliance with development standards. Staff used a formula arrived at by taking a proportional percentage of the site area in relationship to the zoning of either Oldtown Specific Plan District II or Downtown Specific Plan VI Access into the project will be from two locations: north end of Lake Street and the intersection of Atlanta and Orange Avenues. Lake Street is designed as a secondary arterial with a 90 foot right-of-way with a 7 foot sidewalk capable of accommodating 15,000 to 20,000 vehicle trips per day. Atlanta Avenue will be a major arterial (100 foot right-of-way) able to accommodate between 20,000-25,000 vehicle trips per day. It is anticipated that summer beach -traffic will use Atlanta Avenue. Tom Windfield, applicant, gave a slide show presentation and spoke in support of the project. He stated that he disagreed with the proposed reduction in the number of convalescent beds. Jim Eaton, President of Basic American Retirement Division of Basic Americal Incorporated Operators of the facility also gave an informational presentation on the project Commissioner Erskine asked what the estimated monthly charge was per room. Jim Eaton stated that the avera a was $1500 per month with all services and from low to high was 1100 to $1800 per month. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John M. Pratto, spoke in opposition to the project stating that the parking lot would be located in his back yard. He also stated that he was concerned about the high density next to R1 property. (2796d) -9- P.C. 6-18-85 Susan Pratto spoke in opposition to the project stating that she was concerned about guest and employee parking. She stated that there was no alotment for on or off parking. Dr. Morris Ehrlich stated that the project was ok but in the wrong location. He stated that it should be adjacent to a hospital. Mary Rose Skolyan spoke in opposition to the project stating that a four-story building was to high. Don Salven read letters submitted by citizens opposed to the project. He stated that the area should remain residential. Kenneth Skolyan spoke in opposition to the project stating that he was concerned about the use of the convalescent hospital and if it was going to be used only by the project's occupants. Steve Borren spoke in opposition to the project stating that he did not like the project and that it blocked several peoples view. E.T. Conlon spoke in'opposition to the project. He expressed concern whether the city would be reimbursed for closing part of Lake Street. Kay Seraphine spoke in opposition to the project. She stated that the density was to high and there would be an impact'on parking. Dennis McGood the project isolated spoke in opposition to the Alabama Street from project. He stated that the Downtown area. Michael Roger, President of the Senior Citizens, spoke in support of the project. He stated that the elderly would appreciate a project like this. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. The Commission discussed parking ratio. Commissioner Porter requested something more specific to the age of the tenants. Staff stated that they would state a specific minimum age in a condition. Commissioner Erskine questioned the amount of traffic for quest visits. Howard Zelefsky stated this information was discussed in the Negative Declaration. Chairman Livengood asked the applicant about the 25 employee parking spaces provided. Terry Tornek, representative for the applicant, stated that there are 49 full-time employees, but only half will use parking due to shifts, salary and types of jobs available. Commissioner Schumacher questioned how many units were allowed on site and the impact of a density bonus. Mike Adams of staff stated 136 were allowed by code with a minimum of 170 with a density bonus. Commissioner Livengood stated that he could not support this project due to the fact that the building was too intense. He asked staff what will happen in the future years if this project is a disaster and it folds; is there any guarantee that this project will always be a senior (2796d) -10- P.C. 6-18-85 citizen project. Mike Adams of staff stated that a minimum age as a condition could provide that assurance. Chairman Livengood asked staff what would happen if they rented to people under the age requirement. Mike Adams stated that they could have their conditional use permit revoked. Commissioner Erskine suggested continuance in order to provide the Commission an opportunity to review public testimony and concerns of the Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-24/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12268/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-27/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-7/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-34 - "Palm Court" TO THE JULY 2, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-23 Timothy Woodson and Steve Hall Conditional Use Permit No. 85-23 is a request to establish a wholesale nursery on a 2.83 acre vacant site owned by the City of Huntington Beach. The subject property is approximately 250 feet north of Adams Avenue adjacent to the west side of the Santa Ana River and within an R1, Single Family Residential district. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mary Murietta, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the City's use of the land stating that the area should be cleaned up before it is used. Ron Ferri also spoke in opposition in regards to the City dumping waste there and the truck traffic. John Owen spoke in opposition to the project stating that his back yard easily floods and he feels that the nursery will worsen the problem due to watering every day. Steve Hall and Timothy Woodson, applicants, spoke in support of the project. They stated that they would not be watering on a daily basis and also the plants are in containers. They also stated that the truck usage was limited. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood asked staff what had come before the Commission concerning this area. Mike Adams of staff stated that they had approved a similar project adjacent to this location and that this project was an expansion of that previous approval. (2796d) -11- P.C. 6-18-85 Commissioner Frskine asked staff what the additional operation would be. Mike Adams of staff stated expansion would provide additional growing space. Commissioner Erskine asked what,the major concern of the public was. Ron Ferri, public speaker, stated that the concern of the neighbors was the mess left there and the truck traffic. Commissioner ERskine stated that -the applicant would -,eliminate these problems. Ron Ferri stated that the City dumps trash there. He stated that he would support the project if the city would clean up the area. The Commission asked for staff's reaction. Mike Adams of staff stated that this area is used for dumping and he would have to check with Public Works. Commissioner Porter requested that a condition be made stating that prior to the issuance of permits the land owner shall clean up the debris, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-23 WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchel1 ABSTAIN: None MOTIONED PASSED Findings for Approval: 1. The proposed nursery is compatible with existing uses in the vicinity because it is small scale and for wholesale purpose only. 2. The conditions of approval will assure that the proposed nursery will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing in the neighborhood, nor be detrimental to, -the value of the -property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. The..proposed-nursery is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed use will not create undue traffic problems because the use is wholesale and not open to the public. Conditions of Approval: 1. The conceptual site plan dated -June 13, 1985, shall be the - approved layout. 2. The greenhouse shall be setback at least 20 feet from the westerly block wall and shall not exceed 15 feet in height open on all sides. (2796d) -12- P.C. 6-18-85 3. The site and access road shall be maintained with gravel ground cover or other suitable material to control dirt and dust. a. An asphalt paved driveway transition from the driveway apron to a distance and width to the satisfaction and specifications of the Public Works Department. 4. All soil amendments or planting mix material shall be kept damp as to not blow onto adjacent properties. All such material shall not be stacked over a height of six (6) feet and shall not be stored within 20 feet of the westerly or northerly property lines. 5. The taller and larger plant materials shall not be stored within twenty (20) feet of the residential properties to the west. Lower growing trees and shrubs only shall be permitted within 20 feet of these residential properties, shall be no higher than one (1) foot lower than the top of existing block wall. 6. Chemical spraying of plant materials is prohibited. Plant watering shall be done in such a manner to prevent water from flowing into the residential area. 7. There shall be no activity, nor deliveries, including maintenance, between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. on weekdays, excluding holidays. On weekends or holidays, there shall be no activity whatsoever other than general maintenance. a. No retail activity or sales to the public shall take place on the property. 8. All vehicles operating within the nursery shall not exceed speeds of ten (10) miles per hour. 9. Outside phone alarms, intercoms, and loudspeakers are prohibited. 10. Any yard lighting proposed shall be directed away from adjacent residential properties. 11. Any proposed signing shall conform to Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 12. Proposed portable and permanent office and storage buildings (including storage bins) shall be located within fifty (50) feet from the east property line, and subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. 13. All chemicals used or stored at the subject site shall be approved by the Orange County Agricultural Department, as required by law. (2796d) -13- P.C. 6-18-85 14. The applicant shall submit a grading/drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, prior to any grading operation or change of drainage. 15. This.Conditional Use Permit is subject to annual review. An violation of the conditions of this -report or applicable zoning laws may be cause for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. 16. Prior to issuance of building permits, the land owner shall remove all debris from the site. In addition, a written report shall be submitted to the Planning Commission from the Director of Public Works with regard to the operations on this site. C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-24/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-45/ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-14/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-28 Applicant: Shell Oil Company Zone Change No. 84-14 is a request to change the zone from C4 to C4-SS as required by Article 948 recently amended by Code Amendment No. 84-21. Conditional Use Permit No. 84-24 is a request to establish a convenience market with gasoline sales and car wash pursuant to S.9430.8(b) and S.9481.3. Conditional Exception No. 84-45 is a request to permit a reduction of on -site parking pursuant to S. 9430.8.2(a). A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-24/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-45/ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-14/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-28 TO THE JULY 16, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood,'Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell - Rowe and Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-8 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-11 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Applicant: City of Huntington Beach On April 16, 1985, the Planning Commission directed staff to initiate a code amendment covering the areas of concern outlined by the ad -hoc committee on the Board of Zoning -'Adjustments. The general changes are to the Board's make-up,'areas of responsibility, and noticing procedures. It should be noted that since the Board of Zoning Adjustments is mentioned throughout Division 9, the process of changing over various uses and the applications they require will have to be a gradual one. Article 981 will be revised as part of this code amendment. As staff proceeds in revising and rewriting other code sections, including eac district's regulations, the changes can be incorporated and adopted. (2796d) -14- P.C. 6-18-85 A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-11 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell - Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-9 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-13/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-23/LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR ADULT DANCING FACILITIES Applicant: The City of Huntington Beach On May 22, 1985 the Planning Commission continued action on Code Amendment No. 85-13 in order to permit staff additional time to clarify and amend the proposed locational criteria. The Planning Commission requested that staff initiate a code amendment to add locational criteria to adult dancing, live entertainment, and discotheques within the C21 Community Business District; C4, Highway Commercial District; North Huntington Center Specific Plan; and Seabridge Specific Plan. Code Amendment No. 85-13 is in response to the public nuisances created by a number of existing adult discotheques and night clubs located adjacent to residential areas. These problems include littering, vehicles speeding in the parking lots, and loud and boisterous patrons. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-13/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-23/LOCATIONAL CRITERIA FOR ADULT DANCING FACILITIES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell - Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-10 USE PERMIT NO. 85-10/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-19 REFERRED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Applicant: Ron Lingenfelter Use Permit No. 85-19 is a request to expand a retail commercial business with take-out food service to a full restaurant pursuant to S.4.2.01. Conditional Exception No. 85-19 is a request to deviate from setbacks, landscaping, and parking as required by S.4.2.01(d) and S.4.7 et seq of the Downtown Specific Plan. After several unsuccessful attempts by the applicant to secure additional off -site parking, these applications were referred by the Board of Zoning h Adjustments to the Planning Commission. (2796d) -15- P.C. 6-18-85 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE USE PERMIT NO. 85-10/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-19 REFERRED BY THE BOAR OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BY THE FOLLOWING VOT AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 SATELLITE DISH'ANTENNA REGULATIONS Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 85-1 proposes to establish a new definition and add provisions to,regulate the installation of satellite dish antennas. At the present time, any rooftop satellite dish antenna is subject to Section 9730.20 which requires screening from the public right-of-way and to Section 9730 which governs maximum height for rooftop mechanical equipment. As a department policy, when installed detached from a building, satellite dish antennas are considered to be accessory structures and are limited to setbacks and height of accessory structures. Some zoning districts do not have separate standards for accessory structures; therefore, in these cases the base zone height and setbacks apply. The proposed code amendment has been drafted to restrict an integrate commercial or industrial center to only one satellite dish antenna pep center. The Planning Commission may wish to consider a revision to allow one antenna per business if all general provisions can be satisfied. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA REGULATIONS DUE TO THE LATE HOUR BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell - Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. Items not for public hearing: E. Discussion Items: None F. Pending Items F-1 Pending Items List Chairman Livengood requested staff to explore a new state law for vesting or tentative maps. (2796d) -16- P.C. 6-18-85 LJ Commissioner Erskine requested that staff investigate 17013 Edgewater Street in regards to debris in the dock area. Commissioner Erskine also asked staff to see if there was any response to a letter written to Bob Williams of Americal Golf from Max Boxman in Community Services in regards to golf balls coming onto Warner and Heil. G. Planning Commission Items: None H. Development Services Items: None I. Adjournment The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:15 a.m. to the next regular meeting of July 2, 1985. Tom Live• g od, Ch irma (2796d) -17- P.C. 6-18-85