Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-16APPROVED AUGUST 5, 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Winchell CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on June 18, 1985. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE THE JUNE 18, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DUE TO CORRECTIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-2 Extensions of Tentative Tract Map No. 11417 (Revised) Applicant: Mansion Properties/Urban West Communities Request: An extension of time on the tentative tract map in order to complete the 4th. and 5th. final tract maps for the Ranch project which is located on the southwest corner of Main Street and Clay Avenue. ' A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11417 (REVISED) WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, -Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 83-21 and Tentative Tract No. 11417 (Revised) shall remain in effect. 2. The project shall be subject to current park and recreation fees (Resolution No. 5072). A-3 General Plan Conformity 85-4 Applicant: Public Works ,Request: Street vacation of Los Patos between Sims & Lynn Streets A-4 General Plan Conformity 85-5 Applicant: Public Works Request: Street vacation north side of McFadden Avenue west of the 405 Freeway. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY 85-4 AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY 85-5 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Tony Canzoneri, representing BWC/Vanderwood "Palm Court", requested that the Commission discuss the conditions set forth in the July 2, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting regarding conditions number 20 & 29. He also wanted to review Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 85-2 number (la) stating that (lf) should be incorporated into (la) as an alternative. The Commission requested staff to review the tapes before this item is brought before the City Council to reflect the true intent of the Planning Commission. C. ITEMS FOR PUBLIC HEARING C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-26/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-11 Applicant: Nan Patel At the Planning Commission meeting of July 2, 1985, the Commission continued Conditional Use Permit No. 85-26, a request to construct a 52-unit motel with a Special Permit, and requested that the applicant submit a revised plan showing the driveway ramp to the subterranean parking with access from 8th Street instead of the alley, and provide additional information regarding the feasibility of consolidating and integrating the adjacent 50 foot wide lot with the motel development parcel. P.C. 7-16-85 -2- (2947d) Staff has reviewed the revised plan and feels it is now a more efficient site layout of circulation and structure design. The subterranean parking has been revised to provide a loop system for better circulation. Intense landscaping is being recommended in the front setback because the ramp encroachment eliminated a portion of the front landscaped area. The Public Works Department reviewed the •revised plan and recommends approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron Pattinson, Development Consultant hired by Mr. Patel, stated he was not available to attend the last Planning Commission Meeting. He said the applicant concurred with all the conditions except condition no. 4, which requests the applicant to make an effort to consolidate the hotel development with the adjacent 50 foot lot. He further indicated that Mr. --Patel is not able to afford this property. Mr. Pattinson said he had contacted the owner of the property, Mr. Vasterline, to make an offer on the property. Mr. Vasterline proposed a price of $380,000. Mr. Pattinson made Mr. Vasterline an offer of $200,000 which Mr. Vasterline rejected. Simon Lee, architect, spoke in support of the project. He supports the changes staff had recommended. Mr. Vasterline, owner of the adjacent 50 foot lot, in responding to Mr. Pattinson said the matter of the price of the property was up for negotiation. He commented on the two oil wells located on the property stating that one of them was able to be put into production. He stated that his intentions are to reactivate the well. He requested that if this project is approved, a mutual ramp between his property and the project proposed be developed for future development of his 50 foot lot. Commissioner Porter asked Mr. Vasterline about the oil well production on his property. Has he any type of an agreement with an oil well company to put the wells back into production. Mr. Vasterline stated no, but has 100% of the mineral rights to the property. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Erskine quiried staff in regards to Mr. Pattinson's testimony, should the offer made to Mr. Vasterline for the purchase of his property be submitted in written form. Bob Sangster responded that some kind of document in writing would be better for negotiation. Commissioner Schumacher asked what if the property owner never responded to an offer, concluding there would be no way for the applicant to respond to the condition. P.C. 7-16-85 -3- (2947d) The Commission discussed requiring a timeline within which to make and return an offer. Commissioner Schumacher stated that a person cannot be forced to respond. Chairman Livengood suggested that a number of days should be given for a response and if there is none let the project stand as submitted. Commissioner Rowe said there should be a strong effort to consolidate the parcels. He stated condition No. 4 should stand,as a condition of approval. Commissioner Porter stated that he liked the project but not the fact that it leaves a substandard and undevelopable lot. He agreed the two lots should be consolidated. Commissioner Mirjahangir disagreed, stating that the applicant should not be forced to buy this expensive piece of property. Chairman Livengood stated that condition No. 4 was fair to both the applicant and the owner of the 50 foot parcel. He suggested that condition No. 4 be reworded to require an offer of a fair price and if the seller does not take the offer to let the applicant go ahead and build. Commissioner Schumacher suggested that Mr. Vasterline and the applicant get together to come to an agreement. Commissioner Erskine agreed with Commissioner Schumacher, but added that unless a written offer is required and the Commission receives evidence of what that offer was, the Commission does not have any basis upon which to decide. He added the item should either be denied or continued until such has been provided. Commissioner Schumacher agreed to continue to give the applicant time to make an offer. She also felt the lots should be consolidated. Attorney Sangster stated that if this item is continued the applicant should come back with all documents regarding escrows dealing with this lot. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-26/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-11 TO THE AUGUST 5, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P.C. 7-16-85 -4- (2947d) C-2 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12410/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-18 Applicant: Casa Linda Development Co. Tentative Tract No. 12410, in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 85-20 and Negative Declaration No. 85-18 „ is a request for a one lot subdivision on a 1.16 acre site for the purpose of constructing 20 airspace townhomes located on the south side of Warner Avenue west of Lynn Street. The applicant is seeking two special permit requests for the development of the project: reduction in turning radius from 25 feet to 24 feet (Section 9791d), and reduction in building separation for units side by side from 20 feet to 16 feet (Section 9362.7d). On July 2, 1985, the Planning Commission continued the subject request due to the length of the agenda. The applicant has requested in a letter to the Planning Commission requesting that this item be continued until the August 5, 1985 meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12410/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-18 TO THE AUGUST 5, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-8/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-25/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-26 Applicant: Huntington Beach Company The above entitlements are a request to rezone R2 PD-O-CZ to ROS-O-CZ and to permit 6 tennis courts with setback encroachments. Staff has determined that a coastal development permit will be required in conjunction with the subject request. Therefore, staff recommended that this item be continued to the August 5, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVFNGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-8/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-25/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-26 TO THE AUGUST 5, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED P.C. 7-16-85 -5- (2947d) C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-29/ESTABLISHMENT OF MASSAGE THERAPY Applicant: Roland T. Clark Jr. Town & Country Spa located at 18582 Beach Boulevard was rendered a non -conforming use on November 6, 1981 when the City Council adopted a zoning ordinance (Article 975 - Adult Entertainment Businesses) which established locational criteria for spas and massage parlors. The request is to close Town & Country Spa and open a new massage therapy business under a new name in a location which meets the locational criteria contained in Article 975 and to obtain the required Conditional Use Permit. At the applicant's request, Conditional Use Permit No. 85-28 was continued from the July 2, 1985 Planning Commission meeting to the July 16 meeting. Chairman Livengood read a letter from Stephan J. Dodge, Vice President, Huntington Capital Corp., General Partner, Huntington Executive Park, advising the Planning Commission that the Huntington Executive Park would not execute a lease for office space with Mr. Roland T. Clark for purposes of a massage therapy and/or classrooms for teaching massage therapy. Chairman Livengood requested legal input. Bob Sangster, Attorney, stated that it sounded like.a withdrawal of application. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dr. Jacobs, Orthodontist in the center, stated that he was against the use. He and several others had requested that the lease holder withdraw his consent. He stated that the center is a very quiet family oriented center. He concluded that these types of projects tend to attract undesirable persons to the center. Jave Eagle spoke in opposition to the use. He too felt it was a family oriented business center. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood questioned that since the City Council did not act on the recent definition for family oriented control does the Planning Commission have any control. Hal Simmons of staff replied that there is no such ordinance defining family oriented uses but that the Commission could make such a finding. Commissioner Schumacher questioned why the massage parlors are not shut down if there have been arrest records. P.C. 7-16-85 -6- (2947d) Hal Simmons of staff indicated the police had no problems with the relocation of the business. Commissioner Schumacher requested in the future if an establishment wants to relocate, staff list any arrests that have been made in said establishment. She requested that a more complete background check be given on these types of establishments. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-29 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES:, None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. The proposed project will have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 2 The proposed project will be detrimental or injurious to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed project will have an adverse impact on surrounding businesses or land uses. C-5 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-10/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-24 Applicant: Thomas Jacobs The applicant's request is for the development of seven single family dwellings on seven lots at the southwest corner of loth. Street and Walnut Avenue. The Conditional Exception request is to waive the requirement of a 2.5 foot alley dedication on the south side of the property. The zoning designation is Downtown Specific Plan, District Two. The specific plan permits residential uses in District Two subject to a Site Plan Review. Site Plan Reviews are to be approved by the Planning Commission. Jeanine Frank of staff stated that only the Conditional Exception was before the Commission. The applicant requested a continuance of the Site Plan -Review. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Thomas Jacobs stated that he has requested continuance of the Site Plan Review. He stated that he was aware of the concerns of the Planning Commission and he was working on up -grading the proposed units. He needs the Commission to review the Conditional Exception before the site plan is reviewed because the Conditional Exception is essential to the design feature of the project. P.C. 7-16-85 -7- (2947d) There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood stated that based on the testimony and discussion he would be supporting staff recommendation. Commissioner Schumacher agreed with Chairman Livengood indicating that the alley is there to accommodate traffic when the downtown area is fully developed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-24 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-24: 1. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classification. 2. The granting of the conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights since the proposed project can be redesigned to eliminate the need for the conditional exception. 3. The granting of the conditional exception will be materially detrimental to public health, safety and welfare and injurious to the conforming land, property, or improvements in the neighborhood. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY -PORTER TO CONTINUE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-10 TO AUGUST 5, 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. 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). P.C. 7-16-85 -8- (2947d) On June 18, 1985 the Planning Commission continued action on Conditional Use Permit No. 84-24, Conditional Exception No. 84-45, Zone Change No. 84-14, and Negative Declaration No. 84-28 due to the length of the agenda. Staff requested that the Planning Commission act only on the Zone Change and the Negative Declaration and continue the Conditional Use Permit and the Conditional Exception to the August 5, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Steve Hogie, representing Shell Oil Company, stated that he would like the Commission to act on the Zone Change and the Negative Declaration but stated if the Commission would prefer to continue all the items that would be fine. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood asked staff if they recommended the Commission take action on the Zone Change and the Negative Declaration. Florence Webb of staff stated that this decision was up to the Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-28 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe-, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-14 WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-14: 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 on two of the three remaining corners. P.C. 7-16-85 -9- (2947d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-24/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-45 TO T AUGUST 51 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-24 Applicant: Dr. Naito and Ted Gregory The request is to permit overnight hospitalization facilities in an animal clinic located at 714 Adams Suites 101 and 102. Animal clinics are allowed by right in the C2 zoning district. Overnight care facilities require approval of a conditional Use Permit. The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301(a) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ted Gregory, applicant, spoke in support of the project and handed out an Acoustical Impact Report. Chairman Livengood asked Mr. Gregory it he s supportive of the recommendations in the report. Mr. Gregory answere n the affirmative. Carl McConnell, an adjacent property owner, stated that he was concerned about the noise from the animals. Peter Gagner, an adjacent property owner, was also concerned about the noise. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter was concerned about an item that was not mentioned in the staff report with regard to discarding surgical by-products which could create an undesirable situation. He felt the Commission need to address the area of procedure for disposal of veterinary medical wastes. Commissioner Schumacher added that this was also one of her concerns. She stated that most of these facilities have outside dog runs. There was no such indication in this facility. She stated concern about the overnight keeping of animals. Dr. Naito, the veterinarian for the clinic, responded that the animals would only be there as long as they are ill or recover from surgery. stated that the surgical waste would be .treated just the same as other hospitals do. It does not go down the sewer, it is double bagged and placed in the commercial trash container. P.C. 7-16-85 -10- (2947d) Chairman Livengood requested the Commission make comments on the Acoustical Report. He asked staff if this report could be incorporate-d, into the conditions of approval. Jeanine Frank of staff stated she would recommend such. The Commission could add a condition that no animal runs be allowed on this facility. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-24 WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 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. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Sound attenuation measures as outlined in acoustical engineers report. 2. The applicant shall submit a report by a licensed acoustical engineer outlining measures which will attenuate any noise from the overnight hospitalization facilities. The recommendations in the report shall be incorporated in the design of the facility. 3. The Acoustical Report shall be reviewed by the County Noise Control officer for adequacy. 4. There shall be no outdoor runs. 5. Overnight facilities shall be for hospitilization purposes only; no boarding of animals shall be allowed. P.C. 7-16-85 -11- (2947d) 6. The Planning Commission shall review the conditional use permit in one year to evaluate compliance with the conditions of approval and ascertain whether any problems of compatibility with neighboring residential uses exist. C-8 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-4 Applicant: Superior Electrical Special Sign Permit No. 85-4 is a request to add approximately 72 square feet of sign area to an existing 33 foot high non -conforming internally illuminated freestanding sign located in the Marshall's Shopping Center at 16672 Beach Boulevard. The sign is located approximately 60 feet back from the front property line. The sign has approximately 195 square feet of sign area and is located in a landscaped area.• The applicant has initiated a special sign permit because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 976, Sign Code. Pursuant to Section 15311, Class 11(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Law and Guidelines 1984, the proposed project is categorically exempt. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mark Frank, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the alternative action for approval from staff, but requested to add sign copy to accommodate the word "Paint". There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-4 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed addition of 72 square feet of sign area to the existing 33 foot high freestanding sign may adversely affect other signs in the area. 2. The proposed addition of the square feet of sign area to the existing 33 foot high freestanding sign may be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such sign. 3. The proposed addition would result in the expansion of a 'non -conforming sign. P.C. 7-16-85 -12- (2947d) C 4. The addition of this sign does not serve to enhance the street scene on Beach Blvd. C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-32/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-31/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-9 Applicant: Chandulal K. Patel The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing abandoned eight unit motel and the construction of a three story, 21 unit motel on the property located at 16222 Pacific Coast Highway. The conditional exception is to permit the construction of the motel on a substandard size lot and to permit a reduction in the required vehicle turning radius from twenty-seven to twenty-five feet. The zoning is Visitor -Serving Commercial, which lists hotels and motels as permitted uses subject to approval of a conditional use permit and pursuant to the standards for such uses contained in the C4 District (Article 947). Section 9471.1 requires a minimum seventy (70) foot frontage for hotels and motels. The site proposed for the use is sixty-three (63) feet in width. Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-29 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued for the project. Prior to any action, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 84-29. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Thomas Ore, property owner, stated in his estimation a motel would be the best use for this property. The problems with the turning radius, parking, and the facade of the building can be worked in a very short time. He stated that if there were any other problems, he would like input from the Commission. Chandulal Patel, applicant, spoke in support of the project Victor Patel, designer of the project, spoke in support of the project. Jerry Rogers, representing the seller of the property, stated that the parking problem could be solved. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood stated that based on the public testimony, the Commission should continue this for two weeks. He stated he would like staff and the applicant to work on this and come back with an appropriate parking solution. Commissioner Erskine felt the project should be down scaled with regard to number of units. He also requested revision of the architecture. P.C. 7-16-85 -13- (2947d) Commissioner Rowe felt the use was too dense. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-32/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-31/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-9 TO THE AUGUST 5, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE' FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:- Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-10 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-22/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-32 (APPEAL OF BZA APPROVAL) Applicant: John Gray/O.K. Earl Corp. Administrative Review No. 85-22 is a request to construct a 90,000 square foot mini -warehouse and relocate 4,400 square feet of an existing building pursuant to Article 953 located at 7531 McFadden Ave. Conditional Exception No. 85-32 is a request to allow a portion of the relocated building to encroach 8 feet into the required front yard (5.9530.06) and to permit a reduction in planter width adjacent to a landscaped bank adjacent to McFadden Avenue (5.9792.3). Planning Commissioner Porter has challenged this approval by the Board of Zoning Adjustments initiating an appeal to the Planning Commission. Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-25 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued On June 26, 1985, the Board of Zoning Adjustments adopted Negative Declaration No. 85-25. No further action is necessary. Florence Webb of staff stated that Redevelopment staff requested that this item be continued until August 5, 1985 for further investigation. Commissioner Porter asked staff if this property was located within the Huntington Center Redevelopment project area. Florence Webb indicated yes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Don Gardner, Developer, stated that during this project he has agreed to reduce his project due to easement problems. He stated that since then the city has required him to supply two driveways, it would crest a hardship to reduce his buildings further Charles Noble, broker representing the seller Don Gardner, stated that the transactions Mr. Gardner outlined in his public testimony has caused a great deal of loss. P.C. 7-16-85 -14- (2947d) There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter questioned the applicant about the use of the westerly portion of the property. Mr. Gardner answered that he did not own this portion and did not propose to buy it. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she would be voting no because the project was too premature in relation to efforts in realigning Gothard Street and in light of the Traffic Engineer's report on the subject. Chairman Livengood stated that he was going to vote against the project as he was very concerned about the traffic. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-22/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-32 WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: MOTION FAILED Due to the tie vote, Administrative Review No. 85-22/Conditional Exception No. 85-32 was automatically continued to the August 5, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. C-11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-13 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 integrated commercial or industrial center to only one satellite dish antenna per center. Recently, the City received a communication advising FCC's (Federal Communications Commission) intent to preempt local zoning authority. From the text of the memo, the City may be exempt since the community's cable system was permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to S.9332(m), unclassified use to allow radio or television transmitters. P.C. 7-16-85 -15- (2947d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood asked staff if there were any items that should be incorporated from Newport City or Anaheim City ordinances. Florence Webb of staff stated that the City of Huntington Beach is modeled after the City of San Clemente's ordinance. Commissioner Porter stated that the definition of antenna dish was not spherical but parabolical and suggested the word "curved" replace the word "spherical." A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-13 WITH AMENDED WORDING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell - Schumacher out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-12 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-6/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-41 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Zone Change No. 85-6 would remove the "0" suffix zoning from two oil operation sites that each contain a single pumping unit which has been classified as "non -producing" located at 202 10th Street and 310 22nd Street. Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 84-41 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Zone Change No. 85-6, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 84-41. There were no persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the ,public hearing was opened and closed. Chairman Livengood asked staff if one of the wells was producing oil. Jeanine Frank of staff stated that the well located on 202 loth Street was producing the required amount of oil. P.C. 7-16-85 -16- 1 (2947d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE 202 LOTH STREET AND CONTINUE 310 22ND STREET TO THE AUGUST 5, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: E-1 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposed precise plan of street alignment for reasonable access to landlocked parcels located 200 feet west of Green Street and 100 feet north of Los Patos. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO ADVERTISE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ALTERNATIVE #2 AS REVISED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALTERNATIVE #4 OF THE PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT LOCATED WEST OF GREEN AND NORTH OF LOS PATOS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Staff read a letter submitted by Patrick Isom and Ronald Lingenfelter, doing business as Spudley's, requesting the Commission to reconsider the conditions set forth in the July 2, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting due to the fact that the applicant missed the appeal date. The Planning Commission stated that the conditions recommended were the conditions incorporated and approved. There was no motion for reconsideration. The request was denied. E-2 DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS Florence Webb of staff requested the Planning Commission to review the Downtown Design Guidelines for Public and Private Improvements to schedule a study session for August 5, 1985 at 6:00 p.m.. Commissioner Erskine expressed concern about the wording of "Contemporary Mediterrean" which staff stated would be discussed at the Study Session. P.C. 7-16-85 -17- (2947d) F. PENDING ITEMS: Commissioner Schumacher requested that the situation regarding the stables on Goldenwest be placed back on the Pending Items List due to additional stables being installed there. Chairman Livengood stated that he would like staff to investigate the Foreign Car Repair business located at the corner of Warner and Bolsa Avenues due to unsightly and dangerous dirt piles located in the front. Commissioner Erskine asked staff to investigate if it was legal for gas stations to charge money for the use of water and air. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken by the City Council at its most recent meeting for the information of the Commission. I. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:45 p.m. to a Study Session and regular meeting on August 5, 1985 at 6:00 p.m. 1 Tom Liven ood, C irm n P.C. 7-16-85 -18- (2947d)