Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-15APPROVED NOVEMBER 5, 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California r TUESDAY, nrTnRRR 1S, lgRS - 7-nn P M COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes September 17, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Schumacher MOTION PASSED Minutes October 1, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 1, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MFFTING MINUTES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman-Livengood commented on the report submitted by staff on the Oktoberfest. Florence Webb of staff went over the five incidents that occurred between the dates of October 11 - 13. Chairman Livengood asked staff if the Police Department was going to do anything about all these incidents. Florence Webb stated that this was not unusual for the Oktoberfest. Commissioner Erskine handed out a Planners Brouchure to the Planning Commission which depicted before and after renderings of redevelopment in shopping center areas. He felt that this would give the Commissioners food for thought on the problem with the sign at Five Points Shopping Center. He recommended that staff further research and propose to the owner of Five Points Shopping Center to remove the sign that they have there in exchange for a low-level sign as a trade off allowing some sort of sign in the green median area next to Dennys'where Beach Boulevard hits Main Street. He suggested a•combination public sign pointed the way to,City Hall and the police station and direction towards Five Po,ints,Shopping . Center. He requested that staff look into this and come back with suggestions. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO RESEARCH ALTERNATIVES FOR,THE•FIVE•POINTS SHOPPING CENTER SIGN LOCATED AT BEACH BOULEVARD AND MAINISTREET BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None „ MOTION PASSED Chairman Livengood reminded City Council three weeks staff of the joint ago.regarding Housing study session with and asked if had a target date back -on the,�Pousing Survey. staff Florence Webb of staff answered that staff is in the process of working on it now and estimate to complete the survey in 4 to 6 weeks. Arlene Howard of 9,17 10th,street, requested that an evaluation of rezoning be considered in•the upper downtown area of the Townlot Specific Plan Area 1 due to. -requests for development of apartment projects near her home., This issue was brought to Mrs. Howard's attention when Conditional Exception No. 85-66 was considered and then denied by the Board of zoning Adjustments. She feels these types of uses will degrade the neighborhood. The Planning Commission directed that a study,and a report be prepared. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-35 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-64/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-262/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-43 Applicant: Coastal Properties Ltd. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -2- (3559d) Request a creation of a one lot sub -division and construction of a three unit condominium project. The conditional exception is to permit the elimination of two required guest parking spaces. The special permit is a request to permit a reduction in size and width of the private open space for Unit C and a reduction in the required third story setback from the second floor facade from 10 feet to 6 feet. On October 1, 1985, the Planning Commission voted to continued the proposed project until October 15, 1985 at the applicant's request. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-43 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 the proposed project, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 85-43. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-35 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-64/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-262/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-43 TO THE NOVEMBER 5, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE TO BE ALLOWED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIn None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, C-2 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-7/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-47/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-11 Applicant: John F. Swint The applicant is proposing to construct manager's apartment on a 50 by 286 foot the west side of Beach Boulevard between Avenues. The applicant is requesting a permit a motel on a 50 foot wide lot in permit a 1.5 foot encroachment into the setback on the south side of the lot and the required 5 foot side yard setback on and for a reduced amount of landscaping, of required 8%. a 19 unit motel with a lot in the C4 district on Ellis and Garfield conditional exception to lieu of required 70 feet, to required 5 foot side yard a 5 foot encroachment into the north side of the lot, providing 6.5% in lieu P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -3- (3559d) This item was continued at the Planning,Commission meeting of September 17, 1985, at the applicant's request. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-11 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. However, if the Commission.is of-,a.mind,t4 deny the project, then the negative declaration should not be approved. Prior to any action on , Conditional Exception No. 85-47, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 85-11. John F. Swint requested that this item be continued pending litigation in the courts. Attorney Sangster requested staff to obtain a waiver from the applicant to waive the Mandatory Processing Date as soon as possible. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was opened. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD-AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO TABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 85-7/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-47/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-11 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-43 Applicant: West Orange''County YMCA This item was continued from the meeting of October 1, 1985 due to the -lack of proper public notice to the surrounding property owners. The applicant is requesting approval to operate a pre-school at the closed Meadow View School at 5720 Clark Drive, which is west of Springdale Street and south of Edinger Avenue. The pre-school is proposed for Rooms K1 and K2 which total approximately 1,690 square feet in area. Forty-nine children between the ages of 2 to '12 years old are proposed to be accommodated in the facility. Section 9331(c) lists private, schools as an unclassified use permitted in any district except Al, SP-1 and Sl subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. 1 P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -4- (3559d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ben Borkaman, 16266 Byrdie Lane, expressed concern about the day care activity stating that the facility is and has been in operation. Marie Micknay, applicant, spoke in support of the project adding that she was not aware they needed a conditional use permit. She also stated she has had this day care center for the past four years. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher question staff why the applicant proposed to enroll forty-nine children from 2 to 12 if the day-care center was classified as a pre-school. Florence Webb of staff responded that the children of pre-school age attended all day and the school age children attended before and after school and on holidays only. Marie Micknay added that the use was primarily pre-school and is classified a pre-school by the State even though they have older children later in the day, adding they wanted to cover all age groups for special events. Commissioner Winchell asked for verification of the maximum number of children was still 49 even if the ages were mixed. Marie Micknay, applicant, responded yes. Commissioner Winchell asked if the School District would be responsible for the maintenance of the school site. Marie Micknay, applicant, stated yes. Commissioner Erskine asked have there been any previous complaints on the operation of the day-care center. Florence Webb of staff answered no. The Commission discussed the impacts of older children attending the pre-school with younger children. Commissioner Porter requested the exact times the older children would use the facility be listed in the conditions of approval, feeling they may cause problems within the neighborhood. Commissioner Erskine suggested adding a condition to monitor the impact of school age children mixed with pre-school children and traffic impacts for a period of six months. The Commission requested that staff contact Oceanview and Fountain Valley School Districts as to what other activities are on -going at these sites. A MOTION WAS MADE BY FRSKINE AND SECOND P.Y WINCHELL TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-43 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -5- (3559d) AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the pre-school will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the property was originally developed as a school site. 3. The proposed pre-school is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed pre-school will not create any undue traffic problems. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: l.- The site plan, received and dated August 27, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. This conditional use permit shall apply to Rooms K1 and K2 only. Any expansion in area of the pre-school shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 4. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum enrollment of forty-nine children. Any expansion in number shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 5. A chain link fence enclosing the school's play area shall be installed prior to the initiation of the use. 6. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 7. The school shall operate between the hours of 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM only. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -6- (3559d) 8. A six months review of traffic impact on the neighborhood will be conducted by the City staff. 9. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. 10. All signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services. 11. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. 12. Staff shall monitor the impact of school age children occupying the subject property for a 6 month period and report back to the Planning Commission with results. C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-44 Applicant: West Orange County YMCA This item was continued from the October 1, 1985 Planning Commission meeting due to the lack of proper public notice to the surrounding property owners. The applicant is requesting approval to operate a pre-school at the closed Lark View school at 17200 Pinehurst Lane, which is east of Springdale Street and south of Warner Avenue. The pre-school is proposed for Rooms A5 and A6 which total approximately 1,565 square feet. Forty-four children between the ages of 5 to 12 years old are proposed to be accommodated in the facility. Section 9331(c) lists private schools as an unclassified use permitted in any district except Al, SP-1 and S1 subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class l(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell stated that this application raises the question of how many pre-schools are located at one school site adding that this was the third pre-school at LarkView Elementary. She asked staff if they have formulated a limit for the schools or the impact of this many children on one site. Florence Webb of Staff replied that there were no further pending applications for day-care centers at this time. She added that all the space has been taken up and the school district has completed their leasing process. She also said the district has very strict criteria and no additional applications are allowed. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -7- (3559d) Commissioner Erskine reminded staff to add a condition to monitor (#12) as was done previously with C-3. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-44 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the pre-school will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the property was originally developed as a school site. 3. The proposed pre-school is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed pre-school will not create any undue traffic problems. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated August 27, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. This conditional use permit shall apply to Rooms A5 and A6 only. Any expansion in area of the pre-school shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 4. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum enrollment of forty-four children. Any expansion in number shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 5. A chain link fence enclosing the school's play area shall be installed prior to the initiation of the use. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -8- (3559d) 6. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 7. The school shall operate between the hours of 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM only. 8. A six months review of traffic impact on the neighborhood will be conducted by the City staff. 9. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. 10. All signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services. 11. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. 12. Staff shall monitor the impact of school age children occupying the subject property for a 6 month period and report back to the Planning Commission with results. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-51 Applicant: Children's Center The applicant is requesting approval to operate a pre-school at the closed John B. Bushard School at 19699 Education Lane, which is west of Brookhurst Street and south of Garfield Avenue. The pre-school is proposed for Room 21, which total approximately 960 square feet. Twenty-four children between the ages of 2 to 5 years old are proposed to be accommodated in the facility. Section 9331(c) lists private schools as an unclassified use permitted in any district except Al, SP-1 and Sl subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class l(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell asked staff in that this was a different school district, would this district also maintain the school sites. Florence Webb stated that each district, had similar procedures as far as leasing, maintenance and security was concerned. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -9- (3559d) Commissioner Porter asked how many other uses were on this site. Glen Godfrey of staff replied that staff would contact the district and find out how many other uses and types of uses are on this campus. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-51 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the pre-school will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the property was originally developed as a school site. 3. The proposed pre-school is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed pre-school will not create any undue traffic problems. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated September 17, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. This conditional use permit shall apply to Room 21 only. Any expansion in area of the pre-school shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 4. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum enrollment of twenty-four children. Any expansion in number shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -10- (3559d) 5. A chain link fence enclosing the school's play area shall be installed prior to the initiation of the use. 6. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 7. The school shall operate between the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM only. 8. A six months review of traffic impact on the neighborhood shall be conducted by City staff. 9. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. 10. All signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services. 11. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-52 Applicant: Huntington Beach Pre -Schools and Day Care The applicant is requesting approval to operate a pre-school at the closed Lark View School at 17200 Pinehurst Lane, which is east of Springdale Street and south of Warner Avenue. The pre-school is proposed for Rooms K1 and K2 which total approximately 950 square feet. Forty children between the ages of 2.5 to 5 years old are proposed to be accommodated in the facility. Section 9331(c) lists private schools as an unclassified use permitted in any district except Al, SP-1 and S1 subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class l(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 85-52 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -11- (3559d) AYES: - Rowe', Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None* MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maj'ntenance and operation,of the pre-school will not be detr,imental'to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the vicinity. . 2. The granting'of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of, Huntington Beach because the property was t iginally developed as a school site. 3. The proposed pre-school'is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood.: 4. Access to and parking for the proposed pre-school will not create any undue traffic problems. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated.September 17, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. This conditional use permit shall apply to Rooms K1 and K2 only. Any expansion in area of the pre-school shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 4. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum enrollment of forty children. Any expansion in number shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 5. A chain link fence enclosing the school's play area shall be installed prior to the initiation of the use. 6. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 7. The school shall operate between the hours of 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM only. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -12- (3559d) 8. A six months review of traffic impact on the neighborhood will be conducted by City staff. 9. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. 10. All signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services. 11. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-53 Applicant: In -House Day Care, Inc. The applicant is requesting approval to operate a pre-school at the closed Pleasant View School at 16692 Landau Lane, which is west of Magnolia Street and south of Heil Avenue. The pre-school is proposed for Rooms K1, K2, 31 4, and 5 which total approximately 2,928 square feet for Kl and K2 and 2,606 square feet for rooms 3, 4, and 5. Fifty six children between the'ages of 2 to 5 years old are proposed to be accommodated in rooms K1 and K2. Seventy-five children are proposed to be accommodated in rooms 3, 4 and 5. Section 9331(c) lists private schools as an unclassified use permitted in any district except Al, SP-1 and S1 subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class l(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed Commissioner Porter asked staff, "In the evaluation of this report, did staff find that traffic generated would be any more than it had been when the site was used as a regular school site?" Florence Webb of staff answered that this concern has been reviewed and a condition placed on this application requiring review to see if there is a negative impact on the neighborhood in regard to traffic. Commissioner Winchell asked Attorney Sangster in regards to the condition of a 6 month review, if action could be taken to declare this conditional use permit a nuisance. Attorney Sangster stated that "nuisance" was not the issue but probably could be declared a "safety hazard". P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -13- (3559d) Florence Webb of staff stated that this site leases to just one applicant where other sites there are 4 or 5 uses to equal this one. Glen Godfrey of staff stated that a condition for a 6 month review as far as school age children will be placed on the conditional use permit but the permit will be brought back to the Planning Commission at any time staff hears of any complaints from the neighborhood with regard to traffic impacts. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-53 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the pre-school will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach because the property was originally developed as a school site. 3. The proposed pre-school is compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. 4. Access to and parking for the proposed pre-school will not create any undue traffic problems. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions contained in Article 933 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, received and dated September 17, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and building division. 3. This conditional use permit shall apply to Rooms K1, K2, and 3, 4, and 5 only. Any expansion in area of the pre-school shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -14- (3559d) 4. This conditional use permit shall grant approval for a maximum enrollment of 131 children. Any expansion in number shall require the approval of a new conditional use permit. 5. The chain link fence enclosing the school's play area shall be installed prior to the initiation of the use. 6. Fire Department clearance shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the use. 7. The school shall operate between the hours of 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM only. 8. A six month review of traffic impact on this neighborhood will be conducted by City staff. 9. The applicant shall furnish the City copies of certifications, hold harmless agreements and insurance with the school district. Such shall be in force and in effect during the life of the conditional use permit. 10. All signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services. 11. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit upon any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, or upon receipt of several complaints of surrounding residents. Any decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant, a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. 12. Staff shall monitor the impact of school age children occupying the subject property for a 6 month period and report back to the Planning Commission with results. C-8 APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-54 AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-47 Applicant: Benco Development Group Use Permit No. 85-47 is a request to construct a four building, 39,510 square foot commercial center with a drive -through restaurant. Conditional Exception No. 85-54 is a variance request to allow Building "B" to be constructed 10 feet into the required 10 foot setback along the northerly, east property line and to permit a modified 30 foot wide main driveway entrance in lieu of the required 52 foot wide driveway for a commercial center of this size. Planning Commissioner, Tom Livengood challenged the approval of the Board of Zoning Adjustments initiating an appeal to the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -15- (3559d) Declaration No. 85-53 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 September 18, 1985, the Board of Zoning Adjustments adopted Negative Declaration No. 85-53. No further action is necessary. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jerry Baine, council for the applicant, spoke in support of the project. He said that his applicant worked very close with staff to address all concerns of the city. He added that the applicant also met with the surrounding neighbors to address their concerns with satisfaction.' Chairman Livengood asked Mr. Baine if the large land owner next door had been contacted. Mr. Baine stated no. Dick Harlow, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project requesting that condition no. 1 e, f & h be deleted. Larry Curron, home owner, commented he liked Plan "A" stating that it did nice things for their homes but stated that he did not like Plan "C" due to traffic and his street being a dead end. He stated that the neighbors did not want a 20 foot high wall. He added that the project was one of the best proposed. Russell T. Shattum, home owner, stated that Plan C was not acceptable. He said he wanted to retain as much privacy as possible. John Companion, who abuts the property, submitted a letter to the City Council with 16 items of concern. He said that he met with the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Benco and they addressed all concerns, adding that now Benco has come up with a different plan. Dick Harlow said that Plan C is not the developers plan, just an alternative adding that the applicant was supporting Plan A. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood commented that in the future, items that come before the Board of zoning Adjustments that are located on Beach should be considered very carefully because it is a very sensitive area. He expressed that these types of items should probably be submitted as a public hearing with the Planning Commission. The Commission discussed the width of the driveway considering cutting the entrance to 30 feet. A recommendation was given by the Commission to only have one sign be permitted on the front of this site and also that it be a monument sign. Any other signs shall be wall signs. Dick Harlow stated that he would agree to a planned sign program. Commissioner Winchell asked staff what the reciprocal agreement was to the north. Staff answered stating obtaining reciprocal driveway easement to allow areas across the property to the north across the bank property for access. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -16- (3559d) The Commission also discussed the southern reciprocal driveway agreement between the subject property and the abutting southernly parcel to improve internal circulation when the abutting southernly property is developed as commercial. Chairman Livengood asked Mr. Harlow if tie preferred Plan "A". Mr. Harlow answered yes but he could live with Plan "D". Commissioner Mirjahangir suggested deleting Condition #17. Chairman Livengood expressed concern about the access in the back stating he would like to limit the area in the back because it would be bad for the neighbors. Forence Webb of staff stated no nightclubs or live entertainment activities can be located on this site. Such uses would not meet the locational criteria. Dick Harlow asked staff if no bars etc., was consistent with conditional use permit ordinances. He asked if they would consider a nice restaurant. Florence Webb stated that this condition did not prohibit alcohol. The Commission discussed the use of the south easterly portion of the site whether it could be used for entertainment mixed with alcohol. Glen Godfrey of staff responded that it would not meet the locational criteria. Commissioner Winchell requested that the Commission take straw votes on the alternative plans A, B, C, D. PLAN #A AYES: Erskine NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir PLAN #B AYES: Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter PLAN #C AYES: None NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir PLAN #D AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter NOES: Erskine, Mirjahangir P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -17- (3559d) The Commission agreed with Plan #D. A straw vote was taken to ascertain if the access would remain in the most south easterly portion of the site. AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir, NOES: None MOTION PASSED,FOR NO ACCESS IN THE BACK Commissioner Erskine stated that the applicant agreed to support reciprocal access to the south. Dick Harlow affirmed Commissioner Erskine's comment and to support Plan "D". There will be no access to the adjacent southerly parcel from the most easterly portion of the site but there will be a front reciprocal driveway to the south. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-54 AND USE PERMIT NO. 85-47 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-54: (For modified commercial,center driveway main entrance and zero (01) building setback on East property line only. 1. The modified main driveway entrance with a thirty foot (301) width is adequate to serve the proposed commercial complex. 2. The proposed zero (01) yard setback for Building "B" will avoid creating a ten foot (101) wide unusable area and will more ,appropriately adapt the structure to the site. 3. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. One portion of the lot is only 252 feet deep; other lots in the area are 442 feet deep and the lot is L-shaped. 4. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -18- (3559d) 5. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-54 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 6. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-54: 1. All Conditions of Approval of Use Permit No. 85-47 are hereby incorporated as part of Conditional Exception No. 85-54. 2. Development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-47: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the 39,510 Square Foot commercial center, provided the conditions listed below are incorporated, 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 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-47: 1. The site plan and elevations dated October 2, 1985 shall be revised depicting the modifications described herein: a. Building elevations more compatible with existing developments along Beach Boulevard shall be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board. b. Elimination of "proposed left hand turn lane" and median break in Beach Boulevard. C. Signs are subject to separate permit. (See Condition No. 10). d. Plans shall be accurately dimensioned to show all parking stall depths. Handicapped spaces shall be provided as required by Code. e. Building "A" may be extended easterly 18 feet. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -19- (3559d) f. Landscaping shall be provided between the building and the south property. , g. Reciprocal ingress and egress shall be provided on the site to the south in front of building #C to,provide for circulation from the' proposed development,to any future development to the south. h. One thousand six hundred and twenty five square feet shall be removed from the front of building #C and added to building #A. i. Delineat6"each parking space. 2. When more'specific details relative to Building "D" (shown on the site plan dated,October 2, 1985) as to the type of use has been determined, a 'mbre precise site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. This site plan showing aisle widths,,circulation of traffic, location of order and pick-up windows', speaker layout, architecture, etc., shall be submitted under a Site Plan Amendment. a. Order speaker for Building "D" shall be placed so as to provide for two (2) cars stacking behind car ordering. Pick-up window'shall be placed to provide for stacking of maximum number -of cars. b. Directional arrow depicted for drive -through lane shall be corrected to show opposite flow of cars. 3. No parking shall be posted along the southerly side of the northerly driveway. 4. An irrevocable vehicular access agreement shall be recorded to the benefit of the adjacent southerly parcel prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, the applicant shall aggressively pursue obtaining irrevocable access easement from adjacent northerly commercial properties to provide for a more direct access route to Garfield Avenue. 5." Prior to issuance of'building permits, applicant shall file a parcel map consolidating Parcels 9, 10, 12 and 19. Said map shall be recorded prior to final inspection. Any new parcelization shall require Board review to ensure reciprocal access and parking agreements. 6. Openings in South side of Building "C" shall be limited to man doors,.providing emergency exit only, panic hardware, alarm system, and are to remain closed during business hours. No storage of any kind is to be permitted to the South of the building. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -20- (3559d) 7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 8. Grading plan shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 9. Landscaping shall comply with Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 10. A planned sign program shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and shall be approved for all signing within the commercial center pursuant to S. 9760.43 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 11. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 12. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches (2"). 13. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in Buildings "B" and "C" per Fire Department requirements. 14. On -site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. 15. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 16. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 17. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 18. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 19. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -21- (3559d) 20. A conditional use permit shall be required for any proposed use which would allow the sale of alcohol in relation with "bars", cocktail lounges, nightclubs, dance and/ or live entertainment. Commissioner Commissioner Erskine suggested to amend condition #21 to require a conditional use permit in order to allow the sale of alcohol in relation with "Bars", cocktail lounges, night clubs, dance and/ or entertainment. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ROWE TO CREATE A CONDITION NO. 21 REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE SALE OF ALCOHOL WITH BARS, COCKTAIL LOUNGES, NIGHTCLUBS, DANCE AND OR /LIVE ENTERTAINMENT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN; None MOTION PASSED C-9 APPEAL OF BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO 85-50 Applicant: Eugene B. Zwick Conditional Exception No. 85-50 is a request to permit a 3 foot addition to an existing garage having a 20 foot apron. The 3 foot addition would result in a total encroachment of 5 feet into the required 22 foot setback for a front entry garage. After denial by the Board of Zoning Adjustments, the applicant appealed the request to the Planning Commission for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 5 Section 15305 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE APPEAL OF BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION N0. 85-50 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, C-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-49 Applicant Gorden C. Dussell Conditional Use Permit No. 85-49 is a request to existing single family dwelling generally located Avenue, west of Springdale Avenue. add a unit to an south of Edinger P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -22- (3559d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the subject request is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter asked staff if pre -adopted uniform codes require an addition of a smoke -alarm in relation to insulation. Florence Webb of staff stated yes. Commissioner Schumacher asked if this was in the flood zone. Florence Webb of staff stated no. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-49 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-49 for the addition of a second unit of not -to -exceed 650 square feet will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-49 will substantially comply with the requirements of Article 9103 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3. The,granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-49 for the addition of a second unit to a single family dwelling is consistent with the Master Plan of land use and the development standards of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-49: 1. The site plan, floor plan and elevations dated September 13, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. The interior dimensions of the garage shall be a minimum of 19 feet in depth by 18 feet in width. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall pay 25% of the park and recreation fees for single family dwellings. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -23- (3559d) 4. All buildings spoils, such as unused lumber, wire pipe, and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the.right to revoke this Conditional Use Permit if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-47 IN CONJUNCTION WITH COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-30 Applicant: Southridge Investments Conditional Use Permit No. 85-47 is a request to construct a four -unit apartment project,on a 0.13'acre site. The Downtown Specific Plan requires the filing of a conditional use permit whenever an applicant is seeking a special permit as part of the development proposal. Also, a coastal development permit is required as the project is located in the "Appealable" jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the subject project has been determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review. Commissioner Schumacher asked recommendations submitted staff by the if the applicant had seen the design review board. Staff stated no, and gave a copy to the applicant. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Commissioner Schumacher asked if staff saw the drawing the applicant has presented tonight at the Design Review Board meeting Florence Webb stated yes. Glen Godfrey of staff added that the Design Review Board wanted to extend the roof as an architectural feature. Dick Kelter, applicant, stated that after reading the recommendations from the Design Review Board, he disagreed with no. 2. Chairman Livengood asked�what,the length of the roof was. Mr. Kelter answered 50 feet, bordered by two alley ways. He stated he would like to work with staff. He stated he could not understand why staff would want a roof line over a big window. He added that, he was happy with all findings and conditions. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter commented that there has been attention paid to all exterior sides of the building depicted in the renderings submitted. Commissioner Winchell said she disagreed with the Design Review Board's requirement no. 2 because she likes the big window. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -24- (3559d) F� Commissioner Winchell asked staff if the lot was th proper size according to the Downtown Specific Plan's one unit per 1700 square feet. Florence Webb of staff stated yes. She also commented that with this plan every unit had the required open space. Commissioner Winchell also requested that this be included in the findings. Chairman Livengood asked what the set back from the alley was. Dick Kelter, applicant, answered 10 feet. Commissioner Winchell asked if the upper story met the required set backs. Florence Webb of staff answered yes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-47/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-30 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine absent ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir Schumacher, Livengood - Porter out of the room MOTION PASSED FINDINGS - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-30: (a) LUP. That the development project proposed by the CDP application conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the C-LUP; (b) Zoning Regulations. That the CDP application is consistent '91th the specific plan as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; (c) Adequate Services. That at the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with C-LUP; (d) California Coastal Act. That the development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT: The Planning Commission may approve the Special Permit application in whole or in part upon a finding that the proposed development will: 1. Promote better living environments, insofar as the project is providing an excess amount of private open space for residents due to the excess of open space of 54%, site coverage will not be detrimental. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -25- (3559d) 2. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design of which this plan has incorporated to create interesting shapes, planes, and areas to soften and enhance the hardscape design of the buildings: 'It also promotes a better living area because the amount of open space distributed for each unit meets the intent of the amount of provided open space for each unit. 3. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of the property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. This project has been designed as an integrated part of the neighborhood. 3 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 85-47 is consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted,to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. 5. Granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-47 for a four unit apartment will be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-47: 1. The proposed 4 unit townhouse apartment on a 0.13 acre site zoned Downtown Specific Plan District 2, will be constructed in compliance with approved development standards as modified by the Special Permit. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of housing. Therefore, a 4 unit apartment as proposed complies with the City's General Plan. 3. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width, and through the use of a special permit all other design and implementation features are proposed to be constructed in compliance with Standard Plans and Specifications on file with the City. 4. A 4 unit townhouse apartment will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-47 1. The site plan, floor plans dated September 5, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. The elevations shall be revised to reflect the following: a. Add 42 inch high decorative planter wall parallel to the building front setback between 5 feet and 10 feet from the building. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -26- (3559d) b. Provide mission tile roofing. C. The architectural treatment shall comply with the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines. d. The architectural treatment shall be carried out through all the elevations. 3. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers. 4. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 5. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 6. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 7. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s). 8. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 9. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 10. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. C-12 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-20 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Article 975 (Adult Entertainment Businesses) was subject to Code Amendment No. 85-12 in Spring of 1985. The amendment was intended to define "Family -oriented Centers" and prohibit adult entertainment businesses in such centers. The amendment also required that the Conditional Use Permit required for Adult Entertainment Businesses run with the operator and not be transferable upon sale of the business. The amendment further granted exemptions from the locational criteria of Article 975 for those existing Adult Entertainment Businesses located along Beach Boulevard. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -27- (3559d) On July 15, 1985, the City Council continued Code Amendment No. 85-12 so that staff, the City Attorney's office and the Planning Commission could reach an,agreement on the recommended Code Amendment. The City Attorney and the Planning Commission had been opposed to the staff recommendation for Conditional, Use Permits to run with the operator of adult businesses. After meeting with Administration, the City Attorneys office and the Police Department, staff has reached common agreement on a new approach to the Code Amendment. Because the new approach is substantially different from the first approach, staff has assigned the Code Amendment a new number and resubmitted it to the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 85-62'has been advertised for a 10-day period to expire October 21, 1985 on the date of the scheduled City Council hearing on Code Amendment No. 85-20. Any comments received will be forwarded to the City Council prior to adoption. THE -PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-20 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY .THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-13 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-18 City of Huntington Beach The Planning Commission has recently discussed the ambiguity in Section 9530.16 pertaining to development standards for automotive uses. The last time Article 953, Light Industrial District, was amended an "and/or" statement was inadvertently omitted from the phrase, "Automobile dismantling and storage yards", which led to confusion regarding the applicability of the standards to automobile storage uses that did not involve dismantling as well. In order to further clarify the code, the proposed language as presented in the draft ordinance, reads "Automobile dismantling and/or storage yards and/or impound yards..." ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -26- (3559d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell thanked staff for bringing this item back and requested staff to add an additional item to the ordinance under 9530.16 a stating no material shall be stacked higher than the existing wall. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO 85-18 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine absent - Schumacher and Porter out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-14 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-11, SIGN CODE REVISION Applicant: City of Huntington Beach REQUEST: Revision of Article 976, Sign Code Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for the sign code to the meeting of November 19, 1985. This was suggested by the Commission at their last meeting in order to allow time for a meeting to be held with interested parties, but it was too late to halt publication of the public notice in the newspaper. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-11 TO THE NOVEMBER 19, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: None E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -29- (3559d) r•. etNviNu iTbmb: Commissioner Winchell requested staff to investigate the intent of the zoning code dealing with the height of buildings. She expressed concern regarding where the measurement was taken from and where the actual roof line would be. She wants standards established for measuring building height. Commissioner Mirjahangir requested staff to explore measuring the grade from the sidewalk. Commissioner Porter commented on the dust problem located at the Magnolia and Warner Construction site stating that the problem seems to be taken care of with water tanks. Commissioner Winchell asked staff to continue the reports on the horse stables due to the excess of expired conditional use permits. She also requested that a report be submitted on the recent St. Bonaventure Festival located at Springdale and Heil informing the Commission of any problems. Chairman Livengood requested that staff conduct a survey of other uses besides day care centers on school sites that are being leased by the school districts. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Livengood stated that reimbursement of Planning Commissioners was being compensated in line with other other cities, and requested that this be changed and requested consideration of three meetings a month including study sessions, at $50 a meeting versus two meetings a month. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO SCHEDULE THREE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS A MONTH, IF NEEDED, WITH STUDY SESSIONS INCLUDED AT $50 PER MEETING WITH THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: None P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -30- (3559d) 1 I. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:21 p.m. to the next regular meeting of November 5, 1985. Tom Liven ood, C air an P.C. Minutes 10/15/85 -31- (3559d)