Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-03APPROVED 1-7-86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, - Civic Center California TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None A. CONSENT CALENDAR: NONE B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS NONE C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-50 Applicant: Dick Thorpe Conditional Use Permit No. 85-50 is a request to establish retail sales of automobile accessories in a vacant building having 3,249 square feet of floor area. The building (formerly Yang's Drug Store) is immediately adjacent to the applicant's other business, Pristine Porsche. Although the site plan submitted indicates "installation" as a use within the building, the applicant has indicated that the use of the building will be limited to retail sales. On November 19, 1585, the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit No. 85-50 to allow staff time to prepare alternative findings and conditions for approval of the subject project. However, staff has determined a Coastal Development Permit is required to be processed in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit because the project site is located within the Coastal Zone and involves discretionary approval. Therefore, Conditional Use Permit No. 85-50 cannot be acted upon until the necessary advertisement and notifications process has transpired on the Coastal Development Permit (December 17, 1985, Planning Commission meeting). In addition, the Fire Department has indicated to the staff of Development Services, that Pristine Porsche has been spraying flammable liquids without benefit of permit and the business is pending prosecution. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt Section 15301, Class 1. Commissioner Porter asked staff why they were asking for a Coastal Development Permit. Florence Webb of staff said that it was determined that it was in the coastal zone because it was not a new development it was overlooked by staff but since it is a use permitted by a conditional use permit a coastal development permit should be processed. It was a discretionary decision by staff. Commissioner Erskine requested that in the future staff identify all permits needed before it comes to the Planning Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dick Thorpe, applicant, spoke in support of his project and requested the Commission's approval. Chairman Livengood asked Mr. Thorpe if he agreed with the staff's report and proposed conditions of approval. Mr. Thorpe stated that he agreed with conditions no. 1 and 2, but conditions 3 and 4 were the responsibility of the property owner. Commissioner Porter suggested that there be an approval of five years and a review at that time. After five years we will negotiate an extension of more time depending on the redevelopment status. He also asked Mr. Thorpe what his response was to the redevelopment. Mr. Thorpe responded that he did not like it but has agreed that when redevelopment does occur, he is willing to relocate. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. The Commission review ensued. Commissioner Erskine asked if the previous drug store business had a use permit, suggesting that if they did the use permit should run with the land and retail would be retail. The Commission asked staff if the process could be simplified by separating the two uses of auto and retail. Secretary Palin said that it would not be simple but would entail parking requirements and adjacent property owners. Commissioner Porter asked in regards to the last two conditions if the applicant is agreeable as far as entering into a parking requirements. Natalie Koch, head of Downtown Merchant Association, said that the property owner indicated that he was willing to go along with this. P.C. December 3, 1985 -2- (3895d) Mr. Thorpe interupted and stated that the property owner was out of the country and would be unable to file. The Commission discussed and agreed that conditions no. 3 and 4 could be filed anytime within the five year approval period. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-50 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY'THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, ERskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Attorney Folger suggested that a finding could be added in the motion that it was determined that a coastal development permit is not required on this application. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO ADD A FINDING ELIMINATION THE NEED FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-50: 1. The retail sales of auto accessories will take place within an existing 3,249 square foot building, that is properly adapted to the streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures in a harmonious manner. 2. The relationship between retail automobile accessories and the adjacent Pristine Porsche repair shop will be complementary and help to offset any potential parking difficulties.- 3. The proposed sale of automobile accessories within the Downtown Specific Plan District 5A in an existing 3,249 square foot building will not be detrimental to persons working or residing in the neighborhood because previous retail businesses have occupied the building in a harmonious manner. 4. A Coastal Development Permit is not required because the proposed project complies with section 989.5.3.1 and all other rules and regulations of the Coastal Zone. P.C. December 3, 1985 -3- (3895d) SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-50: 1. The site plan and elevation depicting scheme B dated September 16, 1985 shall be the approved layout subject to the prohibition of any service type function being provided on the premises. 2. Approval of this use shall be for five years. At the end of the initial five years, an extension of time may be granted dependent upon Redevelopment activity in the area. 3. The property owner shall enter into a legal agreement with the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of securing 16 parking spaces in a future parking structure to serve Downtown Huntington Beach. The agreement shall be recorded within the five year approval period and before an extension of the conditional use permit is granted. 4. The applicant (or property owner) shall file a parcel map to consolidate 6 lots (17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27) of the Vista Del Mar Tract, which shall be recorded with the County of Orange prior to approval of an extension of time beyond the five year period. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-30 Arco Petroleum Products The public hearing for a request for an extension of time was continued from the November 19, 1985 at the applicant's request. Conditional Use Permit No. 85-14, a request to construct a new convenience market with gasoline sales, will be withdrawn and Conditional Use Permit No. 84-30, a convenience market conversion, will be implemented. During the public hearing for the zone change to C4-SS, the concerns of the adjacent property owner addressed the proposed new construction (Conditional Use Permit No.'85-14) and were not raised during the public hearings for Conditional Use Permit No. 84-30, conversion of the existing facility: The zone change to C4-SS, effective November 21, 1985, is no longer required to convert the existing service station to a convenience market combined with gasoline sales. The Planning Commission may choose to grant an extension of time based on a site plan that addresses the concerns of the City Council. The plan submitted for a new building is attached for reference. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Sam Blick, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project. He stated that he concurred with staff's recommendations except for condition no. 3 because the Commission previously approved a conditional use permit which was silent on the sale of alcohol which is currently still applicable. He felt that legally he was in the right to maintain this sale of alcohol because the application was approved before the prohibition of alcohol sales from gas station mini -markets. P.C. December 3, 1985 -4- (3895d) There being no.further testimony, the public hearing was closed. The Commission reviewed the application and concluded continuing the request for additional information from the attorney's office regarding the sale of alcohol, and to request a new modified conceptual site plan be submitted based on the one submitted with Conditional Use Permit No. 85-14. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-30 TO THE DECEMBER 17, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 LAND USE ELEMENT�AMENDMENT NO. 85-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15 Applicant: Meadowland LTD On November 19, 1985, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on Land Use Element 85-3 (Area 2.1)/Environmental Impact Report 85-2/Zone Change 85-15 in order to take public testimony and continue the hearing to December 3, 1985,for action pending the December 2, 1985, expiration of the 45-day EIR review period. In the time since the November 19 public hearing, staff has researched additional aspects of Land Use Element 85-3 (Area 2.1) and Environmental Impact Report 85-2. In addition to,Area 2.1, staff had indicated that resolutions and ordinances would be submitted to the Planning Commission on December 3, 1985 for eleven Adm_inistrative,Items (Areas 3.1-3.11) and zone changes intended to establish consistency between the General Plan and zoning. During preparation of the zone changes staff determined that there are a number of significant issues regarding these areas which should be further discussed by the Planning Commission prior to processing of zone changes. For this reason, staff has withdrawn Administrative Items 3.1-3.11 from Land Use Element Amendment 85-3. It is staff's suggestion that these items be brought back to the Planning Commission in early 1986 as a separate discussion item prior to actual processing. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Environmental documentation for Area 2.1 may be found in the Amendment document which also serves as Environmental Impact Report No. 85-2. The EIR was posted for a 45-day review period ending December 2, 1985. Review agency and public comments, as well as staff responses, rai.11 constitute the Final EIR when transmitted to the City Council. 'Bose items are incorporated in the addendum and appondix portion:; of the report. ?one Change No. 85-15 is also covo ed by EIR 85-" . P.C. December 3, 1985 -5- (3895d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Alan Degenhardt, applicant, spoke in support of the project. Don Hartfelder addressed himself to the Commission as the archetect for the senior project commenting that if the Commission had any questions about the design of the building he was available for questions. Herman Blair resident of the proposed area spoke in opposition to the project stating this area should remain residential Dean Albright spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change. Michael Spognoli spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change stating the reason he moved into the neighborhood was because it was zoned R5. Suellen Crossno spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change expressing concern about the traffic and high density. Louise Morton spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change commenting that residents with back yards will no longer have any privacy. Richard Short spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change expressing concern about the abandoned asbestos plant. Tracy Berry spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change commenting that she walks to school and is concerned that the traffic this project creates will be dangerous as far as walking and crossing the street. William Berry spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change. Mr. Ho Van Cao spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change. Tod Ohlson spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment and zone change. Cynthia Doe spoke in support of the proposed Senior Citizen development. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the current zoning and the impact of the proposed zone change. Commissioner Porter commented that the residents in this area had faith that this would remain R5. The Commission discussed the density proposed for the senior citizen project stating that it was to high, adding that lower densities may be economically viable. P.C. December 3, 1985 -6- (3895d) Commissioner Erskine requested a specific development plan. Commissioner Schumacher suggested an alternate plan with a lower number of units proposed. Chairman Livengood requested a continuance for staff to look at plans for alternatives of R5, R3, and R2. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15 TO JANUARY 7, 1985 FOR ALTERNATIVES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-17 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of November 19, 1985, in order to allow the ordinance to be clarified in that it limits the additional site coverage over 50 percent to dwelling units with a maximum of two -stories. In addition, the Commission wanted any reference to requiring a deed restriction deleted from the ordinance. The revised ordinance, prepared by the City Attorney's office, is attached. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically -exempt 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 PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-17 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P.C. December 3, 1985 -7- (3895d) C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-21 Applicant,, Citywide At the November 19, 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No. 85-21 and requested a copy of the Vesting Tentative Map Ordinance, as prepared by the City Attorney's office. To date, staff has not received an ordinance from the City Attorney's office. Therefore, staff is recommending continuance to the December 17, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. Florence Webb of staff asked the Commission if they would agree to a study session to further review this item at 6:00 p.m. at the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 17, 1985 to which the Commission agreed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-21 TO THE DECEMBER 17, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH A STUDY SESSION AT 6:00 p.m. ON THE SAME DATE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-62 Applicant: Mola Development Corp. Conditional Use Permit No. 85-62 is a request by the Mola Development Corp. to permit adult dancing and live entertainment within Franco's Restaurant located at 17041 Beach Boulevard. The live entertainment will consist of a disc jockey and/or band with a 185 square foot dance floor. Franco's Restaurant is located within Charter Center, a commercial/office complex consisting of three restaurants, one health spa, and a 14-story office building, theatre, and parking structure. Franco's Restaurant is located between the 14-story building and Chili's Restaurant fronting on Beach Boulevard. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. 1 P.C. December 3, 1985 -8- (3895d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Ladellas spoke in support of the proposal stating he complied with all conditions of approval except condition no. 3, requesting that the hours for entertainment be extended to 1:30 a.m. instead of 1:00 a.m. Bob Snyder expressed concern about the noise level, but stated that after looking at the site plan he misjudged the location of the restaurant and said he would not be effected by noise if there was any. Mr. Ladellas responded to Mr. Snyders comment about noise saying that the restaurant was a dinner house not a disco. Commissioner Schumacher stated that if this is just a dinner house there should not be any problem with the 1:00 a.m. closing time for entertainment. Commissioner Porter inquired about the valet parking. Mr. John Ladellas stated that the restaurant will provide valet parking all day and all evening to less the parking problem. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter stated he did not have a problem with the use but suggested a review of the project after a 6 month period. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-62 WITH MODIFIED 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 use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; the proposed live entertainment facility substantially complies with the criteria in Section 9730.83 of the Ordinance Code. 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. P.C. December 3, 1985 -9- (3895d) 3. The proposal is consistent with the City"s General Plan of Land Use, which is General Commercial. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated November 15, 1985 shall -be the approved layout. The dance floor and/or band stand shall not be enlarged without prior - Planning Commission approval. 2. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department prior to the establishment of the live entertainment facility. 3. Live entertainment within the restaurant shall not commence before 9:00 PM and conclude at 1:30 AM in order to prevent possible parking congestion. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this Conditional Use.Permit if any violation of these conditions or of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. The Planning Commission reserves -the right to add additional conditions to Conditional Use Permit No.' 85-62, if future problems occur as a result of the live entertainment facility. This shall be preceded by a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 5. The applicant shall provide valet parking for a minimum of five hours per day, and security service from 9:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. to patrol the parking areas at Charter Center in order to mitigate any parking problems or disturbances caused by customers from the restaurant. The quality and number of security guards shall be determined by the Police Department. The Security Service shall be-,pr,ovided at. the expense of the applicant. The plan for valet parking,is.subject to review and approval by the Director of -Development Services. 6. An entertainment_permi.t=shall Ibe.s-ubmitted;,and approved prior to the u"se ,of -bands- or the dance floor, -,within the restaurant. 7. If'the'facili'ty,is found to be:in violation.of-Section 8.40, Noises of the, Municipal'Code, corrective measures shall immediately be taken by,the.owner/,management-to,correct the noise violation., 8. One year from the date of approval, the facility shall be inspected by staff to determine if any violations of the conditions of approval have occurred. At that time,, staff's findings shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. P.C. December 3, 1985 -10- (3895d) 1 D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE Draft ordinance for the proposed City-wide "Property Maintenance Ordinance" which will be incorporated into the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The intent of this ordinance is to provide the City, under the authority of the Director of Development Services, a mechanism in which to identify and correct deteriorating or poorly maintained structures and/or properties. The Commission discussed the issue and expressed concerns such as the vague language in the ordinance sections e, g, k, and o. Commissioner Erskine requested staff to have this Ordinance reviewed by realtors, the Apartment Association and the Chamber of Commerce for their input. Commissioner Schumacher expressed her concern of public storage along Goldenwest and other debri deposited there. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO CONTINUE THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE TO JANUARY 7, 1986 FOR STAFF TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMISSION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: NONE F. PENDING ITEMS: The subject of the Breakers Project was brought up and information was given that there has been no progress on the landscaping. It was also brought to staff's attention that there were stairs and platforms of fir wood that were unpainted and untreated. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Mirjahangir asked the status of the traffic condition at Charter Center and the signal at Ash. Chairman Livengood commented that some type of traffic and pedestrian management was needed across Warner Avenue for pedestrians crossing over to the theater at Charter Center. Secretary Palin stated that he would check with Public Works on this and report back. P.C. December 3, 1985 -11- (3895d) H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin reviewed City Council actions at their meeting Monday December 2, 1985 with the Commission. I. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:00 a.m. to a study session scheduled for December 10, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. Tom Li n oo , C„, irman 1 P.C. December 3, 1985 -12- (3895d)