Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-17APPROVED 2/4/86 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: - Civic Center California COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes November 5, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting A-2 Minutes November 19, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting A-3 Minutes December 3, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 5, NOVEMBER 19 AND THE DECEMBER 3, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WITH CORRECTIONS 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: NONE C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-57/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-85 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 19, 1985) Applicant: Church of Religious Science In February 1983 the Planning Commission approved the establishment of a church facility within Seacliff Shopping Center (Conditional Use Permit No. 83-2). The church facility, including a book store, is approximately 7,660 square feet with a congregation of approximately 3,000 people. The church is primarily utilized on Sundays with three morning services. These services are held at approximately 8:00, 9:45, and 11:30 A.M. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15301 Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act the subject request is categorically exempt. On December 3, 1985, the Planning Commission continued the subject application at the request of the applicant. In the interim the staff has had several meetings with the representatives of the Church of Religious Science to resolve the issues raised by staff. As a result, the staff has re-evaluated its position and can now recommend conditional approval of the proposal based on the additional information received from the applicant and an agreement by the applicant to the proposed conditions of approval. During the past two weeks, the applicant has provided letters from major tenants within the shopping center which indicate their support for the church's expansion . Secondly, the applicant has provided a breakdown of each use within the Seacliff Shopping Center and their individual parking requirements and will prepare a parking management plan for City approval. Excess parking is available to the patrons of the center during peak hours. Further, the applicant has impressed upon us that the greatest impact to the parking compound is for a 3 hour period, each Sunday of the week. Finally, the applicant has agreed to a two (2) year Conditional Use Permit approval period with further extensions if warranted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Warren H. Lortie, applicant, spoke in support of the project and requested clarification of condition #2 his feeling that it should be revised to reflect that the church was a permanent location. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Erskine stated that condition #2 does not make it clear if the applicant will get another year. He added that condition #2 and #4 were redundant and requested the staff to explain. Howard Zelefsky responded that condition #4 was a safeguard in case there was a problem with the application within the two years. Commissioner Schumacher expressed that before she would vote on this proposal she would like to see a condition reflecting that the approval run with the land use. She further indicated the parking requirement for the church should not be dependent on joint use. She did not like city streets being used for parking. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-57/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-85 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: P.C. December 17, 1985 -2- (3970d) AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-85: 1. The proposed 5,615 square foot addition (504 new seats) to an existing church facility will not have a detrimental effect upon the health and welfare of persons working or residing in neighborhood because access to new parking spaces will be made available to the congregation from the adjacent business park. 2. The proposed location and design of the church expansion does properly adapt itself to fire department standards and ordinance code requirements. 3. The combination and relationship of the proposed church expansion and the retail center is compatible as demonstrated by the letters of support from the retail tenants. 4. The access to, and parking for, the church facility will be improved by a new parking management plan to be approved by the City of Huntington Beach and major tenants of Seacliff Shopping Center. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-85: 1. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-85 for joint use parking will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood because it will have to receive the endorsement of the shopping center tenants and City of Huntington Beach. 2. The joint use parking for the Church of Religious Science will be used one day a week for not more than 5 hours to resolve on -site parking problems. The granting of the conditional exception under these circumstances is not a special privilege and has been used in similar circumstances throughout the City. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-85 is necessary for the preservation of rights. 4. The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which the conditional exception is sought; that he will proceed without necessary delay. 5. Due to the unique times of services which a church facility functions under it can be considered to have extraordinary circumstances applicable to the premises involved that do not generally apply to the property or class of uses in the same district. P.C. December 17, 1985 -3- (3970d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plan and elevations dated October 1, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-57 is for a two-year period. At the end of that time, continued operation of the church facility will require approval of a new conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 3. The church shall provide a minimum of three services for their Sunday congregation with forty-five (45) minute intervals between services to reduce traffic congestion in and around Seacliff Shopping Center. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a reciprocal parking agreement between Seacliff Shopping Center and the adjacent off -site parking property owners specifying the number of off -site parking spaces that have to be provided which shall be approved (as to form) by the City Attorney's office, Department of Development Services, Public Works, and Fire Department. Said agreement shall be acceptable to the affected tenants of Seacliff Shopping Center and reviewed by Development Services after 6-months. 5. Applicant shall provide a parking management plan which shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit by the Department of Development Services. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-30 Applicant: Arco Petroleum Products Conditional Use Permit No. 84-30 is a request to permit an existing service station to convert to a convenience market pursuant to S.9472.2 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code which requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. At the November 5, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, the request for extension of time was continued to be heard as a public hearing item. Staff has been in contact with representatives of the applicant and they have indicated that 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. P.C. December 17, 1985 -4- (3970d) During the past year, the City Council and Planning Commission have expressed concern with the decline of service stations and conversions to self-service and/or convenience markets. Staff has been directed to evaluate convenience markets in relationship to commercial development standards, i.e. setbacks, parking, sight angle visibility. The proposed conversion to convenience market with gasoline sales will be incompatible with this new direction. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Sam Blick, Acting Attorney representing the applicant, requested that this application be granted an extension of time of the item again be continued without the operation of the market being prejudiced by this action. Mr. Blick presented historical background as related to the project and justifications for the approval of extension of time. Commissioner Erskine asked if condition #1 was the first or second site plan. Florence Webb of staff responded that the second one is the submitted site plan. She added that the applicant has not worked with staff on revising the submitted site plans that the Planning Commission requested. The staff presented several conceptual site plans which could meet code requirements, concerns of the City Council and neighbors. Chairman Livengood asked Attorney Sangster if there were sufficient grounds for findings of denial of the extension of time. Attorney Sangster stated yes. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Erskine felt that the Planning Commission and City Council did recommend changes to the ordinance in regards to the sale of alcohol and gas stations mid -stream of this application commenting that the applicant has made quite an investment. He further moved to recommend approval with conditions 1, 2, and 4 on the December 17, 1985 staff report and the deletion of #4. Commissioner Schumacher expressed the same concerns as Commissioner Erskine feeling that there was a lack of fairness stating that the Commission did approve the application and also changed the ordinance in mid -stream. She added that she did not like alcohol sold out of service stations but also felt that it was not right to retro-actively add the prohibition on a request for extension of time. Chairman Livengood reminded now selling alcohol out of a license to do so before the complied with. the Commission that the applicant was gas station not a market and obtained a conditions of the entitlement had been P.C. December 17, 1985 -5- (3970d) Commissioner Winchell stated that this was not relevant to what the Commission is discussing, stating that in the November 5, 1985 staff report the extension recommended prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverage and that issue was always going to be at the discretion of the Commission whether it was continued or not. She said that the feeling among the Commission was that this condition prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages would remain part of the report and the reason for the item being continued was to straighten out the site plan. She continued to say that the applicant was aware of this and she did not sense any unfairness. She added that a conditional use permit has a one-year life spand and if the applicant does not use it within that period of time he is subject to the existing conditions at the time of applying for an extension. She stated that she was not happy with the grandfathering in of the remaining gasoline stations/convenience markets selling alcohol and would not be happy with another one. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-30 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher, Erskine ABSENT: Porter out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed conversion of an existing service station to a convenience market will be incompatible with the direction of City Council toward standards for establishment of a convenience market. The proposed conversion does not address the specific concerns identified by the City Council. 2. The proposed conversion will be incompatible with adjacent development. 3. The primary use of the property is changed from auto related service to retail commercial. 4. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will 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. 5. The applicant has not submitted a site plan which addresses the concerns raised by the City Council and Planning Commission. L u P.C. December 17, 1985 -6- (3970d) C-3 APPEAL OF BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 85-77/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-78 Applicant: Robert Mandic/Paul Thompson Use Permit No. 85-77 is a request to build a two-story, 2,730 square foot office building on a 5,305 square foot lot with 50 feet of street frontage which is less than the required minimum size (6,000 square feet) and frontage (60 feet). Conditional Exception No. 85-78 is a request to permit: (A) Eight parking spaces in lieu of ten (9.1 required, rounded up), (B) one compact size parking space (none are permitted for a building this size), (C) use of the alley for parking space turning area, (D) a 0' side yard building setback along the south property line in lieu of 10 feet, (E) less than a 10 foot wide landscaped planter in various locations along "B" Street and Warner. On November 27, 1985, the Board of Zoning Adjustments denied the request because a building of 2,100 square feet could be established on the property with sufficient parking area and conforming setbacks, as conceptually presented to the Planning Commission in conjunction with Zone Change No. 85-14; and because lack of adequate on -site parking and maneuverability would result in vehicles backing out on "B" Street and increased parking on "B" Street. Subsequently, the applicant appealed the decision. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt under Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Paul Hampton, applicant, spoke in support of the proposal explaining that his business was a photography studio where half of his business is by appointment off premises, further stating that his business does not create that much traffic. He added that he disagreed with condition #ld requesting that a landscape berm may be used instead of a wall. Commissioner Erskine expressed concern about the architecture of the building feeling that there should be more consistency with the materials in the proposal and the adjacent neighborhood structures. Wayne Penny, Architect, stated that the reason for the wood material was because the proposal is the last commercial project on this street and the other side is residential reasoning that the applicant was trying to reserve some of the residential style. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher questioned applicant to request a berm instead staff stated that either one would P.C. December 17, 1985 -7- if it was possible for the of a wall. Florence Webb of be acceptable. (3970d ) Commissioner Erskine referred the Commission to conditions #17 and #18 stating that he would like the roof materials be of a more permanent material such as tile and the north and south face of the building be of brick or stucco. He also asked staff if the Commission could make this conditional use permit apply to only this particular applicant and not run with the land. Tom Poe of staff stated that he recommends a condition of approval to work with the fire department and the building department on alternatives for the outside stairs. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE THE APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 85-77/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-78 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-77: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the photographer office/studio 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 and conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-78: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, regarding size and shape, and corner location, 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. 2. Because of the street corner dedication required, the granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. P.C. December 17, 1985 -8- (3970d) 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-78 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 4. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Reduce the building size to no greater than 2,400 gross square feet. b. Relocate compact parking space at west end of building. C. Rearrange parking stalls as shown on attached plan. d. Provide 32-inch decorative screening wall or berm to code. e. Trash area f. Wheel stops 2. 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. 3. Landscaping shall comply with S. 979.5 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches (2"). 6. Driveway approach on "B" Street shall be a minimum of twenty feet (201) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 7. The corner ROW radius shall be 34 feet. 8. Dedicate 5 feet on "B" Street, to ultimate ROW on Warner Avenue and 2-1/2 feet for the alley per Public Works Standards. P.C. December 17, 1985 -9- (3970d) 9. All signs shall comply with Articles 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. All free-standing signs shall be low -profile, monument -type signs. 10. Improve Warner, "B" Street and alley to ultimate ROW per Public Works Standards. 11. All employees shall park in the rear parking area. 12. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 13. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 13. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 15. 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. 16. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent southerly property. 17. Roof materials shall be of non-combustible tile,, 18. The south facing wall shall be maintenance free and non-combustible and compatible with new development in the area. 19. All customers shall be by appointment only. 20. Revised elevations shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval. Special attention shall be paid to providing esthetically pleasing long lasting building materials and assuring compatibility with the surrounding area. 21. The number of stairs shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Building Division. C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-58/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-87/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-31 Applicant: Dana Blanchard The proposed project consists of construction of a three-story 29-unit mini -suite motel with manager's quarters. The conditional exception requests one parking space per suite in lieu of two as required by 5.9791.12.1(g), reduction from 34 parking spaces to 32, and an excess of 25% of the units to contain a kitchen in lieu of 5.9700.13(e). The zoning is Visitor -Serving Commercial (Article 949) 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). P.C. December 17, 1985 -10- (3970d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-67 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 project, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 85-67. Florence Webb of staff informed the Commission that the applicant was requesting to continue the item to further work with staff. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dana Blanchard, applicant spoke in support of the project. Paul Smith spoke in opposition to the proposal of a three story structure in the neighborhood. Shirley Davis, member of the Board of Directors , Huntington Marina Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition to the parking proposed commenting that all the property along the Mariner Drive and the wall that divides them from the street already has six motels in the sunset area she saw no use for another motel in the area. Robert Barry, real estate broker and property owner in the area, spoke in opposition to the three story building adding that this project will harm the adjacent properties value. He also expressed concerns about this motel being transformed into beach rentals. Otis Bozard, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing concern about the motel being turned into beach rentals. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Florence Webb of staff stated that the parking information in the staff report was supplied by the applicant. Commissioner Winchell expressed concern about the parking requirement and the length of time people will be staying in the motel. She also brought up the concern of the height impact. Chairman Livengood stated that he felt the height was to much adding that he would not consider a recreation area on the roof of the third floor. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked staff if there was requirement for this proposal to go before the Design Review Board adding he did not like the elevations nor the architecture. P.C. December 17, 1985 -11- (3970d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-58/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-87/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-31 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-58/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. - 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of a 29 unit motel at the proposed site will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity or to the property and improvements in the vicinity because an adequate parking layout is not provided on the site for the intensity of the use proposed. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the general plan of the City of Huntington Beach since the motel, due to its location, site layout, and other characteristics, will create increased traffic circulation and parking problems. 3. The granting of a conditional use permit is inconsistent with the development standards contained in Section 9471.1, with respect to the proposed site size and layout. 4. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classification. 5. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-87 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-31: 1. The accompanying development application is recommended for denial and the coastal development permit does not pertain to an approved development. 2. The proposed motel as designed may have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area and may be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the area. 3. The height of the proposed motel can inhibit the view corridor to the ocean and limit the seabreeze circulation to surrounding residential properties. P.C. December 17, 1985 -12- (3970d) C-5 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 85-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-72 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 85-2 is a request by the Department of Development Services to realign Gothard Street south of McFadden Avenue. The proposed alignment would move the current center line of Gothard Street eastward approximately 250 feet and align that portion of Gothard, 600 feet south of McFadden Avenue. The purpose of the realignment is to align Gothard Street with the proposed extension of Gothard to the north through to Hoover Street. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted Draft Negative Declaration No. 85-72 for 10 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 Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 85-2. Prior to any action on the Precise Plan of Street Alignment, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to act on Negative Declaration No. 85-72. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron Pattinson, consultant, spoke in support of the alignment, requested further study, closer contact with the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Edison Company and asked that this item be continued with those thoughts in mind. Barnie Davis from the Westminster School District expressed concern for the alignment bringing the roadway closer to the school in the area. Earl French from Westminster concerned and requested that careful evaluation be made relative to the noise impacts. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 85-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-72 TO THE FEBRUARY 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED P.C. December 17, 1985 -13- (3970d) C-6 USE PERMIT NO. 85k-56/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-53 Applicant: Cambro Manufacturing Use Permit No. 85-56 and Conditional Exception No. 85-53 is a request to construct a 20 foot high, 67 foot long sound wall between two buildings, 13 feet from Huntington Street, with a variance to exceed the 18 foot height requirement for walls within 45 feet of property zoned Residential (5.9530.04). The original request reviewed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments included a 17,300 square foot warehouse addition while maintaining an existing loading facility which faces a public street (Huntington Street); and a variance to permit the loading facility to encroach 32 feet into the required 45 foot setback from Huntington Street. After two meetings before the Board of Zoning Adjustments and hearing concerns from adjacent residents regarding potential noise, poor ingress and egress to the truck court from Huntington Street and possible increase of odors as a result of increased productivity, the applicant scaled down the request to a sound wall and deleted the truck court off Huntington Street. In addition, the Planning Commission requested that the Board of Zoning Adjustments refer this request to them for review due to its controversial nature. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301.1(4) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dick Hammond, representing Cambro, spoke in support of the project. He explained that the wall -would mitigate the noise of loading and unloading. Juan Lopez, speaking for the homeowners on Huntington Street, expressed appreciation for the sound wall but was opposed to the odors of plastic resins impacting the neighborhood. Bill Cambro, owner, spoke in support of the project. He presented a history of land development surrounding the plant and a review of manufacturing processes at Cambro. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. P.C. December 17, 1985 -14- (3970d) 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 85-56/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-53 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN:" None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 85-56: 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 use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-53: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, location and 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. The subject property is surrounding by residentially zoned properties. 2. The granting of a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. By allowing the wall to exceed 2 feet beyond the maximum 18 feet will assure maximum sound attenuation and will be compatible with the existing building height. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 85-53 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 4. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated December 4, 1985 shall be the approved layout. 2. The wall shall match the building wall color. P.C. December 17, 1985 -15- (3970d) 3. The wall shall have solid grout, solid door and be designed to fully meet the Noise Ordinance. After completion, a noise measurement shall be conducted to verify its effectiveness. If it does not meet the Noise Ordinance, it shall be modified to comply. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. The driveway approach off Huntington Street shall be removed and replaced with a sidewalk, curb and gutter per Public Works Standards. 6. Landscaping to match existing landscaping shall be installed adjacent to the wall. 7. A 6 foot wide by 8 foot high door with a knox key box shall be installed in or near the center of the sound barrier. The door is to provide emergency access for fire operations and gives the facility the capability to provide additional ventilation during tank vehicle unloading operations. 8. A 62 foot turnaround must be provided near the middle or east end of the closed center roadway. 9. Fire lane areas to be designated "no parking" per Fire Department Standard 415. C-7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-21/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-66 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach. An amendment to Chapter 99, City Subdivision Ordinance, to establish a "Vesting Tentative Map" Subdivision Procedure in accord with Government Code Section 66498.1 through 66498.8. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-21/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-66 TO THE JANUARY 7, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P.C. December 17, 1985 -16- (3970d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: None E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: DENSITY BONUSES; HOUSING AFFORDABILITY SURVEY Discussed F. PENDING ITEMS: None G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Livengood requested that the first item on the agenda for January 7, 1985 be the election of a new chairman. Chairman Livengood informed the Commission that the Planning Commission Institute in San Diego was coming up on March 12 thought the March 14. He requested the Commission to check their calendars and let him know who was interested in attending. Commissioner Porter stated that he wanted staff to come back with a map indicating boundaries for expansion to Oakview Redevelopment Project area for consideration by the Redevelopment Agency. The expansion should encompass the area east of Beach and south of Warner. Commissioner Mirjahangir requested staff to refer all proposed developments along Pacific Coast Highway to be reviewed by the Design Review Board before coming to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Porter stated that Perry's Pizza located on Slater and Beach has had an illegal help wanted sign out for the past 7 months and it looks very worn out. He requested staff to take care of having it removed. H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: None I. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of January 7, 1986. 0 J mes W. Palin, Secretary lcp Tom Li4 11 ood, Itha'rman P.C. December 17, 1985 -17- (3970d)