Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-07APPROVED 2/4/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1986 - 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Rowe (out of town) FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN Commissioner Schumacher nominated Commissioner Livengood for Planning Commission Chairman for a second term. MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER SECOND BY WINCHELL TO ELECT LIVENGOOD. MOTION PASSED BY ACCLAMATION Commissioner Erskine nominated Commissioner Schumacher for Planning Commission Co -Chairman for a second term. MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL SECOND BY ERSKINE TO ELECT SCHUMACHER MOTION PASSED BY ACCLAMATION Chairman Livengood thanked all of the Planning Commissioners for the tremendous number of hours in meetings, research and study that they were involved in during the year to insure the volume of proposals submitted in 1985 were completed. He also highlighted the Planning Commission accomplishments for 1985: Over 200 Public Hearings were completed and decided on. Held one all -day workshop with the City Council to improve communication and the decision -making procedure. r� A procedure was set up where Citizens and Commissioners can submit concerns to the Planning Commission with a follow-up system on action taken. Expanded notification area for projects submitted to Board of Zoning Adjustments which allows the public to be informed on action being taken on projects affecting them. He felt that the improvement in public input into the planning process was the major accomplishment during the year. He further stated that he would like to see the Commission agree on the following goals for 1986: Budget more time for planning Completion of a revised Sign Ordinance Complete the Specific Plans for Edwards Hill/Holly Property/ Main/Beach/Gothard area. Take some action on Flood Control and see some projects started. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: None B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Status - Staff was congratulated for completing report. There have been 41 LCP's submitted for approval in Orange County. To date, only 8 have been certified to issue permits. The City of Huntington Beach is one of the approved ones. I i PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -2- (4051d) C. ITEMS FOR PUBLIC HEARING C-1 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2/ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-15 Applicant: Meadowland LTD At the December 3, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, Land Use Element Amendment 85-3/Zone Change 85-15 was continued to January 7, 1986 so that renderings of how alternative types of development would appear could be prepared. The applicant has prepared renderings for a development of 48 four-plexes, a development of 45 townhomes, and a 100,000 square foot office. The applicant has also prepared a comparative analysis of bulk, population, vehicle trips, and construction costs for the alternative development. Staff has reviewed these comparative analysis and feels that it is reasonably accurate. The bulk and population analysis indicates that the higher density senior apartment projects are very similar to the R2 projects in terms of potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and the office projects would have greater impacts. The applicant has also revised the site plan for the 114 unit project as recommended by staff. Though it does still need some adjustment to meet code we feel that it adequately addresses the neighborhood concerns regarding privacy and aesthetics. Staff feels that a 114 unit project is a good proposal for the site and is continuing to recommend approval. 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, will constitute the Final EIR when transmitted to the City Council. These items are incorporated in the addendum and appendix portions of the report. Zone Change No. 85-15 is also covered by EIR 85-2. Staff referred the Commissioners to Resolution 1349B for approval of Medium -High density. Staff further recommended that Zone Change 85-15 be approved for a change of zone to Qualified Medium High Density Residential. The "Q" would require Design Review Board approval of the project. Staff further recommended that the zone change ordinance be amended to include a maximum unit count of 114 unitrs also under the "Q". Staff suggested that action be taken in the following order: 1. EIR 85-2 2. Land USe Element Amendment 85-3 (Resolution 1349B) 3. Zone Change 85-15 PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -3- (4051d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dan Neveau, principal on the project, spoke in favor of the project. He addressed problems on traffic, size, privacy, site problems, and underground parking. Alternative options for comparison were discussed. Jeanie Sager, Emerald Cove principal, spoke in favor of a senior housing project. She pointed out that many seniors were turned away because of lack of space at Emerald Cove and pointed out that our community needs more senior projects. Richard Short, homeowner on adjacent property, spoke against the project. He had a list of 38 homeowners also against the project and said that they were available to speak if needed. He listed the problems of the homeowners which included high density, traffic, and privacy. He feels that a soil survey needs to be completed and a zoning limit set. Lance Berry spoke against the Meadowland project. Said the zoning should be low density. Elizabeth Short, homeowner, spoke against the project. She supported a senior project but felt that this project was not beneficial to the neighboring residents. Katherine Berry, resident, said she was in favor of a senior project but was against the proposed plan at this site. Mike Rogers, Council on Aging, spoke in favor of the project. Our community has a real need for housing for seniors with private financing. This project is affordable and is a good start for seniors in this area. Its location is near medical facilities, near shopping and churches, and has a good transportation system nearby. Todd Olson, resident, questioned whether this projects would really be affordable to most seniors with rents approximated at $525 to $700 per month. Ho-Van-Cao questioned why R5 was being changed. Why is the Commission allowing this change? Dan Neveau reiterated that intensity is the issue and that senior projects are less intense. This is a privately funded project not a federally funded project. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood pointed out that what the Commission had to consider here was an existing R5 zoning which would allow a building with a 10 foot setback, with approximately 100,000 square feet and a height of 35 feet. The applicant is asking for a 148 unit senior complex and staff is recommending 114 units. He asked members of the Commission for their comments. I PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -4- (4051d) Commissioner Winchell stated that she felt the Commission was dealing with an existing Land Use Designation which allows office professional. The applicant is requesting high density and the staff is recommending medium high density. The General Plan is more binding than just making a zone change and it says nothing about seniors or number of units. This project is residential versus office profesional. What best benefits the City? The City needs a compromise. A project like this needs to be economically feasible for a developer without lining his pockets. We need a reasonable project for the adjacent neighbors and one that also satisfies the needs of the City for more senior housing Commissioner Schumacher feels that the General Plan needs to be flexible. The City needs more senior housing. Additional office space is not needed and that the Commission must look at intensity not just density with the least amount of impacts. Commissioner Erskine feels that senior housing is needed and another office project is not. He asked if the General Plan could be conditioned so that it would require only senior housing. Mr. Godfrey, staff, stated that such mechanisms have never been incorporated in this City but he has seen it done in other communities. The zoning could be conditioned. Commissioner Porter recommended that we designate this project Medium Density and add the Senior Residential suffix. He felt that the project could be situated on the parcel to minimize the intrusion in the adjacent neighborhood. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that he would support residential over commercial. He felt the question to be considered was the number of units to be allowed. Commissioner Livengood agrees with a senior residential project. He feels that it would be the best for the neighborhood. He is not in favor of subterranean parking. He is concerned about the soils condition and the impact of subterranean parking. He would prefer a compromise of fewer units with surface parking and better landscaping. There were no other comments from the Commissioners. Chairman Livengood asked that they take action first on the EIR. There were some questions concerning some statements in the EIR: Page 8 to read: Development of site for office professional uses would be consistent with existing R5 zoning. The site could accommodate a 100,000 square foot office building with a maximum of 35 foot height and 3 stories. The staff report regarding asbestos, which is a concern on this project, should be incorporated into the EIR. PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -5- (4051d) Environmental checklist: Item 1 - Earth. Will the proposal result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geological structures. The answer should be listed as maybe. Explanations Yes and Maybe on the EIR - Item 11: The proposal will result in approximately 200 additional people residing in the area. Is this a correct statement based on the proceedings. Staff was comfortable with this figure. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2 WITH AMENDMENTS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Chairman Livengood then called for a discussion on the Land Use Element Amendment and the Zone Change. Commissioner Porter asked staff if the plan for 114 units had been reviewed and would it fit on this parcel. Staff stated that they had done a preliminary plan check and that there were some minor problems but that the project can be made workable. It was recommended that the General Plan be changed to a Medium Density Residential designation, and that the unit count could be made higher with a density bonus for senior housing and affordable housing. A discussion ensued as to whether the General Plan could be changed. What type of use do we want on this property. Could there be conditions set on the Land Use Designation? Mr. Sangster, City Attorney, stated that the Land Use Element could be conditioned but there were limits as to how many times changes could be made each year. Staff feels that Q-R3-SR is workable and that a project could be built that would include only senior housing, with conditions placed very carefully in the zone change. 7 Ll 1 PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -6- (4051d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: none MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 85-3 WITH LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGED TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter NOES: Schumacher, Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILS This item was automatically continued to the next regular meeting or a date agreed upon by the Commission. Staff was directed to tape this portion of the meeting so that Commissioner Rowe could review it before the next meeting. A MOTION MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE JANUARY 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 SIGN CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-11 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach On November 19, 1985, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the proposed sign code amendment and continued the item until January 7, 1986. At the study session on December 10, 1985, it was determined that this item should be continued until March 4, 1986, in order for more time to work on the code amendment. In order to avoid making any wall signs that conform to the existing Sign Code nonconforming due to size, staff is willing to modify the draft ordinance so that there is no change in the regulations; that is, the 1.5 to 1.0 ratio will remain as is. PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -7- (4051d) There are two items on which staff wishes to receive direction in order to organize a preliminary survey of the number of signs which could potentially be made nonconforming by the proposed provisions in the draft Sign ordinance. These are items numbers 4 and 5 from the staff report prepared for the December 10, 1985 study session (below). They had previously been suggested for inclusion in the draft ordinance by Commissioner Porter. 4. Freestanding Signs in conjunction with buildings encroachin into special fifty foot setback: A comment was made regarding the lack of need for freestanding signs to identify buildings that already take advantage of provisions to encroach within the fifty foot setback where allowed. With a reduced setback, there is a much higher visibility of the wall signs on such buildings, thus making identification on freestanding sign structures unnecessary and redundant. Staff would support language added to the ordinance to prohibit freestanding signs for buildings that encroach into the fifty foot setback. 5. Freestanding Signs for Commercial Businesses at Intersections: Also suggested were separate restrictions for buildings at intersections: freestanding signs to be monument -type only and limited to twenty square feet in area. Such signs would have to be located outside of the twenty-five foot corner cut-off area depicted in Diagram A, as any freestanding sign would. Staff would support this provision, which can be incorporated in the draft ordinance if the Planning Commission so directs. Staff requested a concensus of approval from the Commissioners for support on item number 4 and 5. The Commissioners supported the two items with the following comments. Commissioners felt that pictorial examples are needed. Current signage needs to be cleaned up. We need balance so that businesses that have a prominent location from a building standpoint have an advantage and they can make use of that advantage by advertising on the building and those businesses in back of the property also have some claim to exposure. Are signs objectionable? How do they relate to community standards and economic issues? There is no public contingency demanding that we adopt sign code revisions. Commissioner Porter had a question regarding freestanding signs with buildings encroaching into special 50 foot setbacks. How far can a building encroach into the 50 foot setback between the 25 foot cutoff and 50 foot setback line at an intersection on public streets. Would there be any additional signs beyond the 50 foot monument sign provided at the intersection? Staff is prepared to survey structures with ground signs to see how many would be in a non -conforming situation with regard to such changes if changes were to be made in the ordinance code. PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -8- (4051d) Huntington Beach Sign Company volunteered to take interested persons on a field tour of the community before the next scheduled study session on February 18, 1986. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE SIGN CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-11 TO THE MARCH 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-21/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-66 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach At the December 17, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No. 85-21 and requested a change to the draft ordinance. The change was to eliminate extensions of time for tentative and vesting tentative maps. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bill Holman, representing Mansion Properties, spoke in general support of the amendment. He did however voice his concerns regarding the Planning Commission's decision to consider amending their current subdivision procedures as they effect the time lines of normal tentative maps. He stated that he would like to have further discussions with staff regarding his concerns. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Staff suggested that since further discussions were needed on this amendment that it be tabled until further notice. The item would have to be readvertised after such discussions were held. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL TO TABLE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-21/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-66 UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schuamcher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -9- (4051d) C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-66 Applicant: Chris Kiralla Conditional Use Permit No. 85-66 is a request to expand an existing wood product wholesale distribution operation to include wood chipping and an office. The wholesale distribution operation was established by Conditional Use Permit No. 85-37, which was conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on August 20, 1985. The applicant has indicated that he desires to operate a wood chipper which will manufacture the wood products which he currently distributes and that he also needs a small office in order to better operate his business. A new conditional use permit is required because this request represents an increased intensity of use. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: On August 20, 1985, the Planning Commission approved Negative Declaration No. 85-37 which addressed environmental concerns for Conditional Use Permit No. 85-31. Staffs feels that Negative Declaration No. 85-37 covers this new request subject to additional conditions. Two conditions that shall apply are the applicant shall provide a noise study and chipping shall cease when the wind velocity exceeds 13 mph. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED The applicant was present to answer any questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commission questioned whether there were landscaping requirements along Talbert Avenue and if so was there a time frame in which the applicant had to comply with the requirements. Also they were concerned about the noise attenuation. The applicant explained that according to Condition No. 10 he had 12 months in which to complete all landscaping and that he was proceeding with the completion. Also, an acoustical engineer has determined that the sound wall will be effective and should not be visible. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-66 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -10- (4051d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed use will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or is detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 2. The proposed use will be compatible with existing or other proposed uses in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed location and site layout of the proposed use will properly adapt structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 4. The access to and parking for the proposed use will not create traffic problems. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated November 27, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. All conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 85-31 shall apply. 3. The applicant shall provide a noise study by an acoustical engineer/sound engineer with mitigating measures for the surrounding properties prior to obtaining a certificate to operate. 4. The siting and architectural design of the proposed office shall be subject to the review and approval by the Director of Development Services. 5. Approval shall be for an initial two year time period with a maximum of three one-year extensions by the Planning Commission. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 85-66 if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-61 Applicant: Christ Presbyterian Preschool Conditional Use Permit No. 85-61 is a request to permit an expansion to an existing pre-school facility with a 2,160 square foot modular building. On October 17, 1978, the Planning Commission approved a request to redesign parking facilities and construct classroom facilities at the subject site. On May 21, 1980, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 80-14 and Conditional Exception No. 80-33 which permitted the construction of additional PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -11- (4051d) classrooms at the existing church facilities. Conditional Exception No. 80-33 permitted a front yard setback encroachment of 9 feet for the main building. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class l(a) Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Connie Hornyak spoke in behalf of the church, supporting the project. The church is prepared to comply with any conditions necessary for approval of the project. She read a letter from the Pastor explaining that the preschool and church services are never held at the same time. She also explained that restriping the parking area, according to their calculations, would total 179 parking spaces (40% for compact cars). Since staff was requiring 184, and it would cost them an additional $4,500 to add 5 more spaces making it economically unfeasible, would they still support the proposal. She also mentioned that they neighbor, Sutomono Bank, verbally agreed to let them use sixteen of their parking spaces for services on Sunday. Arthur Meares also spoke in favor of the proposal. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. There was a discussion regarding how the figures were arrived at for determining how many parking spaces were necessary. Were parking spaces needed to service classrooms during church services? How many spaces would be absorbed by the modular classroom? Can they go with the sixteen spaces loaned to them by the bank without written permission? Both staff and the Commissioners agreed that 179 parking spaces would be sufficient, after restriping. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-61 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -12- (4051d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. 3. The proposed use is compatible with existing or other proposed uses in the neighborhood. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed use will adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses. 5. The combination and relationship of the proposed use to the other use on a site will properly be integrated. 6. The access to and parking for the proposed use will not create an undue traffic problem. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan and elevation shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. Landscaping shall be provided around the perimeter of the modular building. b. Elevation shall indicate a permanent foundation and skirting which will screen the foundation from view. C. Set back building to provide 3 foot setback from drive aisle according to the Fire Department standards. d. A 17' x 45' turning radius shall be maintained for fire purposes. 2. Special architectural treatment shall be provided. Such treatment is subject to approval by the Department of Development Services. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -13- (4051d) 5. On -site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. 6. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed within twelve (12) months. 7. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. 8. 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-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-64 Applicant: Avelma Zeno A request to add a second residential unit to an existing single family residence located at 17382 Murken Lane in Huntington Beach, California. The item cannot be acted on due to a problem in the publication of the legal advertisement. The notice did not appear in the newspaper although it was mailed to the surrounding residents. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-64 UNTIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 1986 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-68 Applicant: Lucy Sisley A request for an addition of a second unit to an existing single family home located at 6201 Dover Drive, Huntington Beach, California 92647. The item cannot be acted on due to a problem in the publication of the legal advertisement. The notice did not appear in the newspaper although it was mailed to the surrounding residents. PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -14- (4051d) f� THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-68 UNTIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 1986 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-8 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-13 Applicant: Donco and Sons Inc. Special Sign Permit No. 85-13 is a request to permit facia signage on a freestanding canopy, sign copy on 2 sets of proposed spandrel signs, and 6 bumper post signs, at an existing Arco gasoline station. The applicant has indicated that the proposed sign changes are in conjunction with Arco's image improvement program. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mark Fink, representing ARCO spoke in support of the Special Sign Permit. He could not understand staff's recommendation for denial since six other special sign permits had been approved. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners wanted to know the history of the other approvals. They would like to see consistency in these approvals and felt it would be unfair to this applicant if a thorough investigation was not done. They felt that this is a nice looking service station and they did not want to penalize this applicant. Staff stated that in order to respond, the item would have to be continued and the other permits that had been approved would have to be researched to see how (if at all) they differed from this permit. PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -15- (4051d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-13 TO THE JANUARY 22, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TO PREPARE A REPORT ON SIGNAGE OF OTHER ARCO STATIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, ERskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-9 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-14 Applicant: Huntington Beach Sign Co. Special Sign Permit No. 85-14 is a request to permit a 21 foot high, double-faced pylon marquee sign for Marina High School on City -owned property. The proposed sign will be internally illuminated and will have approximately 110 square feet of sign area. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioners questioned the number of existing signs on the site, and whether any of the existing signs (especially the current information sign located at the corner of the site) would be removed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Art Betoben, Principal of Marina High School, spoke in support of the proposal. Current renderings were presented, depicting the location of the current welcome signs and showing the need for a new information sign. He felt it would be good for the community as well as for the school. Jack Britten, Huntington Beach Sign Co., was present to answer any questions and spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that the existing information sign (20 foot overall) located at the corner of the site would be removed. Comparing the proposed signs to other school signs he stated that this sign would be comparable to other schools except for Edison High School's sign which is larger. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the puiblic hearing was closed. Since the current conditions did not state that the existing information sign would be removed, Commissioners felt this should be added. PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -16- (4051d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-14 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAI: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed 21 foot high, 110 square foot marquee sign will not adversely affect other signs in the area. 2. The proposed 21 foot high marquee sign will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. 3. The proposed 21 foot high marquee sign will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 4. The proposed 21 foot high marquee sign will not create a vehicular traffic hazard. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall submit a site plan which shall depict the sign totally contained within a landscaped area. 2. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan for the proposed sign location area which shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Development Services. 3. The Marina High School shall enter into a Parkway License Agreement with the City of Huntington Beach which shall be provided by the Department of Public Works, approved as to form by the City Attorney, and approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of permits by the Department of Development Services. 4. The existing sign on the school premises, adjacent to the proposed site, shall be removed. C-10 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-18/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 298/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-70 Applicant: Jerwel Enterprises A request to change a portion of property zoned M-1 to C-4 and consolidate same portion of property into commercial site. PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -17- (4051d) The item cannot be acted on due to a problem in the publication of the legal advertisement. The notice did not appear in the newspaper although it was mailed to the surrounding residents. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-18/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 298/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-70 UNTIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 1986 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A modification to the Definition Section of Article 970. The item cannot be acted on due to a problem in the publication of the legal advertisement. The notice did not appear in the newspaper although it was mailed to the surrounding residents. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 UNTIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 1986 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED I 1 P� PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -18- (4051d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING D-1 D-1 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-17 Clarification on amendment approved December 3, 1985, regarding Oldtown/Townlot Site Coverage. Applies to third floor decks. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO REQUEST CLARIFICATION ON THE AMENDMENT, APPROVED DECEMBER 3, 1985, REGARDING OLDTOWN/TOWNLOT SITE COVERAGE. (REQUEST: NO DECKS ON ROOF OF SECOND FLOOR WHERE THERE IS 55% LOT COVERAGE). STAFF WILL PREPARE A REQUEST TO SEND THE AMENDMENT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A REPORT PRIOR TO IT BEING ACTED ON BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood (did not understand the motion, procedurally) ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: Erskine MOTION PASSED D-2 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-31 AT MAIN AND FLORIDA FOR 148 UNIT SENIOR APARTMENTS. A MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-31 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-3 PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON EXPANSION OF OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT AREA Commission reviewed the report. A survey area encompassing the entire Beach Boulevard corridor within the City's jurisdiction will forthcoming. Commissioner Erskine remarked that while driving east on Warner towards Beach Boulevard he noticed the areas surrounding the proposed photo shop project. All the surrounding structures had stucco or brick siding and that he hoped staff, at the design review, would keep these architectural similarities in mind and require some attractive, permanent, non -wood siding for the entire project. PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -19- (4051d) E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: E-1 USE PERMIT NO. 85-75 Reviewed the December 18, 1985 Board of Zoning Adjustments minutes. E-2 USE PERMIT NO. 85-80 F. G. H. Discussed live entertainment at this location. Applicant wanted clarification on whether a piano player or harpist is considered live entertainment. Staff stated that a Conditional Use Permit is required. PENDING ITEMS: Planning Commission requested that staff provide a Pending Items list going back to its inception and the status of each item that is still outstanding. This list is to be kept current and included in every Planning Commission agenda. Items discussed include: The banner for Graham Chiropractic - The Commission felt it was inappropriate inasmuch as he had an extremely large pole sign. Check to see if he has a permit. Noise circulation and parking at Charter Center parking structure. Evidently, there are times when the valet parking is ineffective. There are a number of conflicts in the circulation system and the structure itself with automobiles moving in and out and may not be in conformance with the noise ordinance. We may have to provide an acoustical treatment or some other treatment to be in conformance with the noise ordinance. There was to be a traffic study performed at a percentage of occupancy at Ash and Warner to ascertain if a traffic signal would be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioners asked that their mail (if marked personal) could be forwarded to them immediately instead of waiting for packet day. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: None G u PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -20- (4051d) 1 I. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:20 PM to the next regular meeting of January 22, 1986. Tom Livengo , C it an PC Minutes - 1/7/86 -21- (4051d)