Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-18LI 1 APPROVED 4/15/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1986 - 7:00 PM , PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes March 4, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE, WITH ADDITIONS, THE MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 1986, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY'THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Schumacher " MOTION PASSED A-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 86-5 Review of funded and unfunded projects contained in •the proposed City Capital Improvement Program for consideration as to conformance with the General Plan. MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO ADD GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 86-5 TO THE APRIL 1, 1986 AGENDA SO THAT ACTION CAN BE TAKEN: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: Kirk Kirkland, Board of Realtors, requested that there be a continuance of Item C-11 so that the Board could meet and come back to the Commission with a better opinion regarding the reconstruction of nonconforming residential sites. i 11 PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -2- (4535d) 1 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 ZONE,CHANGE NO. 86-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 86-3 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 19r 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) On February 19, 1986 the Planning Commission continued action on Zone Change No. 86-3, a request to redesignate a 0.43 acre parcel located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, south of Yorktown Avenue from C2 (Community Business) to C4 (Highway Commercial) for the purpose of constructing a motel. On March 4, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Code Amendment No. 86-8 and recommended adoption to the City Council. A City Council public hearing for the proposed code amendment is tentatively scheduled for April 7, 1986. This revision to the Ordinance Code pertains to motel development. Specifically, minimum lot size and frontage would be increased from 9,000 square feet, 70 foot frontage to 20,000 square feet, 100 foot frontage. The subject property is approximately 18,900 square feet and 70 feet wide. If the code amendment is adopted by the City Council, the site being considered for the zone change would not meet the minimum standards for developing a motel. Even though the parcel would not qualify for motel/hotel development if the City Council adopts the proposed revisions to the ordinance code, staff still considers this property as a good site for C4 (Highway Commercial) development. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Elmer Allen (property owner's son) submitted a short letter to the Commission and some photographs of the site and announced that he was in support of the proposed zone change and would be available to answer any questions. Bob Corona, Consultant, spoke in support of the project. He stated that after personally doing a study of Beach Boulevard he feels that a motel is very desirable at this particular site. He feels the - proposed project will be very attractive and compatible with the surrounding area. Chandulal Patel spoke in support of the project. He stated that the proposed motel would be a Quality Inn and that the project had to also meet all of their requirements. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The applicant was asked if it was clear to him that if the Code Amendment concerning motels was passed by the City Council and if his zone change was approved that a conditional exception would have to be applied for first before approving his project. He stated that he did understand everything that would be required. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -3- (4535d) The Commission was concerned that the applicant might be misled by the granting of a zone change. He was informed that he,would have to go through the proper entitlement process for approval on his project. He said that he fully understood the process and would proceed.on a step by step basis. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND.BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-3 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-3 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, porter, Mirjahangir _ NOES: None =- ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL'ZONE CHANGE'NO. 86-3: 1. Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property as General Commercial; therefore the requested C4 zoning is consistent with the General Plan Designation. 2. Commercial development of the subject site will be compatible with surrounding land uses because_ these properties are similarly developed. C-2 APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF ZONING,ADJUSTMENT'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-6 Conditional Exception No. 86-6 is a request to maintain an existing garage with -zero foot (0') side yard setback on the south side and a side yard setback on the north side in lieu of the required five foot (51). The garage is necessary as part of a duplex addition to the existing single family residence for a total of 3 units on the site. On February 19, 1986, the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved the request based on certain findings and conditions of approval with the modification that the garage be setback 3 feet from the south property line in lieu of the requested zero foot setback. The applicant concurred with this condition since the garage would still comply with the minimum parking dimensions for a two car garage.' The Board's decision was appealed by two Planning Commissioners, Richard Rowe and Grace Winchell, because of their concerns regarding the impact of the existing garage, with its reduced side yard setbacks, upon adjacent neighbors; the establishment of a precedent for the neighborhood; and the controversial nature of the request. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt by Class 1, Section 15301 under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -4- (4535d) 1 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ernie Oddo, applicant, was present to answer questions and to speak in support of the project. He said that he had gone through great pains to satisfy the concerns of the adjacent homeowners. He couldn't understand the neighbor's present concerns regarding a garage that had been built 40 years ago with proper permits. He also stated that he didn't feel he was setting a precedent in the neighborhood since the majority of homes did have rental units built on the back of the properties. Harold Ewell spoke in opposition to the project. His main concern was the parking situation in the neighborhood. He felt that the proposed project should include more enclosed parking spaces. Idelle Jungbluth read a letter from Dr. Shipley, resident, who could not attend the meeting. Dr. Shipley felt that there were too many non -conforming units and that the neighborhood was becoming a curb/alley parking lot. He had a petition that was signed by 38 people against the project. Carolyn Beaton, spoke in oppositon to the project. She felt that more rentals will cause overcrowding and will make her property values decline. She feels that the R2 and R3 lots should not determine the living styles for the area. Gae Brummett spoke in opposition to the project. From her backyard she would see only walls and balconies and since the proposed garage will be facing Main Street she will get all of the fumes from the automobiles. She felt since the property has already been divided once that it shouldn't be divided again and if the codes cannot be met, variances should not be given. Julian Jungbluth spoke in opposition to the project. She requested that the five foot setback be maintained. Arline Howard spoke in opposition to the project. She feels that this project is an intrusion into the neighborhood; apartments should not be allowed to be built; Main Street is being destroyed; it is not fair for R1 lots to be impacted with R2 and R3 lots. Mr. Oddo was given time for a rebuttal. He stated that he is also concerned about the parking in the area. He again stated that his projects does meet all of the requirements of an R2 site. He does not need approval to build his units. He was only asking for variances to make the property nicer for the surrounding neighbors. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners supported the neighbors and felt that the downtown area should be preserved. They would like to see the whole area rezoned to R1. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -5- (4535d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY ROWE, TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-6 WITH FINDINGS AND REVERSE THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed project is not in conformance with the General Plan. 2. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. The existing garage -could be demolished and replaced with a single car garage and open parking space in conformance with the required setbacks; a two car garage must then be provided adjacent to the front house. 3. The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. 4. Encroachment into the required setback is not compatible with setbacks established for properties to the north and south would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon those properties. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-20 As required by Conditional Use Permit No. 83-20, the Oktoberfest event is to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, no later than March of each year to insure compliance with all conditions of approval and to mitigate any additional problems created during the previous year's event. The applicant has indicated that the 1986 Oktoberfest will be held between September 19, 1986 and November 9, 1986. Staff has contacted the applicant and requested that he provide letters of authorization from Coast Community College and Jerwel Enterprises providing for additional parking for the event. The Jerwel parking area was used extensively by Oktoberfest customers last year, while the Goldenwest College parking area was used only sparingly during the event. Staff is recommending that the applicant have access to this area to provide for overflow parking during the Oktoberfest event. Condition No. 16 of Conditional Use Permit 83-20 requires 400 off -site parking spaces within 500 feet of the event. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -6- (4535d) The Department of Public Works has indicated that a detailed parking analysis be prepared and submitted for review by Public Works due to the new development at One Pacific Plaza, Huntington Center and the proposed Transportation Center. If the Commission concurs with Public Works, the report could be reviewed and approved by Public Works prior to the commencement of the Oktoberfest. Sergeant Jeff King of the Police Department has indicated to staff that his department is satisfied with the current conditions of approval and has been satisfied with the performance of the police approved security service employed by the applicant. Therefore, the Police Department is not recommending any changes be made to this year's event. Fire -Inspector Bill Sampson has also indicated to staff that last year's event was well run and that they do not suggest any changes for this year's Oktoberfest. Inspector Sampson did indicate that the.Fire Department would continue to monitor the occupancy levels at this year's Oktoberfest. A letter from Gerald J. Van Gemert, Attorney at Law, regarding this year's Oktoberfest was submitted. His letter addressed a number of concerns of the Old World Owners Association. They would like the applicant to hire off -duty police personnel; eliminate all outdoor speakers; reduce occupancy from 1,200 (1,450 for six special occasions) to 283; name the association as an additional insured and that the insurance policies be made available to the public. Mr. Van Gemert would also like the portable bathrooms to be restricted to the property owned by the applicant and their exact locations to be determined by the Department of Development Services. The staff has contacted the Police Department regarding the use of off -duty police officers. Staff was informed by the Police. Department that off -duty police (Huntington Beach police officers) are not permitted to moonlight as security officers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Joseph Donahue, Attorney for the applicant, spoke in support of Oktoberfest and was available for any questions. He said that his client does have and maintains insurance protection. Meetings have - been set up with Jerwel Enterprises and Goldenwest College to discuss additional off -site parking. Frank Emma, homeowner in Oldworld Village, spoke in support of Oktoberfest. He feels that Oktoberfest is exciting and good for business. Robert Lewin, attorney for the Homeowners Association, spoke in support of Oktoberfest, however felt that restrictions should be imposed for more control. The festivities have gotten out of control and become violent and should never be allowed to expand. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -7- (4535d) Gerald Van Gemert, on behalf of Old World Owners Association, spoke in support of Oktoberfest and was in favor of the new conditions. He does not feel there is enough on -site parking and that a condition seeking approval of the homeowners for the use of their parking spaces should be obtained. Paul Courtney, Courtney Security Services, spoke in support of the security for Oktoberfest. His company provides service for the festivities and has always had the support of the fire and police department and would like to continue to serve Oktoberfest. Harry Shellenbaum, businessman, spoke in support of Oktoberfest. He stated that he, as a businessman, is impacted by the parking more than anyone else and feels that Oktoberfest is the best thing for business at Old World. There was no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners felt that some revisions to conditions regarding portable bathrooms, security officers being over 21 years of age, and the westerly parking lot not being used by patrons be made. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE WITH REVISED CONDITIONS THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-20 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. To mitigate unnecessary noise, the use of all outside speakers by the applicant shall be discontinued during the Oktoberfest event. 2. A revised parking analysis shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Department of Public Works no later than June 1, 1986. This report shall include the location of the required 400 off -site parking spaces and letters of authorization from the property owners. Failure to comply with this condition by June 1, 1986, shall deem the annual review of Conditional Use Permit No. 83-20 null and void and prohibit the Oktoberfest from commencing on September 19 1986. 3. The Oldworld owners association shall be included as an additional isured on the applicant's liability insurance. This shall be done at the applicant's expense. The insurance policy shall be made available to the public upon request. The amount of the liability insurance shall be approved by the City no later than June 1, 1986. PC Minutes 7 3/18/86 -8- (4535d) 4. All modified conditions previously imposed by the.Planning Commission shall remain in effect for the 1986 Oktoberfest. 5. The applicant shall provide sufficient portable bathrooms to accommodate patrons at the Oktoberfest event. The location of portable bathrooms shall be determined by the Department of Development Services. Portable bathrooms shall not be placed in the common area, with the exception of the easterly parking lot at Oldworld Village. 6. All employees of the police -approved security service shall be a minimum of 21 years of age. The security service shall be approved by the Police Department no later than June 1, 1986. 7. The westerly parking lot (on Center Drive) at Old World Village shall not'be used by patrons of this year's Oktoberfest. 8. All applicable conditions of approval contained in Conditional Use Permit No. 83-20 shall remain in effect for this year's Oktoberfest. C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 - "BUILDING HEIGHTS" (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 22, 1986, FEBRUARY 4, 1986 AND MARCH 4F 1986 PLANNING i-nMMTCCTr)M MFWPTN!•C On March 4, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No. 85-24 at the request of the attorneys representing Dr. Reince. On February 4, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No. 85-24 to allow staff time to revise the definition of building height to address concerns the Commission had regarding' natural and finish grade, the relationship of building site elevation to street curb elevation and to adjacent properties. The language provided in the definition addresses these concerns. The staff still supports the adoption of the Uniform Building Code version in that the describing of the reference datum in the definition of building height may not apply in each and every situation where height may be of concern. The review of site, grading and elevation plans during the entitlement review process can more accurately and specifically affix the reference datum and the height of the building as proposed in the department policy directive. The Planning Commission is also considering reduction in height and stories of buildings in residential zones. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Charles 0. Reince spoke in opposition to the code amendment. He is opposed to the Uniform Building Code version of building height because there are too many loopholes. The building height should be determined by what the eye can see. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -9- (4535d) Vicki Lee Karushaar spoke in opposition to the code amendment. She felt that the definition used by the Uniform Building Code would cause obstruction. Harole E. Neibling spoke in oppositin to the code amendment. He felt that the uniform building code contained too many loopholes. He submitted a petition signed by property owners in the area who also feel that their property rights will be affected by the passing of the code amendment. Scott Schaffel, Attorney for Charles Reince, felt that there was not a good reason for recommending this new definition. If the ordinances were enforced the difficulties would be alleviated. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners felt that more verbage was still needed in the uniform building code and that staff still needed to revise the definition of building heights to address all of the concerns raised over the past few months. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 TO THE APRIL 1, 1986 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-23 - "LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 4, 1986 AND MARCH 4, 1986 MEETING) This item was continued from the meeting of March 4, 1985, in order to have the code amendment considered on the same agenda with the - proposed new definition of building height. On November 19, 1985, the Planning Commission directed staff to review a modification to the zoning code that would permit a maximum of two stories within the R1 zone. Code Amendment No. 85-23 incorporates this concern as part of a general clean-up of the R1 provisions. The clean-up is a continuing effort to rewrite Division 9 in a more readable and consistent manner. The change in title .of . Chapter 91 to "Residential Districts" is necessary because the reorganization of Division 9 will place all of the various residential districts under this one chapter. "Low Density Residential Districts" will no longer be an appropriate title. New Article 911 (Rl) is consistent in format, design, and numbering with the code amendments already approved by the Planning Commission for the three industrial districts and the Oldtown/Townlot District. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -10- (4535d) With respect to the change in provisions for permitted stories, staff is recommending that the maximum be changed to twenty-five feet and that two stories be the maximum allowed by right within the R1 zone district. The current code provision requiring use permit approval by the Board of Zoning Adjustments for requests to increase building height would be modified as discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on February 4, 1986. The new provisions state that when an applicant wants to build a third story and or a maximum of thirty feet, a conditional use permit would need to be approved by the Planning Commission. These provisions for regulating building height will ensure the preservation of existing single family neighborhoods at no more than twenty-five feet in height and two stories unless a public hearing takes place, in which case surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius will be notified and have the opportunity to voice their opinions. It will also allow staff some discretion in their recommendations on requested third stories. A staff analysis will be based upon the particular site, the neighborhood in which it is located, and the compatibility of the proposed design. In addition, specific findings as outlined in Section 9110.4, would need to be adopted by the Planning Commission prior to approval. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-23 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-6 (CONTINUED FROM_FEBRUARY 19, 1986 AND MARCH 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) This item was continued from the meeting of March 4, 1985, in order to have the code amendment considered on the same agenda with the proposed new definition of building height. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -11- (4535d) V. _ Code Amendment No. 86-6 proposes little change to the substantive content of the RA district standards. The proposed ordinance is part of the general clean-up of Division 9. The provisions have been reworded and reorganized to be in a format that will be consistent with all of the other district regulations. The only change made in provision relates to the maximum height of structures. The height has been reduced from thirty feet to twenty-five feet to be in accord with the proposed definition of building height. Existing code already limits structures to a maximum of two stories and this provision was not changed. After Planning Commission approval, staff will schedule this ordinance before the City Council at the same time as Code Amendment No. 85-24 revising the building height definition. The move in location from Article 960 to Article 910.places the provisions at the beginning of the chapter of Residential Districts as the lowest in density. The existing Al (Agriculture) District is being repealed because there is no longer any such property within the City zoned with this designation. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-6 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-9 (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This item was continued from the meeting of March 4, 1985, in order to have the code amendment considered on the same agenda with the proposed new definition of building height. As part of the reorganization of Division 9, staff change in format and a change in location for the section. Since the definitions apply generally to 9, their adoption as Article 908 at the beginning the introductory articles is appropriate. is recommending a Definitions all of Division of the code with PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -12- (4535d) The format change concerns numbering. Previously, every time the Planning Commission or City Council has wanted to modify a definition, several pages of text would have to be printed; each section number covered one letter of the alphabet. Proposed Code Amendment No. 86-9 assigns a different section number to every definition. In this way, individual definitions can be changed easily. In addition, the numbering is set up so that there is room to add up to nine new definitions between each existing definition without difficulty (9080.1.1, 9080.1.2, etc.). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-9 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-22 Conditional Use Permit No. 85-22 is a request to establish a convenience market combined with gasoline sales pursuant to 5.9430.8.2. Atlantic Richfield originally submitted Conditional Use Permit No. 85-22 in May of 1985. The application was for the conversion of the existing gas station to a mini -market selling alcoholic beverages and sundry items. During early 1985 the Council was considering the adoption of an ordinance which would prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages from gasoline stations. Atlantic Richfield contacted the City and requested that their application be "put on hold" until the issue of selling alcoholic beverages was resolved. In December, 1985, Ordinance No. 2808B was adopted by the City Council prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages from gas stations. In light of the Council's action, Atlantic Richfield changed their application to a mini -market selling non-alcoholic beverages and sundry items. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -13- (4535d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class III from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bill Reynolds, Atlantic Richfield, spoke in support of the project. He concurred with all of the conditions except for No. la regarding pass -through windows. He said that the entire floorplan of all Richfield mini -markets would have to be changed and additional staff would have to be hired to include the pass -through window. Instead he is willing to install cash machines outside so that people would not have to come into the store. Andrew Paszterko, architect, spoke in support of the project, and was available to answer any questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners agreed to change the condition regarding pass -through windows. Instead, a cash machine for patrons not wishing to come inside would be installed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-22 WITH MODIFIED CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS 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; 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. [i 1 PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -14- (4535d) 3. Granting of reduction in landscape area minimum dimension will not reduce the required total landscape area (10% of the total site). This landscaping is sufficient to provide an aesthetically pleasing design for the neighborhood and reducing the size from 10 feet to 5-1/2 feet and 3 feet to 2-1/2 feet will not be detrimental to the area. 4. The proposed convenience market with gasoline sales is compatible with surrounding land uses. 5. The proposed convenience market substantially complies with the provisions outlined in Article 943 of the Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plan, floor plans, and building elevations shall be the conceptually approved layout.subject to a revised plan being submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. A cash machine for patrons not wishing to come inside the convenience market will be installed to meet the intent of the code requiring a pass -through cashier's window. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall file a parcel map consolidating the lots and eliminate existing lots. Said map shall be recorded prior to final inspection. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. 4. Landscaping shall comply with S. 9430.8.2 and Article 948 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code except for reductions in planter width as per applicant's request. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division and Fire Department. 6. The applicant shall dedicate required street right of way on Brookhurst Street and Hamilton Avenue. 7. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide access easement to the City's storm drain pump station to the east. This will be for future access to the pump station when Hamilton Street and bridge are widened. 8. Street lights shall be installed on Brookhurst Street as per City requirements. 9. Freestanding sign shall be of monument type, with a maximum height of 8 feet. Maximum sign area shall be 20 square feet if the sign contains only identification and no price panels and fifty square feet if price information is incorporated with no separate freestanding signs permitted on site. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -15- (4535d) FE 10. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 11. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. 12. 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 off -site facility equipped to handle them. 14. 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. 15. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 16. 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-9 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-6 Special Sign Permit No. 85-6 is a request to permit approximately 40 square feet of existing internally illuminated wall signage to be located off of the business site onto the frontage of another business. The structure where the signage has been placed is a two-story office building and the applicant has located the signage on an upper facia (above the first floor) which the applicant does not lease. The subject signage was installed without permits and there has been a compliance hearing with the City Attorney. The applicant has been informed that to keep the wall sign at the present location requires the approval of a special sign permit. The applicant has initiated a Special Sign Permit because the proposed sign does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Article 976, Sign Code. The owner of the retail center, August Management, has authorized the location of the subject 40 square feet of wall signage which is in violation of Article 976, Sign Code. Staff has evaluated the sign proposal and it has been determined that approval of such a request would set a precedent that would create wall sign location problems in single story as well as multi -story structures. The intent of the code is to only permit signage above the lease space controlled by the tenant. The applicant has approximately 40 square feet of effective wall signage facing Magnolia Street that is located above the leasehold space in the proper area. The placement 1 PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -16- (4535d) of the 40 square feet of wall signage beyond and above the leasehold space on the north elevation is prohibited by Code. Staff feels that the wall signage on the north elevation for First Team Realty should be removed or relocated to the area directly above the leasehold space. 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 Dan Carlton, attorney for First Team Realty, spoke in support of the project. He felt that a gross error had been made in the study and that the sign would not adversely affect other signs in the area. Fie feels that the sign will bring in customers. He stated that there is no master lease in the center for signs and that the sign maker did make a mistake with the lettering on the sign. He also stated that he did not feel that the sign would cause a traffic hazard. Stuart McKenzie spoke in opposition to the project. He is with the lawyers group on the second floor and the sign is right above his business. They were told that they could not use the top facia when they asked because they also wanted exposure on Magnolia, and then First Team put their sign there. The First Team sign detracts from their sign. The Landlords told them that the sign was illegal and that it would be removed. Timothy E. Metcalf spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that he supported staff's denial because he felt the quality of the center was degraded by the sign. Lynn Tausch spoke in support of the project. She stated that an inaccuracy had been made. The Landlord promised First Team that they could have the sign. They felt that the sign was legal and they had no intent to be detrimental to the center. She feels that the sign does bring in additional business to the center. The sign was inducement by the landlord to get them to sign a new lease. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners felt that if the applicants had full support of the other tenants in the center that consideration could be given to them regarding the sign but present evidence indicated that the other tenants in the center were against the sign. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -17- (4535d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY PORTER TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-6 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed 40 square feet of wall signage will adversely affect other signs in the area. 2. The proposed 40 square feet of wall signage'will be detrimental to property and businesses located in the vicinity. 3. The proposed 40 square feet of wall signage will not be in keeping with the character of the commercial center. 4. The proposed 40 square feet of wall signage would set a precedent for businesses wishing to locate wall signs off of this leasehold site. C-10 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-7 Code Amendment No. 86-7 is another step in the streamlining of Division 9. In the same manner as the commercial districts were consolidated into one article, staff is proposing that the provisions now contained in the R2, R3, R4 and Apartment Standards be consolidated into one new Article 912. Many of the provisions are identical for these multi -family residential districts, including open space, and most setbacks. The streamlined version should be easier to follow as well as provide a quick comparison of the three districts for both staff and the public. It should be noted that the new ordinance of 8 pages replaces 45 pages of existing code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -18- (4535d) n A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-7 WITH AMENDMENTS BY -THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 The Planning Commission and City Council have in recent weeks discussed the issue of reconstructing nonconforming residential structures after fire damage or other destruction. Development Services has studied the problems involved, surveyed other cities' approaches, identified alternatives, and is recommending that a provision be added addressing such circumstances. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kirk Kirkland, Board of Realtors, requested that there be a continuance of Item C-11 so that the Board could meet and come back to the Commission with a better opinion regarding the reconstruction of nonconforming residential sites. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 TO APRIL 15, 1986 PER THE REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF REALTORS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -19 - (4535d) IM E. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: WAIVER OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 85-14 Request for waiver of Condition No. 1 and 2 of Special Sign Permit 85-14 due to the condition of the soil at the site. MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE REQUEST OF WAIVER OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A HARDSCAPE PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED DISCUSSION ITEMS: MAIN AND TENTH STREETS MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE A ZONE CHANGE IN THE MAIN/TENTH STREET SURVEY AREA TO R1 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED F. PENDING ITEMS: None G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The Commission requested that staff reconsider Code Amendment No. 86-8 - Commercial Districts, to modify the provision regarding pass -through cashier windows at convenience markets with gasoline sales and add to the April 1, 1986 agenda. PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -20- (4535d) ■ H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: NON -CERTIFIED COASTAL AREAS "WHITE HOLE" REPORT - STATUS REPORT MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ROWE TO SCHEDULE A STUDY SESSION ON APRIL 1, 1986 AND TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 15, 1986 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED I. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 AM to a Study Session at 6:00 PM before the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on April 1, 1986. Tom Liv n o , C Irma PC Minutes - 3/18/86 -21- (4535d)