Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-19APPROVED 9/3/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1986 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P A P P P ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE No. 86-8 A request by the Department of Public Works for street and alley vacation at Pine Street between 17th Street and Utica Avenue; and 17th Street between Yorktown Avenue and Utica Avenue; and alleys in blocks 1901 and 1902 of Tract 12. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO DENY GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 86-8, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed street and alley vacation will create traffic and safety problems for the adjacent single family residential neighborhood. 2. The number of daily vehicle trips generated by the proposed development after street vacations will cause undue traffic problems for the adjacent neighborhood. 3. The proposed R2 development is not compatible with the existing R1 neighborhood. 4. The proposed street and alley vacation is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 5. The proposed vacation would further aggravate the parking deficiency in City Hall. 6. Abandonment of the existing bike trails and accessway is inconsistent with the Access and Circulation Element of the General Plan. B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: B-1 REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF NON -CONFORMING USE (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 5, 1986) A request by Dan Hickman to replace outside stairs and deck with new stairs and enlarged deck to an existing non -conforming duplex at 935 Tenth Street. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO HOLD ALL PERMITS APPLIED FOR ON THIS PROPERTY UNTIL SEPTEMBER 3, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO RESEARCH HISTORY ON PROPERTY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -2- (6022d) 1 B-2 MODIFICATION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON HORSE STABLES WITHIN 300 FEET OF ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO MODIFY CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON HORSE STABLES WITHIN 300 FEET OF ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-45 AND ANY OTHERS) TO READ: "APPROVAL SHALL BE FOR A THREE (3) YEAR PERIOD," BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-3 M. WESTLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HEIL AN5 GOTHARD - LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON LOT 11 OF PARCEL MAF- 83-563 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT83-18 A letter was received from the M. Westland Company by the Planning Commission with several questions regarding the landscape buffer and drainage on Lot 11 of Parcel Map 83-563 and Conditional Use Permit No. 83-18. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO SET THIS ITEM AS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ON THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 CALENDAR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Staff is to set up a meeting from the Planning Commission Mirjahangir) to discuss the with the applicant and representatives (Commissioner Winchell and Commissioner request of the applicant. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -3- (6022d) THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS WERE HEARD IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: C-10, C-15, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR THE REMAINING PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS WERE CONTINUED TO THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 1986: C-7, C-9, C-11, C-12, C-131 C-14. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 86-4 Special Sign Permit 86-4 is a request for a second channel letter wall sign for business identification purposes for Century 21 Beachside, Realtors. Century 21 is located in Charter Centre, in the single story retail building between the office tower and Edwards Cinemas. The proposed sign is approximately 86 square feet in area. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project -Is -exempt Class 2 Section A from t-e provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Richard Nelson, Ray Johnson Electric, spoke in support of the proposed sign. He stated that the property owner also supported the sign. Kelly King spoke in: support of the proposed sign. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed sign and the public hearing was closed.` A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 86-4 WITH MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Mone MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Strict compliance with Section 9610.S will result in a substantial hardship to the applicant. 2. A 48 square foot sign will not adversely affect other wall signs located on the building frontage which faces the interior parking area in Charter Centre. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -4- (6022d) 3. The proposed 48 square foot sign will not be detrimental to properties located in the vicinity. 4. The proposed 48 square foot sign will not obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic visibility and will not be a hazardous distraction. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The total square footage of the channel letter wall sign shall not exceed 48 square feet. The copy shall be limited to CENTURY 21 BEACHSIDE, REALTORS. 2. The channel letter wall sign shall comply with all provisions of Planned Sign Program 84-2 regarding color and size and be compatible with existing signs located in the center. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-20/CONDITIONAL EXCEPr"ION NO. 86-24 This item was continued from the meeting of August 5, 1986. The Planning Commission requested conditions of approval be prepared, which have been included as an alternative action. The applicant is requesting utiliziation of an existing church building by expanding its operation to include a pre-school for 106 children. The pre-school is located at 1111 Talbert (northwest corner of Talbert Avenue and Brookshire Lane). The conditional use permit for the church use was approved by the City Council on appeal for an initial five year period on September 6. 1983 with the possibility of an additional five-year extension of time.. Conditional Exception No. 86-24 is a request to permit the required playground area to occupy a portion of the site's parking lot. The building had originally been approved for industrial uses. It has only one tenant, the Calvary Chapel. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 11 Section 15101. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Steve Purdue, pastor of the church, spoke in support of the project. He stated that he supported the conditions of approval and was willing to work with staff. He explained that the State did not approve permanent play equipment and that all of the rooms in his facility were used as play areas. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -5- (6022d) The Commission had concerns regarding the circulation on the west" end of the property and whether it would create a problem for the fire department. They requested that staff investigate these concerns. The Commission was also concerned about the absence of grass in a playground environment and children playing in an industrial area and being subjected to industrial accidents. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-20/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-24, WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood NOES: Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION TIED A MOTION WAS MADE`,BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ROWE, TO CON`_':NUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-20/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-24 TO THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND SCHEDULE IT AS ITEM C-1, ' BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher,-Mirjahangir (Out of Room) ABSTAIN• None MOTION PASSED The applicant waived the mandatory processing date. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE -PERMIT NO. 86-28 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-28 is a request to convert an existing service station into a convenience market and add an in -bay car wash facility (located at 6502 Bolsa Avenue) pursuant to Section 9220.14 (d) of the Huntington Beach"Ordinance Code. (At the present -time, this "service station" is solely engaged in the sale of gasoline. No automobiles are repaired at this location.) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Stephen W. Hogie, representing Shell Oil, spoke in support of the Project. He addressed the conditions of approval imposed on the project and stated that Shell Oil would not be in favor of Condition No. le regarding landscaping. In order to meet this condition they would have to relocate or eliminate a pump station. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -6- (6022d) There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project. The Commission was concerned with the notification process on this project. Since a petition had been signed by over 50 adjacent neighbors and presented to staff it seemed unusual that there was no one present to speak at the public hearing. They requested that since the mandatory processing date had already been waived that this item be continued to allow staff time to work out the problem on Condition No. le and to re -notify for a public hearing (notification suggestion: property owners within 300 foot radius, first name on petition and every tenth name thereafter). A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-28, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ROWE, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-28 WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN TO THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WITH NOTIFICATION AS DIRECTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 86-47 On July 9, 1986, the Board of Zoning Adjustment's (BZA) conditionally approved Use Permit No. 86-47 by a vote of 3 to 2. Use Permit No. 86-47 is a request for a 3 day festival at St. Simon and Jude Catholic Church on October 3, 4 and 5, 1986, at 20444 Magnolia Street. The applicant petitioned to modify the hours of operation and to reduce the required number of uniformed police during the operation which represented a departure from the previous year's conditions of approval. Adjacent neighbors appeared at the public hearing and expressed the opinion that the previous year's conditions should be imposed in order to protect their property rights. The BZA approved Use Permit No. 86-47 with the previous years conditions with a change to condition number one which states that the "rides shall be located at the most westerly location of the grass area site". This was changed because the property owner adjacent to the grass area demonstrated that 25 feet awa for kiddi rides and 75 feet away for adult rides was too close to home an � PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -7- (6022d) created a noise impact. The modified condition requires the rides be located to the most westerly location. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 4 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Steven Middaugh, resident - 20421 Kelvingrove Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that the festival is too rowdy and loud, that the hours are too irregular, and that the surrounding neighbors are impacted by the trash and debris. George Lim, resident - 20401 Kelvingrove Lane, stated that the rides and equipment are located too close to the adjacent homes creating too much noise and urged the Commission to uphold the conditions set by staff. -- I . Greg Kimpton, Assistant to the General'Chairman of the festival, spoke in support of the project. He explained -that the festival is the major fund raiser for the•chutch and would like all of the concerns of the adjacent neighbors addressed. He requested that staff set a specific setback for the rides (25 feet for.kiddie rides, 75 feet for adult rides) instead of stating "the most westerly location of the grass area". He requested that the hours be adjusted from a 10:00 PM closing to ail1,:00 PM closing on Friday and Saturday, however the rides would be shut down at 10:.00 PM on Friday and Saturday and 9:00 on -Sunday. He agreed to comply with all noise ordinances.. .He also agreed to prohibit the breaking down of stands, equipment and rides after 10:00 PM on -Sunday, however requested that -they be allowed to disassemble the wooden booths after the hours of operation. Barbara Macy, resident - 20441 Kelvingrove, spoke in support of the festival. She expressed her approval of the last year's festival and said that she did not object to the request of the new hours. Edward Rogers, resident - 20451 Kelvingrove, spoke in support of the festival. His two story house backs to the festival property and stated there is no problem with the noise. He also supported the request for the new hours. Mrs. Dan McCarthy, resident - 9172 Strathconn Drive - spoke in support of the festival. Eveline Eng, resident - 20461 Kelvingrove, spoke in opposition to the festival. She stated that she was opposed to any changes in the conditions. She urged St. Simon and Jude to increase their security this year due to the rowdiness of the last -year's festival. She further stated that parking is a problem. Jim Lange, Chairman of the Festival, spoke in support of the project. He insured the neighbors that were present that their protection and welfare would be considered first during the festival. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -8- (6022d) Ed Zschoche, Festival Committee Member, spoke in support of the festival. He requested that the speakers located in the Garden Dining area be allowed to be used until the scheduled hour of closing each day in order to have raffles. He assured the Commission that the City Noise Ordinance would be complied with. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the festival and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter asked if it were possible to locate the rides on the paved area of the festival. The Festival Chairman replied that it would involve digging up the asphalt and destroying portions of the driveway in order to locate the rides in the paved area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 86-47 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed 3 day carnival will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity due to the additional setbacks for the rides, limited hours of operation and limited access through the residential neighborhoods. b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building because the use of amplifiers, speakers, musical instruments is prohibited after 9:30 PM and other related conditions. 2. The granting of the Use Permit No. 86-47 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Site plan dates June 4, 1986 shall be the approved layout. a. Rides shall be located at the most westerly location of the grass area site, subject to review and approval of the Fire and Development Services Departments by September 10, 1986. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -9- (6022d) 2. Prior to operation of any equipment used in conjunction with the amusement rides, the City shall be in receipt of State Certification and permits showing inspection within a one (1) year period, stating that the rides meet all requirements of the State Industrial Safety Division. 3. The applicant shall obtain -clearance from the Public Liability Claims Coordinator, Administrative Services Department, and/or shall provide a Certificate of Insurance and Hold Harmless Agreement to be executed at least five (5) days prior to the event. 4. All Alcoholic Beverage 'Control -requirements shall be met. 5. Prior to issuance of a permit, a layout and circulation plan shall be approved by the Fire Department. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. 6. When the site is ready for the event, an on -site inspection shall be made b� the Departments of Development Se vices and Fire. If all site conditions are met, a Certificate to Operate shall be issued. The festival shall not commence until the Certificate to Operate has been issued. 7. Prior to the issuance of a permit, appropriate signs (temporary) for the direction of traffic and on -site parking shall be provided by the applicant. Said signs, location and content to be as recommended by the Traffic Division of the Police Department.'' Barricades shall be placed on both sides of the intersection of Kelvengrove Lane and Indianapolis Avenue and at the intersection of Magnolia Street with Bedel Drive and Village Drive. The applicant shall provide, at their expense, uniformed police officers to man the barricades from one (1) hour prior to the opening of the festival to the close of each day. (To be approved by the Traffic Engineer and Traffic Division of the Police Department.) 8. In a number as determined by the Police Chief, uniformed officers shall be provided on -site during the hours of operation not less than four (4) officers at any time. Cost of this and Condition No. 8 shall be borne by the applicant. 9. Breakdown of stands, equipment, apparatus and rides shall be prohibited after 10:00 P.M. Sunday. Breakdown of the wooden booths shall be allowed until 1:00 AM. 10. Use of amplifiers, speakers, musical instruments and playing of recorded music are to be discontinued as of 10:00 PM each evening. Speakers located in the Garden Dining Area will be permitted until closing hours each day and shall be in conformance with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. Speakers shall not be directed towards any housing area. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -10- (6022d) 11. The carnival, and all related activities, shall comply with all. applicable sections of the Municipal Code requirements pertaining to the Noise Ordinance. 12. All operations of the festival, including tear down of machinery, other than necessary refrigeration units (if provided), shall be as follows: Rides All Other Operations Friday 5:00 PM - 10:00 PM 5:00 PM - 11:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM - 10:00 PM 10:00 AM - 11:00 PM Sunday 11:00 AM - 9:00 PM 11:00 AM - 10:00 PM 13. If a refrigeration truck is provided, it shall be placed as far away from residential property as possible to minimize noise. 14. The applicant shall provide for clean-up of the area each evening after closing of the event. Clean-up of the site, after 10:00 PM, shall not include the use of any machinery or equipment that may disturb the residents in the area. All trash, debris and garbage, as well as special dumpsters, shall be removed from the site within two (2) days of closing of the event. 15. The applicant shall provide professional clean-up crews to clear the adjacent streets of trash and debris. This clean-up shall not commence prior to 7:00 AM each morning. 16. An on -site parking plan shall be submitted showing access to and number of spaces. Plan to be approved by Traffic Engineer and Traffic Division of Police Department. 17. An announcement should be made to parishioners requesting that they refrain from parking on neighborhood streets. 18. The church shall provide church personnel to patrol street parking areas (Magnolia and Indianapolis) to prevail upon those utilizing street parking to cross streets at the intersection. 19. In the event there are any violations to the foregoing conditions of any violation of life safety codes, the festival activity will be terminated by any Police Officer, Fire Inspector or authorized personnel of the Department of Development Services. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 son (6022d) C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 The Planning Commission continued this item on July 1, 1986 with direction for a meeting to take place the first week in August with representatives of the Planning Commission, realtors, and lending institutions. Code Amendment No. 86-10 is a request to rewrite the nonconforming provisions of the code, renumber the article as Article 965, and modify provisions governing the reconstruction of nonconforming structures. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED James Righeimer, Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. He stated that lenders will not give 80% loans on non -conforming property. The value of the property drops because of this. Jim Morrissen, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. He suggested that the stats be given on the actual number of non -conforming properties located in the Downtown area and what percentage of them has proper parking spaces. He believes that if the code amendment is adopted that the downtown area will be a rich man's haven. James Wilson, resident since 1974 and rental property owner, spoke in -opposition to the code amendment. He believes that a corridor has been singled out in Huntington Beach. He cannot get a fixed rate loan on his property because it is non -conforming. Phil Ottone, Home Savings and Loan, stated that Home Savings will not loan on property in a down zoned area. Pat Paulk, Chairman Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors Investment Division, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. She stated that the code would devalue property and make it impossible to obtain financing. The existing disclosure statement makes some property unsaleable. Property owners will profit more if destroyed by fire by collecting insurance money rather than trying to rebuild. Kirk Kirkland, President of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. He felt that single family and multi -family units of less than 10 units should be exempt from the non-conformance provision if destroyed by more than 50%. Bob Bolen, real estate broker, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. He urged the Commission to be sentivie to the property owners of downtown property. He stated that commercial property is N effected also. Jim Wilson spoke in opposition to the code amendment. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -12- (6022d) Rich Brown, spoke in opposition to the code amendment. His property is owned by four individuals. If the property were to burn down, two would be without a home. There were no other persons to speak for or against the code amendment and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners felt that the provisions governing the reconstruction of nonconforming structures should be more flexible and should exclude some residential property. They felt that presently there was minimal benefit to the City and a large burden to property owners. They agreed that the proposed code should be reviewed again and an unit exclusion set on residential property. To determine what number of units the Commission would like to see exempt they took a straw vote. IF A PROPERTY IS MORE THAN 50% DESTROYED, IT CAN BE REBUILT, AS IS, IF LESS THAN: A VOTE TO EXEMPT 10 UNITS OR LESS: AYES: Erskine NOES: Mirjahangir, Porter, Livengood, Winchell, Rowe VOTE FAILED A VOTE TO EXEMPT 8 UNITS OR LESS: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter VOTE FAILED A VOTE TO EXEMPT 6 UNITS OR LESS: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES': Rowe, Winchell, Porter VOTE FAILED A VOTE TO EXEMPT 4 UNITS OR LESS: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir VOTE PASSED A VOTE TO REVIEW THE ORDINANCE REGARDING COMMERCIAL*PROPERTY: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine, Livengood VOTE PASSED PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -13- (6022d) The Commission agreed that a mechanism was needed to take care of the present needs for the well being of the community. Staff was asked to get statistics from the Fire Department on how many properties burn down each year and how many are non -conforming. A MOTION WAS MADE BY,LIVENGOOD,,SECOND` BY ROWE, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-10 TO THE SEPTEMBER 16, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-20/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-34 This item was continued from the Planning Commission mecting of August 5, 1986. The applicant is requesting a change of zone from R5 (Office Professional) to R3 (Medium High Density Residential). The subject site at the northeast corner of'Newman Avenue and Cameron Street was originally zoned R2. A zone change was approved in 1969 to redesignate the property as R5. The Planning Commission and City Council approved a zone change from R5 to R3-25 in April of this year for another parcel further ea' st_on this segment of Newman , Avenue. , ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: , Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services has posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-34 for ten days. This review period expired August 10, 1986. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Zone Change No. 86-20, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-34'. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dr. George Derey, representing Specialists Enterprises, spoke in support of the zone change. He stated that Specialists Enterprises wish to build residential units on the property instead of medical offices. The two lots are facing Cameron Street. There are residential units across the street. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that the proposed zone change should be continued because the boundaries of the zone change need to be expanded. However action was needed because the mandatory processing time would expire on September 2, 1986. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 --14-, (6022d ) A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY PORTER TO DENY ZONE CHANGE N0. 86-21 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-34, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter NOES: Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed zone change to R3 would not be compatible with surrounding land uses due to office development to the west, east and south of the site. 2. A zone change to R3 would isolate the R5, Office Professional site to the east and leave it as a "spot" zone sur,ounded on three sides by residential zoning. 3. The site is not appropriate for R3 zoning due to traffic generated by the medical offices and hospital complex along Newman Ave. 4. With a General Plan land use designation of Office Professional, the site was not intended to be used for residential purposes. The proposed zone change would not be compatible with the General Plan. C-7 ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-22/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-39 This item was continued from the meeting of August 5, 1986 to allow staff to arrive at the best approach for solving a problem concerning the density calculations for a specific area of the community. This zone change is being processed by the City to ensure that a like number of units can be constructed on each lot after additional dedication for the widening of Heil Avenue west of Beach Blvd. The zone change is deemed necessary due to the large additional right-of-way dedication required by the Public Works Department. The additional area will be twenty-five feet off existing lots that are presently 120 feet in length. Seventeen lots are included in this request; the lot at the corner of Silver Lane and Heil Avenue is not a part of the zone change. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-39 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -15- (6022d) or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the protect, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on the zone change it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 86-39. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 86-22/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-39 TO AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 26,'1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Mirjahangir (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-8 ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-15/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-,0 Zone Change No. 82-15 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach to change the zoning on property located nor-th�of Utica Avenue between Seventeenth and Lake Streets from R1-0 (Low Density Residential' combined with oil Production) and R1-0-CD (Low Density Residential combined with Oil Production -Civic District) to R2-0-CD-PD (Medium Density Residential combined with Oil Production - Civic District - Planned Development.) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: At its meeting of November 2, 1982, the Planning Commission approved Negative Declaration No. 82-40 assessing the environmental impacts of the proposed zone change. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The proposed zone change is within the Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project Area. Redevelopment staff is in support of the request and is working with the Huntington Beach Company in facilitating a planned residential development on the property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company, spoke in favor of the proposed zone change. He feels that the zone change will be compatible to the neighborhood to the south. - George Abbound, resident - 1848 Park Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change. He feels that the proposed change would create a traffic problem and feels the City should quit making deals with the Huntington Beach Company. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -16- (6022d) Faye Ogden, resident - 1832 Main Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change. She stated that the high school already creates a traffic problem and that the density of the project would create a worse problem. Phillis Stall, resident - 1818 Lake Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change because of parking problems and traffic problems. She stated that the high school students already create a parking problem. Chuck Rothar, 35 year resident - 1112 Pine Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change. He stated that there is an existing problem with storm drains and feels that it should be checked out. He does not feel that the area needs high density. He also stated that the notification process should be extended on items such as this one. George Parise, resident - 1738 Pine Street, spoke in opposition. He stated that the proposed project would create a "walled city" at the edge of a quiet neighborhood. He objects to a high density project and feels it will create a traffic problem. Arlene Howard, 50 year resident - spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change. She feels that this is "outlandish growth" and should be stopped. Bob Bolen, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change. He feels that a walled city will destroy a R1 neighborhood and that the continuity of the existing neighborhood should be maintained. Robert Laughlin, resident since 1969, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change due to the parking problems that it would create. Also, that it would create traffic problems for police units. David Perry, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change. Janet Biddle stated that the proposed zone change would depreciate the value of the existing neighborhood and will diminish the safety in the area. Verl Cowan spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposed zone change and the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that this proposed zone change was denied on November 2, 1982 and that the denial should again be reaffirmed. It was also suggested that a General Plan Amendment be initiated to redesignate all property bounded by Utica, 17th Street and Lake Street to Low -Density Residential. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 .-17- (6022d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER, TO DENY ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-15 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-40, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed density is not compatible with surrounding residential area. 2. The proposed "PD" suffix would only compound an existing parking problem in the area and the circulation would not be compatible with the existing neighborhood. 3. The proposed density of 15 units per acre is not in harmony with the surrounding area, is too intense, and would have a negative impact upon the existing low density residential neighborhood to the south, which is of a unique and special character. 4. The proposed zone change would be detrimental to the health, welfare and safety of the adjacent neighborhood. C-9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-30/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-42 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-30 is a request by the applicant to permit the temporary storage of lumber on -the subject property pursuant to Section 9331.3 of the Ordinance Code. Section 9331.3 permits temporary uses such as lumber storage, contractor's storage yards and mulching operations for an initial period of two years upon approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. The applicant without benefit of permit is presently using the site for the storage of lumber and plywood. Section 9331.3 also states that a temporary use may be approved by the Planning Commission for an additional year, with a maximum of "three such one year extensions of time. Said temporary use shall also comply with other code requirements including parking, access and setbacks. Such temporary use shall also be subject to additional conditions and or development standards as may be required by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 86-42 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -18- (6022d) DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR, A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE USE PERMIT NO. 86-30 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-42 TO AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-10 USE PERMIT NO. 86-56/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-46/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-21 Use Permit No. 86-56/Conditional Exception No. 84-46/Coastal Development Permit No. 86-21 is a request to expand an existing restaurant within an existing building with ariance to off-street parking requirements. The applicant has requested a twi week continuance of this matter because of a pending Board c: Appeal's action related to the structure on the subject property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY PORTER, TO CONTINUE USE PERMIT NO. 86-56/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 86-46/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-21, WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN, TO THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-32 The applicant is requesting approval to expand ,an existing pre-school at the closed Lark View School at 17200 Pinehurst Lane, which is east of Springdale Street and south of Warner Avenue. The expanded pre-school is proposed for Rooms B3 and B4 which total approximately 1,920 square feet. An additional forty-four children for a total of 88 children between the ages of 2 to 6 years old are proposed to be accommodated in the overall facility. Section 9331(c) lists private schools as an unclassified use permitted in any district except Al, SP-1 and S1 subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -19- (6022d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt under Class l(a) Section 15301 provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. from the DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR, A MOTION WAS MADE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-32 TO THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-31 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-31 is a request to permit an expansion of an existing day care operation from six to twelve ch_ldren in a single family dwelling pursuant to Section 9331 of the Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF•THE HOUR, A MOTION.WAS MADE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-31 TO THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-36 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-25 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-36, and Coastal Development Permit No. 86-25, is a request to establish a seasonal, overnight vehicle camping facility of a temporary nature at the Northwest corner of Beach Blvd. and Pacific Coast Hwy. If approved the facility will be operated during the summer months between June 1 and September 14 of each year. The special permit request is to allow a 5 foot wide landscaped planter in lieu of 10 feet along the Beach Boulevard frontage road. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: On March 3, 1986, the City Council Approved Negative Declaration No. 86-5 with conditions. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -20- (6022d) DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR, A MOTION WAS MADE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-36 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-25 TO THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 19861 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-14 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-29 Code Amendment No. 86-29 is being processed at the request of the Redevelopment Department to streamline the approval process of redevelopment projects where not all land has been acquired or consolidated for the development site. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR, A MOTION WAS MADE TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-29 TO THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-33 Conditional Use Permit No. 86-33 is a request to exceed the 25 foot - height limit in the R1 zone by 2 feet and to permit a 1.6 foot encroachment into the side yard setback at 16989 Edgewater Lane. The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next meeting and also waives the mandatory processing date. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the project. PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -21- (6022d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ERSKINE, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-33 TO THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING.VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL_USE PERMIT NO. 86-12 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN A request by applicant, Meadowland Ltd., to approve a conceptual landscape plan on,the west side of Springdale, 760 feet south of Edinger. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR, A MOTION WAS MADE TO CONTINUE THE APPROVAL OF A.CONCEPTUAL,LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-12 TO THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None F. PENDING ITEMS LIST Due to the lateness of the hour discussion on the Pending Items List was continued to an adjourned meeting scheduled for August 26, 1986, at 7:00 PM. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS None PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -22- (6022d) L 1 I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO AN ADJOURNED MEETING AUGUST 26, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Meeting was continued at 12:20 AM to an adjourned meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 26, 1986, at 7:00 PM, and then to the next regularly scheduled meeting of September 3, 1986. APPROVED: Tom Livengood, chairman' Is PC Minutes - 8/19/86 -23- (6022d)