Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-10MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 - 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Cranmer, Evans, Poe, Smith, Strange STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Franklin MINUTES: UPON MOTION BY POE AND SECOND BY SMITH, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1986, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Poe, Smith, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Cranmer, Evans REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: USE PERMIT NO. 86-61 (Cont. from 9/3/86) NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-44 Applicant: Oi1Max/Hal Tucker A request to construct a 2,500 Square Foot oil exchange and car wash facility in the Target Shopping Center parking lot. Subject property is located on the Southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 86-44. Staff member, Robert Franklin, reported the request was for construction of a building for an oil exchange and car wash in the Target Shopping Center. The facility would be located on Adams Avenue just West of the Shell Service Station but there would be no additional curb cuts along that major street. Several residents in the area expressed concern over visibility of the lube bays from the public street. The Architect has revised the plans several times and the project does basically comply with the intent of the Code. It has been suggested by one Board member that a security gate be installed between the lube bays and the office area but the applicant has not yet been made aware of this request. Staff has received numerous calls from residents of the area who are objecting to construction of this facility. Staff received one Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 10, 1986 Page 2 petition last week bearing ninety-three (93) signatures in objection to the project and another negative petition with forty (40) signatures was submitted just prior to today's meeting. The residents feel this project will generate additional traffic in an area where extreme traffic congestion already exists, more noise will be created by working on the automobiles, and on -site circulation in the Center will be further obstructed. Staff feels the proposed location is not the best site for this type of operation - that farther away from Adams Avenue between Target and Bob's Big Boy restaurant would be a more preferable location. However, this type of lease agreement cannot be arranged. Staff has evaluated the project and the concerns of the adjacent residents, and Staff recommends Denial with the four basic Findings that the project would be detrimental to residents of the area; that vehicle stacking, on -site parking, and traffic circulation have potential of creating congestion and circulation hazards; ingress and egress to the site could create additional traffic impacts; and the subject property has not been legally subdivided in a manner consistent with applicable zoning laws for lease purposes. Michael Strange asked if Staff had found any indication of a reciprocal driveway easement between Target and the Shell Service Station. Staff replied he had researched the files back to 1970 but had found nothing to indicate such an easement existed. Staff further stated he had talked to the business owner at the site and he was unaware of any such arrangement. There is a brick wall which has been constructed and knocked down several times and the owner feels that ingress and egress to the center across his property is unfair to him. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Tom Poe. William Rudell, 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, who is an Attorney for Oi1Max, was present to speak for the applicant. Mr. Rudell thanked the Board for the previous week's continuance to allow the applicant additional time to fully assess the project and for the Architect's recovery from surgery. Mr. Rudell further stated the applicant had worked closely with Staff to create a quality project, to screen the lube bays from street visibility, and to enhance the visual aesthetics of the project. Until receipt of the first petition, according to Mr. Rudell, there had been no indication from Staff of any unsurmountable problems, nor was the applicant aware of Staff's findings for Denial prior to the meeting. Mr. Rudell further stated he was aware the Board could not ignore the concerns of adjacent property owners but he and the other representatives for the applicant would attempt to alleviate those concerns through their presentation. Mr. Rudell assured the property owners they (Oi1Max/Hal Tucker) were not out-of-state entrepreneurs - that Oil/Max is a California corporation and Mr. Tucker was moving to California from Utah. -2- 9/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 10, 1986 Page 3 Ken Brown, 22996 E1 Toro Road, E1 Toro, spoke in the capacity of Architect for the project. Mr. Brown said that, if Oi1Max was operating at peak capacity (one car in each of the four bays), they would only be "dumping" four cars every ten minutes into the traffic flow; however, realistically, they would probably service from thirty (30) to fifty (50) cars per day - spread over a ten (10) hour period. Mr. Brown also stated this operation would not be typical of an automobile maintenance facility and the noise would be minimal, and that they had worked diligently to prepare an architectural design which would be compatible with the area. Upon questioning by Les Evans, the applicant replied the hours of operation would be from either 7:30 or 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. six (6) days per week, with reduced hours on Saturday. Hal Tucker, 937 Sherlock Drive, Burbank, stated his organization was attempting to upgrade the concept of an "oil change" operation. He further stated the petitioners had expressed concern over the compatibility of an oil exchange operation in an existing center which already had established dining and shopping facilities. Mr. Tucker said he had worked closely with restaurants and shopping center people to provide a much needed service while their patrons were dining or shopping. He further added theirs was a clean operation with nice landscaping and an architecturally pleasing design - and thanked Bob Franklin, Staff member, for his input in developing this design. Mr. Tucker indicated that, based on the number of people in the area, there would be a need for approximately 250,000 oil changes in a year's time; and he and the Shell man had agreed neither of them would make too much of an impact on these needs. Ms. Eliza Thorne, 4453 Gentry Avenue, Studio City, stated she was a representative of Coldwell Bankers and presented a portfolio to each of the Board members relative to the applicant. Ms. Thorne also mentioned she personally liked having this type of operation available so that work could be done on her automobile while she shopped or dined. An adjacent property owner, Francis Arciaga, Jr., 9881 Kings Canyon Drive, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Arciaga expressed one of the basic concerns of those covered in the petition which was the impact of additional traffic at one of the busiest corners in Orange County - Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue. He said that many traffic studies could be made but the best indication of problems would come from people living in the area - those who were constantly faced with the existing hazardous conditions. Mr. Arciaga did not feel additional curb cuts should be permitted and was also concerned about people hurriedly driving into and out of the oil exchange and car wash operation. -3- 9/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Aoard of Zoning Adjustments September 10, 1986 Page 4 Louis Stone, 9782 Kings Canyon Drive, stated that at peak shopping periods the parking lot has no parking spaces available and the addition of another operation such as this would further impact the area. Mr. Stone further said that, as a result of overcrowding on the lot, people are already parking on the streets of the housing tract in which he lived. Furthermore, according to Mr. Stone, this type of facility is not needed since there are already several car washes in the area. He also mentioned there had been numerous accidents and some traffic fatalities at the intersection of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. Another resident, Cathy Stone, 9782 Kings Canyon Drive, said they had lived in Huntington Beach for twenty-five years and had observed many changes - that the area had changed drastically from open berry fields to a metropolitan area which now supplies all the needs of the area residents. Ms. Stone stated she was not notified of the Public Hearing since she did not live immediately adjacent to the shopping center; however, once she heard of it, she and others had circulated flyers to six hundred and fifty (650) home owners in the area. She also stated that Von's Markets had moved from a shopping center on the corner opposite the Target Center because of the many traffic problems at this intersection, that one hundred (100) cars per traffic signal were already way too many cars, that Oi1Max could purchase property for their operation in a less congested area, and that, with these things in mind, none of the residents contacted had refused to sign the petition opposing this project. Ms. Stone lastly stated she hoped the Board would deny this requested Use Permit. Anthony G. Khamis, 9148 Kings Canyon Drive, reiterated statements about this particularly busy intersection and said that, if one life could be saved by denying this expansion, it would be worthwhile. Mr. Khamis mentioned that the Board members were aware of problems with the Target operation (as well as those with the Center's previous major tenants - Fed Mart and Two Guys) such as noise from trucks loading and unloading merchandise, refrigerated truck motors running for long periods of time, etc. Mr. Khamis further stated that, because of these problems, it was impossible to really enjoy their back yards except on weekends, and he had personally obtained the signatures on the petition. Jeanette H. Arciaga, 9881 Kings Canyon Drive, mentioned how the noises vibrated from the back of the Target building towards their homes. She also spoke of the difficult traffic patterns in exiting the shopping center and felt another business in the center would increase the problems. The Attorney, William Rudell, was given an opportunity for rebuttal and mentioned to the residents in the audience that the proposed car wash was incidental to the oil exchange operation. This combination -4- 9/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 10, 1986 Page 5 would create much less of a traffic impact than other types of operations because they would be capturing existing traffic in the Center rather than bringing in new traffic. Mr. Rudell also said the Target building, the adjacent wall, and additional landscaping would work as buffers to prevent any car wash/oil exchange noise from reaching the residences. Mr. Rudell thanked the Board for consideration of their application and hoped they would act favorably on the request. There was no one else present wishing to speak for or against the project so the Public Hearing was closed. Daryl Smith asked Staff if the proposed building met the Code in terms of zoning, type of use, landscaping, setbacks, and architectural aesthetics, and Staff replied in the affirmative. Mr. Smith then asked Staff if it would be necessary for the proposed tenant to file, and have approved, the Tentative Parcel Map prior to the Board's approval of today's request, and Staff replied that could be accomplished prior to issuance of building permits. Mr. Smith also inquired as to whether the Traffic Division had reviewed this project in terms of curb cuts, traffic flow into and out of the center, and traffic impact at the intersection. Staff replied he had a discussion with Bruce Gilmer relative to siting of the structure and denial of additional curb cuts along Adams Avenue, and Mr. Gilmer had felt there would be adequate traffic circulation. There was also a discussion between Daryl Smith and Les Evans relative to installation of landscaped medians on Adams Avenue. Mr. Smith felt this would ease some of the traffic problems. Daryl Smith then asked Staff if more intensive uses could be permitted in the Target Center without benefit of a Public Hearing and Staff said it was a C4 Commercial Zone which would allow retail uses such as a sporting goods store, bank, office building, etc. Michael Strange asked for clarification by Mr. Tucker of the car wash operation. Mr. Tucker stated it was basically incidental to the lube service and would primarily be performed in conjunction with the oil exchange. Mr. Strange said he wanted to be sure that people would not be using the parking lot to complete the car wash process, and Mr. Tucker said they used a blower which would take care of most of the water. Staff was then asked by Daryl Smith if he had alternative Findings for Approval and Staff read them to the Board. Mr. Smith said he would move for approval of the requests and the motion was seconded by Ross Cranmer. Les Evans said he would like the Findings to show that this proposed use would have a lesser impact on traffic than -5- 9/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 10, 1986 Page 6 other uses which could be allowed in the Center without benefit of a Public Hearing. Mr. Evans asked if the maker and seconder of the motion would accept this additional finding and the maker and seconder both agreed. UPON MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY CRANMER, USE PERMIT NO. 86-61 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 86-44 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed 2,500 Square Foot oil exchange and car wash 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 Use Permit No. 86-61 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. 4. Granting of Use Permit No. 86-61 would create a lesser impact on traffic than other retail uses which could be permitted at the location without benefit of a Public Hearing. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated August 13, 1986, shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. Provide a security gate which will prevent access inside the drive areas between the lube bays and office area. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall file a parcel map for lease purposes. Said map shall be recorded prior to final inspection. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. -6- 9/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 10, 1986 Page 7 b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 4. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 5. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 6. All repair work shall be conducted wholly within the building. 7. Proposed structures shall be architecturally compatible with existing structures. 8. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be.liable for expenses incurred. 9. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of water heaters and central heating units. 10. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 11. 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. 12. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high-pressure lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties. 13. The subject property shall enter into irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easement(s) between the subject site and adjacent properties. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 2. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 3. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. -7- 9/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 10; 1986 Page 8 4. Development shall meet all to"cal and State regulations regarding installation and operation -of -all underground storage tanks. 5. Fire protection shall be installed pursuant to Articles 10 and 79 of the Huntington Beach Fire Code. 6. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 7. All signs shall be brought into compliance with Articles 961 of ,the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Freestanding signs shall be prohibited. AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Smith NOES: Poe, Strange ABSENT: None COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-26 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A request to permit the installation of approximately three thousand (3,000) lineal feet of storm drain by the City of Huntington Beach. The location would be on Warner Avenue in a westerly direction from Lynn Street to Edgewater Lane, then northerly on Edgewater Lane to Courtney Lane. This report is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 1 (b), California Environmental Quality Act, 1984. Staff reported the item had been advertised for today but, because of a clerical error, the project had to be readvertised., Staff recommends continuance to the meeting of September 1.7, 1986. UPON MOTION BY POE AND SECOND BY STRANGE, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 86-26 WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1986, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Poe, Smith, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: None There was no further business to be presented to the Board for their review. UPON MOTION BY CRANMER AND SECOND BY EVANS, THE REGULAR MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1986, AT 10:00 A.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -8- 9/10/86 - BZA Minutes, H. B. Board of Zoning Adjustments September 10, 1986 Page 9 AYES: Cranmer, Evans, Poe, Smith, Strange NOES: None ABSENT: None �, en K. Godfrey, Secretary v Board of Zoning Adjustments jh (6217d) E -9- 9/10/86 - BZA