Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-10-06APPROVED 10/20/87 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION October 6, 1987 - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, P P Summerell, Livengood A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of the August 18, September 1, and September 15, 1987 Planning Commission Meetings A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PIERCE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 1987, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Leipzig MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PIERCE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1987, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Schumacher, Summerell MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LEIPZIG TO CONTINUE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 TO OCTOBER 20, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Silva presented a report to the Commission relative to the Ad Hoc Committee - Land Use Code Enforcements. The Committee's intent was to monitor and control landlords from renting a dwelling structure to a larger proportion of tenants than the intended use. The next meeting was scheduled for October 15 and the City Council had been invited. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-33/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-67/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-27 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: Edwin Papazian Conditional Use Permit No. 87-33 in conjunction with Coastal Development Permit No. 87-27 is a request to establish a youth center/teenage night club with live entertainment in a vacant structure (Crocker Bank building) located on the northeast corner of 5th. Street and Olive Avenue. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-67 is a request to permit a variance to the required parking and buffer to residential for live entertainment. This request was continued from the September 1, 1987 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow time for staff and the applicant to evaluate building occupant load, fire code and building code requirements for converting the building into a public assembly -type use. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is covered under previously approved Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2 pursuant to Section 15181 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed commercial project is subject to approval of a coastal development permit because it is located within coastal zone boundaries under non -appealable jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommended denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-33, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-67 and Coastal Development Permit No. 87-27 based on findings. The Commission discussed concerns regarding problems with parking, loitering, and noise. PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -2- (9299d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PIERCE TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-33/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-67/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO..,87-27. Commission discussion ensued with all Commissioners agreeing that the idea was excellent but the location was not appropriate. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PIERCE TO TABLE THE MOTION TO DENY AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-33/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-67/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-27, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Summerell MOTION PASSED THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Brad Hollander, representing the applicant, stated that he would work closely with the City to mitigate problems if they occur. Linda DeGruccio spoke in opposition to the request. She agreed with the Commissioners that the use would be excellent in a non-residential area. Jim Koller, 16001 Ballatine Lane, owner of the property, spoke in support of the request. He said that the City had denied every request for a conditional use permit at this location. He felt with Mr. Hollander's track record for operating teen centers, the City should approve the request. William Tater, owner of nine units located at 216 Sixth Street, spoke in opposition to the request. His concern was that the noise created by the use would drive the older residents out of the area. Mike Tater, 317 Fifth Street, expressed his concerns that youths would be drinking in their automobiles. He said every resident on Fifth Street had signed a petition in opposition of the center. William Gallegos, 210 Fifth Street, spoke in opposition of the request. He said the parking and restrooms in the facility were inadequate. Brad Hollander, applicant, stated that in search for a the center, he was repeatedly directed to the downtown said he would be very interested in another location in the Commission denied the request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED location for area. He the City if PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -3- (9299d) The Commission discussed the possibility of locating a youth center in an industrial area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-33/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-67/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-27 BASED ON FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Summerell MOTION PASSED Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 87-27: 1. The proposed youth center/teen night club with 27 parking spaces available on site, does not conform to the policy of the Coastal Element to ensure that adequate parking is provided in all new developments in the Coastal Zone. 2. The proposed youth center/teen night club is not consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan which states that any change in occupant to a use which would require additional off-street parking shall provide the off-street parking according to the Ordinance Code nor is it consistent with the requirement that dancing and live entertainment be separated from residential by a 200 foot buffer. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 87-33: 1. The proposed use which includes dancing and live entertainment will not be compatible with adjacent property to the north and west which is developed as residential. 2. The establishment and operation of the youth center/teen night club will be detrimental to the welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood due to increased late evening activity and the potential for noise, trash and other nuisances associated with live entertainment and dancing. 3. On -site parking for the youth center/teen night club is inadequate and may create parking impacts on the residential neighborhood to the west. 4. The scale of the proposed youth center/teen night club in terms of number of potential patrons is not harmonious with adjacent commercial and residential uses. PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -4- (9299d) f� 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-67: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. 2. Since the subject property can be fully utilized as an office building not requiring any exceptions to the parking code, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-67 is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-67 for reduction in required parking would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the downtown area. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-67 for reduction of the required buffer of live entertainment to residential from 200 feet to 0 feet will be detrimental to properties located at 310, 305, 309, 313, 317 and 321 Fifth Street. 5. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-67 for reduction in required parking would be detrimental to the adjacent neighborhood and may deprive future merchants in the downtown who operate an evening business of available parking on Main Street and the City lot located at Main and Orange. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 87-13/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) N0. 87-74 APPLICANT: David Javid Conditional Use Permit No. 87-13 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-74 is a request to construct a two story, 14,038 square foot retail/office building on a vacant pad in an existing commercial development and a 1,800 square foot addition to an existing office building which will be used as medical offices. Variances requested include reduced landscape area, modification of required main entrance and reduction of 8 spaces in overall site parking requirement. The applicant is requesting a two week continuance so the feasibility of a subterranean parking structure can be fully analyzed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY LEIPZIG TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-14/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-74 TO OCTOBER 20, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -5- (9299d) C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 87-37/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-77/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-43 APPLICANT: Evangelical Free Church Conditional Use Permit No. 87-37 is a request to remodel and expand an existing church facility (Evangelical Free Church) and to develop additional parking demand. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-77 is a request to add to the existing church building which has a non -conforming frontyard setback (10 feet in lieu of 15 feet), and to construct a bus garage along the rear and southernmost interior side yard of the auxiliary parking lot in lieu of providing a 5 foot setback. The church site is located at 1912 Florida Street adjacent to and north of the Wycliffe residential quarters. The auxiliary parking lot is also located on Florida Street on the east side and is adjacent to, and south of the Wycliffe residential use, approximately 200 feet south of the church site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 87-37, Conditional Exception (Variance) NO. 87-77 and Negative Declaration No. 87-43 to the October 20, 1987 Planning Commission meeting to allow for proper public notification. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-37, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-77 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-43 TO THE OCTOBER 20, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-40 APPLICANT: LAURA ROBERTS Conditional Use Permit No. 87-40 is a request to expand an existing dance school (1,800 square feet) into adjacent rooms (2,100 square feet) within the Meadow View School on a 13.53 acre site located at 5702 Clark Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. I J PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -6- (9299d) COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87=40 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. There was no one present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-40, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the dance school expansion 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 87-40 for the expanded dance school will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposed dance school expansion is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated August 31, 1987, shall be the approved layout. 2. Hours of operation for the dance school shall be limited to between 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM on Saturday. 3. Each dance classroom shall be limited to a maximum of fifteen (15) students. PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -7- (9299d) 4. The dance school shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 8.40, Noise Control, of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 5. Prior to occupancy for the expansion, the dance school shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 6. Signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this conditional use permit if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-1 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 18, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 87-1 is a request by the Community Development Department to amend the Floodplain Standards to reflect recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) changes to the rules governing the National Flood Insurance Program. It was continued by the Planning Commission on August 18, 1987, with a request that staff distribute copies of the proposed ordinance to mobilehome park managers and other community groups. Staff distributed approximately 20 copies of the ordinance and staff report to mobilehome park managers and property owners as well as other interested groups on August 24, 1987. No comments have been received to date. The code amendment was re -advertised in the newspaper for the October 6, 1987 hearing date. In addition, the Commission requested that the model ordinance be attached to this report. The model ordinance and review form are Attachment No. 5. On May 4, 1987, the model floodplain ordinance was distributed by FEMA, giving communities a thirty day period in which to make necessary changes and submit them for review, which the City did. On July 1, 1987, the City's draft ordinance was determined to be in compliance with FEMA requirements. Following review by the Planning Commission and review and adoption by the City Council, the City will transmit a copy of the adopted ordinance to the Regional Office of FEMA to demonstrate compliance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. There was no one present to speak for or against the code amendment and the public hearing was closed. The Commission requested staff to negotiate with FEMA to exempt homes in Huntington Beach as they felt the local residents were required to participate in the Flood Insurance Program to cover the losses incurred in the Mississippi River area. They also requested staff to negotiate with FEMA to reconsider the requirement for additions of more than 50% of the home not necessitate the entire structure meet the flood plain standards. 0 PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -8- (9299d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-1, RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND DIRECT STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH FEMA TO RECONSIDER THE REQUIREMENT TO FLOOD PROOF ADDITIONS WHICH EXCEED MORE THAN 50%, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-9 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 87-9 reorganizes Article 977, Yards and Fences, adds provisions to regulate retaining walls, industrial fencing and screening walls, and amends the definition of rear yard (S.9080.137). This code amendment was generated by two recent conditional exception applications approved on July 20, 1987, by the City Council on appeal. Review and comment by the Planning Commission of the recommended changes was requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Code Amendment No. 87-9 and direct staff to prepare an Ordinance based on Planning Commission comments. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. There was no one present to speak for or against the public hearing. The Commissioners were concerned that no citizens were present and it was their desire to receive public input. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-9 TO THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 1987 WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Livengood NOES: Silva ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Y • 0) & - -1 Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -9- (9299d) C-7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-10 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 87-10 adds provisions to Article 973, Miscellaneous Provisions, to establish a minimum 5 foot setback requirement for swimming pools from property lines and structures to allow proper clearance for safety purposes around swimming pools. This code amendment was initiated at the request of the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Code Amendment No. 87-10. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. There was no one present to speak for against the Code Amendment and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Higgins was opposed to the Code Amendment due to many very small backyards. Commissioner Silva favored the Code Amendment because it protects property rights of people who live adjacent to spas and/or pools built close to the property line with the results of chlorine water coming onto their property. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY HIGGINS TO DENY CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-10 BASED ON FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Livengood NOES: Silva ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, 1. Establishment of swimming pool setback requirements would create many nonconforming swimming pools and possibly severely limit the size of a spa located in the main open space area on a 25 foot wide lot. 2. Swimming pools are regulated by the Uniform Building Code relative to the structural design of the pool to insure no damage to adjacent foundations. Sufficient area around the pool for life -safety measures are usually provided as a logical design and only rarely are swimming pools proposed with one or two sides abutting a wall, fence or structure. 3. Imposing a minimum setback requirement would limit pool design creativity and flexibility. PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -10- (9299d) 1 J D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING D-1 REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 86-43 APPLICANT: BRYANT L. MORRIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY A request for a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43. 86-27. The above mentioned entitlement was approved by the City Council on October 13, 1986, which is a request to construct "Pierside Village". Pierside Village was approved for approximately 87,500 square feet of specialty commercial, related support facilities and a 696 space parking structure on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake Street, located within the Downtown Specific Plan, District 10. The applicant has indicated to staff that a one-year extension of time is necessary because the final Coastal Commission approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 86-27 on April 21, 1987, has required additional time to coordinate construction phasing for the proposed project. Section 9843.4 specifies that the Planning Commission may grant extensions of time, not to exceed one year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Grant a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 86-43 and that all previous conditions of approval remain in effect. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PIERCE, SECOND BY HIGGINS TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-43, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Pierce, Summerell, Livengood NOES: Schumacher, Leipzig ABSENT: Silva (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-2 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 86-7 Pacifica Community Hospital is requesting a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 86-7. The above mentioned entitlement was approved in conjunction with Conditional Exception 86-10 by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1986, which allowed a 50,000 square feet, three-story addition (with a 4 foot and 10 foot front yard setback encroachment) and modernization of the emergency entrance to the existing one-story Pacific Community Hospital located at 18792 Delaware Street. PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -11- (9299d) The applicant has indicated to staff that a one-year extension of time is necessary because the project is still being reviewed by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Therefore, a one-year extension of time is necessary to final working drawings and proceed with construction. Section'9843.4 specifies that the Planning Commission may grant extensions of time for conditional use permits not to exceed one year. Since Section 9837.1 specifies that conditional exceptions have a time limit of one year and become null and void unless construction has commenced, Conditional Exception No. 86-10 (which was approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 86-7) cannot be extended. Therefore, a new entitlement for the conditional exception must be submitted which the applicant is preceding to do. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request for a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 86-7 and that all previous conditions of approval remain in effect. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-7, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Silva (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS E-1 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - INDUSTRIAL PARK/ENTERTAINMENT CENTER AT HEIL AND GOTHARD - APPLICANT: SAM LANI A STRAW VOTE WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PIERCE TO CONSIDER COMMERCIAL USES IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS WAS DENIED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Pierce, Livengood NOES: Schumacher, Higgins, Summerell, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1 PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -12- (9299d) I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PIERCE TO ADJOURN TO A STUDY SESSION ON OCTOBER 20, 1987 AT 6:00 PM TO DISCUSS BEACH BOULEVARD CORRIDOR, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None APPROVED: , w- L� Mike AdaKs, Secretary :jr e� M. Pierce, Chairman PC Minutes - 10/6/87 -13- (9299d)