Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-12-01APPROVED 1/5/88 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 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: A-1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SILVA, TO APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Livengood MOTION PASSED A-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO, 87-6 - Vacation of a portion of Hartford Avenue right-of-way A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO FIND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 87-6 IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. B-1 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PROPOSED TELEVISION COVERAGE OF SCHEDULED NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO TELEVISE SCHEDULED "D" ITEMS (NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS) BEGINNING AT THE DECEMBER 15, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Dean Albright, 17301 Breda Lane, member of the Environmental Board, presented photos and a copy of a field investigation request filed regarding the grading of property on archaellogical site #368 of the Meadowlark Airport property. He stated that he was concerned with the grading and requested immediate follow up. He also expressed concerns regarding additional developments in the area of the Warner Avenue sewer project. He feels that additional units will cause an "over capacity" situation to the trunk line. I PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -2- (9656d) 1-1 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-13 - MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICANT: DICK NERIO At the public hearing held November i7, 1987, the Planning Commission approved Land Use Element Amendment No. 87-2C, changing the land use designation on the 65 acre Meadowlark Airport from Low Density Residential to Planned Community containing 50 acres of residential with a maximum of 600 units and 15 acres of retail commercial. The Commission continued the zone change component of the request in order to provide additional detail and refinement in the Meadowlark Specific Plan. The Meadowlark Specific Plan has been augmented in response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission regarding the need to have more specific guidelines in the plan focusing on issues related to circulation, parking, alternative development scenarios specifying residential product types, buffers, setbacks and park dedication. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 87-13 Meadowlark Specific Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Richard A. Harlow, respresenting the applicant, addressed his comments regarding the specific plan. In regards to closing the airport, he stated that there should be a grace period allowed to vacate after shut -down. He requested that the wording "master plan" be changed to "conceptual plan" with details to be contained in an addendum to the conditional use permit. He also requested flexibility in regards to setbacks. Dick Lutz, 4911 Seapine, requested that a statement of good faith be obtained from the developer regarding the development and closing -of the airport. Cheryle Browning, 16771 Roosevelt Lane, directed the Commission to page 7 in the specific plan regarding circulation. She said that Roosevelt is not partially improved as stated. She stated that the four property owners on the other side of Roosevelt should be notified before bulldozers arrive to improve the street. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -3- (9656d) The Commission suggested that the following revisions be made to the specific plan: 1. Number of residentia•1 units not to exceed 600 units and shall be distributed among several product types. 2. Street connections be provided between Warner Avenue and Heil Avenue that would not encourage through traffic. 3. Airport operation to cease within 60 days after approval of the first entitlement. 4. Master Plan changed to read "Conceptual Master Plan". 5. Circulation: The eastern side of Roosevelt Lane to be improved and dedicated and shall not be a through street to Warner. 6. Developer shall pay one-fourth of the cost of a traffic signal at Bolsa Chica and at Pearce if Pearce is proposed to access the project site. 7. Density bonuses within individual product types may be granted, however the total number of units for the entire project shall not exceed 600. 8. Commercial use setbacks: building heights not to exceed 30 feet within 70 feet of property, no buildings or service drives within 20 feet of property line. A minimum of a 20 foot landscape and setback shall be provided between the commercial and existing residential area. Front setback line for proposed project - 50 feet=from Warner Avenue. 9. Area set aside on western edge of Gibbs Park for park parking. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-13 - WITH REVISIONS TO MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE.FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Summerell, Livengood NOES: Schumacher, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 87-13: 1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation as recommended for amendment by the Planning Commission. 2. With the development constraints, mitigation measures and entitlement process which are established in the specific plan, the proposed zone change will be compatible with adjacent properties. . PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -4- (9656d) 1 3. Phasing of the project will assure that the capacities of the City and County water, sewer, and storm drain systems are adequate or will be adequate to accommodate the proposed increase in density as well as all other planned land uses in the area. 4. With the proposed mitigation measures the proposed increase in density will not have a significant adverse impact on road capacities and school enrollments. 5. The character of the surrounding area is not adversely impacted nor is the overall intent of the general plan sacrificed. C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 87-49 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 3, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: BRAD HOLLANDER Conditional Use Permit No. 87-49 is a request to permit a youth r center/youth dancing nightclub within a mixed use industrial complex by amending the resolution list which specifies commercial uses permitted within the industrial zone to include such a use pursuant to Section 9530.14. In addition, the applicant is requesting joint use of the parking area permitted for the nightclub portion of the youth center. For the continued hearing, all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and interested persons who signed petitions were notified. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-49 to amend Resolution No. 1313 to allow for a youth center/youth dancing nightclub and to permit joint use of parking with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Brad Hollander, applicant, spoke in support of the proposed project. He stated that the youth of Huntington Beach need a place to go and feels that the proposed youth center is the answer. Natalie Kotsch, 1722 Park Street, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the project. She stated that final policies regarding the center will be dictated by the Board of Directors and that before policies could be finalized that a -location was needed. Edwin Papazian, 8231 Mason Avenue, Canoga Park, stated that the youth of Huntington Beach need a place to go and that he is prepared to spend $300,000 for such a place. Edward Young, L.A. County Probation Department, spoke in support of the center and the applicant., PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -5- (9656d) Gary Hollander, father of the applicant, spoke_ in support of the applicant. Cal Faello, 16331 Magellan Lane, spoke in -opposition to the youth center. He stated that the proposed center is located 100 feet from his house and feels that there will be too much noise, feels that the property owners will have to bear the expense of extra police protection and doesn't feel there will be many requests for counseling at a center such as this one. Larry Danlasky, 7031 Heil Avenue, urged the Planning Commission to deny the request. He stated that he is insulted with the remark that if there is not a center provided for the youth of the City that they will turn to drugs. He further stated that there are already too many accidents at the corner of Gothard and Heil and also too much litter and that the center would create more. Richard Longshore, 7172 Sunlight Drive, Los'Angeles policeman, stated that problems with youth centers usually do riot occur at the center itself but in the surrounding and adjacent areas. He stated that through investigation he found that the applicant had tried to run a good center in Lancaster however was overwhelmed by the gangs and disruptive incidents that occurred there. He also stated that the reference from Jack Murphy being used by -the-applicant should not be considered. Mary Barbglio, 16282 Magellan Lane, spoke in opposition to the center. She stated that she had contacted the principal of the high school and he was also opposed to the center. She said that the high school offered counseling services for $2.00 per hour and she could not understanding why the applicant was proposing counseling for $8.00 per hour. Dave -Wagner, Serenade Lane, spoke in opposition to the center because of the noise. He feels that the center will scar the neighborhood. John Murphy, 7102 Heil Avenue, spoke in opposition to the center. Patricia Bradley, age 16, spoke in support of the center. She feels that it will provide teenagers a nice place to go on Friday nights. She stated that there are not enough dances at school. Ann Reed, 16261 Magellan Lane, stated that kids will be able to climb over the fence and walk through the channel because she used to as a child. She also expressed opposition to the mix of ages (13 year olds with 20 year olds). Deborah Fairon, 16742 Seawitch, spoke in opposition. She feels that there should be a disclosure statement required on such a project and also feels that property values will go down if permitted. PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -6- (9656d) a Chris Quick, teenager, spoke in support of center. He feels that the teenagers need a place to go on Friday nights. ' Ann Doke, 16262 Serenade Lane, stated that she did not like the applicant's credentials and is opposed to the center because of the noise. Larry Whiting, 7001 Heil Avenue, feels that the applicant has no credibility, prior problems felt by the applicant in running a center should be checked out, and that a financial statement should be required. Frank Rapprich, 16422 Magellan Lane, spoke in opposition to the center because he feels it will bring down the value of the adjacent property. Bobbe Mootchnik, 7202 Stonewood Drive, stated that she is presently a counselor and that the age mix proposed has potential problems. Reverand Robert T. Hardin, 16242 Magellan Lane, spoke in opposition. He feels the center will be an attractive nuisance and will devalue surrounding property. Joseph Mastropacolo, 16291 Magellan Lane, stated that he walked his neighborhood and tried to find someone in favor of the center but was unsuccessful. He also took a poll of 21 teenagers, all who were against. Dr. Kathleen Maher, stated that the age mix is very bad on the proposed center. She.said that one of the biggest problems would be teenagers that might be possibly ejected from the center before it was time for their parents to pick them up and what they would do with their time. Benjamin Jones, 7151 Stonewood Drive, felt that the credentials of the applicant should be further investigated. William Montgomery, 16372 Wishingwell Lane, felt that staff had based their decision to approve the center on the wrong square footage. He feels that it should be re -calculated. Catherine Dvorak, 7191 Stonewood Drive, stated that there is already too much trash and debris in the area and that she is opposed to the center. Peter Georgabos, 16262 Magellan Lane, spoke in opposition to the center— He said that he grew up in Huntington Beach and that teenagers do not need a place to hang out. He also stated that he feels the center would be too noisy for the surrounding neighborhood. Tris Swan, 16251 Serenade Lane, stated that since -,he is.a policeman he sees the center as a beacon for gang activity and feels there are a lot better locations in the City that than being proposed. PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -7- (9656d) Inez Neuenfeldt, 7221 Heil Avenue, spoke against the center because she feels it could cause gang activities and that the age mix is bad. She does not feel that the City should create problems. Fotis D. Georgatsos, 16262 Magellan Lane, spoke in opposition to the center. He questioned the findings made by staff. Eleni Georgatsos, 16262 Magellan Lane, feels that -the center would create too much noise and stated her opposition. Henry Yee, 16312 Wishingwell Lane, spoke in opposition to the center. Scott Nelson, 16201 Wishingwell Lane, student at Parkview, spoke in opposition to the center. He feels that kids from the center would loiter around his school and create additional vandalism in the area. Sandra Nelson, 16201 Wishingwell Lane, spoke in opposition to the center. She feels that the problems would occur before and after the proposed dances. Mr. Sterling, 7201 Stonewood Drive; Chuck Nelson, 16321 Magellan Lane; Bill Bergen, 16321 Serenade Lane; and Leona Miner, 16311 Rhone Lane spoke in opposition to the center. The following persons were present in opposition to the center however due to time chose not to speak. Their names are listed for the record: Charles G. Murray, 16401 Magellan Lane; Jeannie Wahner, 16261 Serenade Lane; Joan OBrien, 16282 Serenade Lane; Wilma Heimkes, 7191 Heil Avenue; Leon Heimkes, 7191 Heil Avenue; Jim Sadler, 16222 Wishingwell Lane; David Mootchnik, 7202 Stonewall Drive; Sandra Mallory, 16402 Magellan Lane; June Pfeifer, 16322 Magellan Lane; Frank Pfeifer, 16322 Magellan Lane; Drake Muat, 16112 Don Drive; F. G. Waller, 16352 Magellan Lane; Catherine Georgatsos, 16262 Magellan Lane; Dean Zitko, 16332 Magellan Lane; Joseph Hrovat, 16382,Magellan Lane;'Harry Meyer, 16371 Serenade; Hugh Polkinghorne, 16332 Serenade Lane; Sandra Lyons, 16242 Serenade Lane; Mrs. John Salisbury, 7021 Heil Avenue; Donna Craft, 16292 Serenade; Misty Zitko, 16332 Magellan Lane; John A. Salisbury, 7021,Heil Avenue; Dominic Scolaro, 7171 Heil Avenue; James Craft, 16292 Serenade Lane; Fred Celirad, 7201 Heil Avenue; Bill Mallory, 16402 Magellan Lane; Ninfa Bergen, 16312 Serenade Lane; Patricia Bradley, 204 Knoxville Avenue; Cheryl Muat, 16612 Don Drive; Bill Lyons, 16242 Serenade; Bob Oslan, 7142 Bluesails Drive; Frances Shelby, 16321 Magellan Lane; Margaret Keddy, 16331 Serenade Lane. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the project and the public hearing was closed. The Commission addressed their concerns which included the lack of toilet facilities, impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and the incompatibility with industrial uses. PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -8- (9656d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-49, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 140TION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The establishment and operation of the youth center/teen nightclub 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 with an occupancy of 400. 2. The scale of the proposed youth center/teen nightclub in terms of number of potential patrons (300 to 400) is not harmonious with adjacent industrial/commercial and long-time established residential uses and schools. 3. Amending Resolution No. 1313 to allow a youth center which includes dancing and live entertainment will not be compatible with the mixed use development, adjacent industrial uses and residential uses to the west. The industrial park is not built out, future industrial users would be discouraged to locate in the industrial park and existing businesses adjacent to.the proposed project operate until midnight. 4. The existing facility design is inadequate for the proposed use. There are inadequate restroom facilities within the building and the building does not properly adapt to other adjacent structures and uses (in particular, sound, acoustics and security). C-3 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT 87-3 ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-4/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-14/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-3 APPLICANT: CORONA DEVELOPMENT CO. INC. Land Use -Element .amendment 87-3, Zone Change No. 87-4 and Code Amendment No. 87-14 is a request to amend the General Plan by redesignating a 1.14 acre site located on the east side of Delaware Street approximately 280-feet north of the intersection of Delaware Street and Garfield Avenue from Medium Density Residential to Mixed PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -9- (9656d) Development with a concurrent zone change.from R2, Maximum 15 units per acre, to Pacifica Community Plan which would allow 45 units per acre and a code amendment to expand the Pacifica Community Plan to include the site. The owner of the site, Eldon W. Bagstad, proposes to construct a three-story senior project containing 51 one -bedroom units mirroring the existing senior complex north of and adjacent to the subject site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: A. Recommend to the City Council that Environmental Impact Report No. 87-3 be certified as adequate and in conformance with the State EIR Guidelines. B. Approve General Plan Land Use Element Amendment 87-3 for a change in land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Development and recommend adoption by the City Council. C. Approve Zone Change No. 87-4 and Code Amendment No. 87-14 with findings to rezone the site from R2 (maximum 15 units per acre) to Pacifica Community Plan for purposes of constructing a 51 unit senior citizen's apartment project at 45 units per acre and in order to include the 1.14 acre site in the Pacifica Community Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Robert Corona, consultant for the applicant, spoke in support of the project. He stated that the sewer would be completed with the understanding that as others tie into the sewer that they would be reimbursed. Robert Zinngrabe, 18800 Delaware, stated that the Pacifica Plan was developed so that the City could have control over the development of the area with a compatible flow of uses. He does not feel that the area needs any more medical facilities or the need to allow a density of 45 additional senior housing units because he feels it would•create serious problems. Eldon Bagstad, owner of property adjacent to Mr. Zinngrabe's property, stated that in a City as large as Huntington Beach he does not feel that the only senior requirement should be located on Mr. Zinngrabe's property. He feels that there is a necessity for senior housing on both pieces of property. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -10- (9656d) At that public hearing the Planning Commission denied the zone change and found the environmental impact report inadequate because it did not analyze a reduced senior project on the site containing 42 units. The Commission felt that the environmental impact report was inadequate because it did not analyze a reduced senior project on the site containing 42 units and should be denied. They also felt that the code amendment and zone change should be reanalyzed with emphasis on the following: 1. Analysis of an alterantive Land Use Element Amendment request to Senior Residential, and Zone Change to R3-SR. 2. A comparison of the development standards as established by the SR suffix versus the Pacifica Community Plan. 3. Augment the EIR to include the corrected data regarding City sewer lines and County Sanitation lines and also analyze the impacts associated with a 42 unit senior project. 4. Discuss City .policies and issues regarding density bonuses for Senior Residential projects. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SILVA, TO DENY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 87-3 AND LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-14 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-4 TO THE JANUARY 5, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -11- (9656d) C-4 APPEAI, OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF.CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO, 87-66 APPLICANT: TACO BELL/STEVE ABBOTT APPELLANT: COMMISSIONER LIVENGOOD Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-66 is a request for a variances to allow parking spaces within the required 100 foot long commercial entrance as part of reestaurant modification for a drive-thru lane, to reduce the required front landscape planter width and to allow stacking in the drive-thru lane to count toward 42% of the required on -site parking at 9142 Garfield Avenue (south side of Garfield Avenue, east of Magnolia Street). On July 21, 1987, Taco Bell submitted plans (Plan A) for a preliminary plan review for a drive-thru addition to an existing restaurant. Staff reviewed them and had the following comments: (1) use permit required; (2) conditional exception required to delete landscaping required for building encroachment into 50 foot setback from Garfield for 6 feet wide planter in lieu of 19 feet as required by Code, Section 9220.7; (3) parking space striping doesn't comply with required layout; (4) 60 degree parking on east bay requires 20 foot aisle; (5) handicap space required�to be 14 feet wide. The Public Works Department and Fire Department had no comments. On August 18, 1987, Use Permit No. 87-72 (Plan B) was submitted with Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-66, a request to (1) delete landscaping required to encroach 19 feet into the required 50 foot front yard setback and (2) to allow stacking in the drive-thru lane to count toward 42 percent of the required on -site parking in lieu-'' of a maximum of 30 percent required by Code, Section 9605(e). At the Zoning Administrator public hearing on September 9, 1987, to consider the project a new alternative (Plan C) was presented. The modified plan eliminated the need for the parking variance originally requested and increased the width of the landscape planter required by Code for building encroachment into the 50 foot setback. Use Permit No. 87-72 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-66 were approved. Plans were submitted to obtain building permits and during plan check it was discovered that the approved plan violated code, Section 9605(b), because it showed parking accessed off the required 100 foot long cominercial entrance. The project went back to the Zoning Administrator on October 21, 1987, with a request for a variance to deviate from the -required commercial entrance. The variance was approved with conditions that the plan be modified to show diagonal parking on the exiting side of the commercial entrance and the most easterly driveway entering the center from Garfield to be exit only (Plan D). PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -12- (9656d) The variance allowing parking in the required 100 foot long commercial entrance has been appealed by Commissioner Livengood on the grounds that it may create a hazardous situation for on -site circulation. Staff has evaluated the various plans and is recommending a compromise (Plan E) which has been.agreed to by Taco Bell. The compromise proposal has 9 permanent spaces requiring 5 (36 percent) in the drive-thru aisle, only 1 more than the 30 percent:(;4 spaces) allowed to be counted by code. Allowing 1 space additional stacking credit will not create a parking problem since the restaurant is integrated with a larger retail center having 364 parking spaces. Taco Bell was checked by staff on two occasions at the lunch hour and there were 7 spaces of the existing 14 in use for the restaurant. The entire center was approximately three-quarters full. Taco Bell anticipates that approximately 30 to 45 percent of their customers will utilize the drive-thru window. The variance will be to allow one additional parking space in the stacking lane (36 percent) in lieu of allowing a variance for parking in the main commercial entrance which may create conflicts between cars entering the retail center and Taco Bell customers backing out of spaces into the driveway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-66 with variance requests for (1) reduction in the required front landscape planter width from 19 feet to 6 feet and (2) to allow stacking in the drive-thru lane to count toward 36 percent of the required on -site parking in lieu of a maximum of 30 percent and deny variance (3) to allow parking spaces within the required 100 foot long commercial entrance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Steve Abbott, applicant, spoke in support of Plan.E which he feels will alleviate any concerns that the Commission may have. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Higgins stated that he fels the landscaping along the 6 foot strip should be redone. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-66 (PLAN E), WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Higgins; Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -13- 2 (9656d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-31: 1. The granting of a conditional exception (variance) to allow stacking in the drive-thru lane to count 36 percent of the total parking and to reduce the front landscape planter width is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-31 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-31 to allow stacking in the drive-thru lane to count 36 percent of the total parking and to reduce the front landscape planter will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed drive-thru window addition properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - VARIANCE TO ALLOW PARKING IN THE 100 FOOT LONG COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE: 1. Granting of a conditional exception for parking in the 100 foot long commercial entrance would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other retail centers. 2. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. 3. On -site parking and circulation are in conflict in the driveway locations and have the potential of creating a congestion and circulation hazard. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-31 for parking in the 100 foot commercial entrance will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed use does not properly adapt the proposed structures and parking spaces to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated November 24, 1987, shall be the approved layout, and shall supersede the site plans approved for Use Permit No. 87-72. PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -14- (9656d) 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: 'a. Landscape and irrigation plan showing intensified landscape buffering to .the Department of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment P1an..,Said plan shall indicate screening of all•rooftop.mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 3. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, sha11 be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 4. The proposed drive-thru window addition shall be architecturally compatible with existing structure. 5. Speaker box volume shall comply with the provisions of the City Noise Ordinance (Section 8.40 of the Municipal Code) and be oriented at a 45 to 60 degree angle towards Garfield Avenue. 6. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-50 APPLICANT: NEWPORT NANNY COLLEGE Conditional Use Permit No. 87-50 is a request to permit a private school (child-care training) for five to eight students to be located within a commercial district at 18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 222. The egtablishment of the school will require approval of joint use of parking facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt Class 1 Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 87-50 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bette Rothman, applicant, spoke in supportiof the request and stated that she would answer any questions that the Commission might have. 1 PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -15- (9656d) Commissioner Schumacher stated that she had received a telephone call in support of the request. ' There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-50 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 proposed Newport Nanny College will not have a detrimental effect on the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood because the use will operate during the daytime hours when there is ample parking available (72 excess spaces). 2. The proposed private school with'a maximum enrollment of 8 students is compatible with other uses in the shopping center. 3. The proposed joint use of parking will not cause a hardship for. other businesses in the complex because the various uses have divergent needs in terms of daytime versus nighttime hours and weekday versus weekend hours. 4. The private school use is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plans received and dated October 22,. 1987, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City Ordinance Code and Building Division. 3. The Newport Nanny College shall be limited to an enrollment of no more than 8 students. Any expansion in number shall require approval by the Planning Commission. 4. The conditional use permit shall apply only to the suite labeled No. 222 on the site plan. Any expansion of area shall require approval of the Planning Commission. PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -16- (9656d) L_J 5. The Newport Nanny College shall operate between the hours of ' 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 6. The applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Huntington Beach. 7. All signs shall comply with Article 961 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and shall be subject to a sign permit. 8. Evidence of an agreement for joint use of parking shall be provided by proper legal instrument, approved as to form by the City Attorney. The instrument shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder and shall be filed with the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9. 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-6 CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT N0, 87-47 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO, Q7-44 APPLICANT: KEN KIPERS Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47 is a request to permit a Christmas tree farm under the Edison right-of-way, west of the Santa Ana River (north of the Hamilton Substation and south of Cynthia Drive). Retail sales of the Christmas trees would take place for approximately 30 days prior to Christmas each year. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Community Development Department posted draft Negative Declaration No. 87-44 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 87-44 and Conditional Use Permit No. 87 -47 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ken Kipers, applicant, spoke in support of the request. Charles Lawrence, resident living behind subject site in cul-de-sac, stated his concerns regarding the dirt road along the property line and the proposed chain link fence. PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -17- (9656d) The applicant stated that all roads and fences would be completed as per requirements of the C-lanning Department. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND 13Y SILVA, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 87-44 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-47 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 proposed Christmas tree farm with retail sales for 30 days each year will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety or convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood. Trees will be planted a minimum of 16 feet from the property line of adjacent R1 properties and the retail sales area (will be trailer and parking) located 136 feet east of the nearest R1 property. 2. The proposed Christmas tree farm with retail sales is compatible with existing uses in the neighborhood. The sales area is 136 feet east of nearby residences, outdoor lighting is limited to the sales area and will be shielded away from residential uses. The hours of operation for the retail sales will be limited to no later than 9:00 PM. 3. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed Christmas tree farm with retail sales properly adapts the use to street, bikeways and other adjacent structure in a harmonious manner. The improvements to the bike path and the placement of temporary barricades restricting the use of the south arm of the bike path will insure the safety and convenience of bicycle riders and visitors to the site. 4. The combination and relationships of the tree growing area and the retail sales area are properly integrated to insure maximum compatibility with residential uses. 5. Access to and parking for the proposed Christmas tree farm with retail sales does not create an undue traffic problem. Parking will be provided on -site during the retail phase of the project. PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -18- (9656d) a CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: e 1. The site plan received and dated October 28, 1987, shall be revised depicting the modification described herein: a. The retail sales area (temporary trailer, flocking tent, and parking) shall be located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site as shown in Alternative No. 1 on page 5 of the staff report dated December 1, 1987. Should the applicant be successful in negotiating the use of the Orange County Sanitation District easement on the eastern boundary of the site, the parking and sales area shall be as shown in Alternative No. 2 on page 5 of the staff report dated December 1, 1987 (see attached). b. A turn -around shall be provided at the southern terminus of the eastern 16 foot wide access road to restrict private vehicles from using the western access road adjacent to the single family homes. 2. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 20 on -site parking spaces during the retail sales period. 3. A minimum 20 foot wide gate shall be installed at the terminus of Atlanta Avenue (an 8 foot wide gate is presently at this location). A sign shall be displayed identifying the Christmas tree farm and indicating the direction to the parking area on -site. 4. A minimum 20 foot wide gravel travelway shall be installed from the gate to the parking area for the retail sales area. The parking lot shall also be covered with gravel. 5. The southern arm of the City bicycle trail shall be blocked off starting at the trail's entrance on Atlanta Avenue. A sign shall be posted to direct east bound bikers to use the northern arm of the trail to access the Santa Ana River Trail. 6. The applicant shall reconstruct the southern arm of the bicycle trail using 3 inches of asphalt concrete on a 6 inch crushed aggregate base. (The trail, as presently constructed, cannot withstand the weight of vehicles driving over it.) 7. A barrier, acceptable to Public Works, shall be temporarily installed along the southern edge of the northern arm of the bike trail, including the section leading to the Santa Ana River trail, to prohibit any vehicles from crossing onto the northern bike path and causing potential conflicts. 8. The northern arm of the bicycle trail shall be reconstructed to accommodate two lanes of bicycle traffic. 9. The use of private the Christmas tree prohibited. automobiles by customers on the portion of farm north of the City bike trail shall be PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -19- (9656d) 10. Prior to the planting of any trees on the site, the applicant shall submit, to the Department of Public Works, for review and approval a grading plan to insure that•drainage from the site does not flow toward,the existing residential properties to the west. 11. There'shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts or equipment on site. 12. All trees shall be watered by a drip irrigation system. 13. There shall be no activity, including maintenance; between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. 14. Retail sales of Christmas trees shall take place for a maximum of 30 days before Christmas. The hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 12:00 Noon to 9:00 PM and Saturday and Sunday from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM. 15. Temporary lighting shall be installed on the site during the retail sales period to serve the temporary office trailer and the on -site parking areas only. The lighting shall be shielded away from the residential areas to_ the west. 16. No operation of retail sales shall commence until permission has been granted by the Huntington Beach Fire Department after an on• -site inspection has been made to insure that all .conditions of local and State codes are met. 17. All utility poles, temporary structures, signs, barricades and trash shall be removed, and that portion of the site used for retail sales shall be completely restored to its original condition no later than January 3rd. of the following year. 18. The applicant shall provide insurance as per City requirements. 19. The use of outside phone alarms, intercoms and loudspeakers shall be prohibited. 20. All chemicals used or stored on the site shall be approved by the Orange County Agriculture Department, as required by law. 21. Any herbicides used on the trees shall be applied by hand sprayers. 22. Any fertilizer or dirt stored outside shall be minimum 100 feet away from residential properties. 23. All trees on the site shall be maintained in a neat manner, and shall not exceed 15 feet in height. Trees shall be planted a minimum of 16 feet away from any residential property line. PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -20- (9656d) 24. No live animals shall be kept on the site. 25. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 87-47 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-12 z APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Code Amendment No. 87-12 was continued from the November 3, 1987 Planning Commission meeting to revise the draft Ordinance to allow all Conditional Exceptions the possibility of an extension of time. Section 9837.1 has been renumbered to be consistent with Section 9816.1 through Section 9816.1.2. As part of the on -going Division 9 rewrite, the Planning Commission will be reviewing future code amendments necessary to refine and reduce repetition of the administration articles in Chapter 98. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Code Amendment No. 87-12 with the following findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. 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 felt that applications, in conjunction with coastal development permits that have been appealed and approved by the California Coastal Commission, should be valid for one year from date of California Coastal Commission approval in lieu of two years. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPRQVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-12 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, 1. Revisions to time limits reduces the repetitive review of applications necessary to complete a project. _ C PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -211.- (9656d) 0 . 0 2. Revisions to time limits creates a more systematic entitlement process. r 3. Revisions to time limits is not in conflict with any element of the General Plan. C-8 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-11 - PARKING STRUCTURES APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ` Code Amendment No. 87-11 is a request to establish regulations for the design of parking structures. On October 20, 1987, the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No. 87-11 for additional review and discussion. To date, staff has additional concerns relating to the proposed ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Continue Code Amendment No. 87-11 to the January 5, 1988 Planning Commission meeting with a study session prior to the meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-11 TO THE JANUARY 5, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH A STUDY SESSION PRIOR TO THE MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. ITEMS NOT PUBLIC HEARING D-1 LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 87-5 APPLICANT: ACTION HOSPITAL SERVICE CO. Limited Sign Permit No. 87-5 is a request to permit a face change for a non -conforming freestanding sign and extend the sign's use for 2 years located at 16212 Gothard Street STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Limited Sign Permit No. 87-5 with findings. PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -22- (9656d) 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO -DENY LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 87-5 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:' Silva, Schumacher, NOES: Livengood ABSENT:. None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell 1. The sign's immediate removal or modification to conform with the current sign code will not result in a substantial hardship for the applicant. 2. As a result of the low -profile, conforming signs in the same proximity, the sign will not be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. E. DISCUSSION ITEM E-1 VIBRATION PROBLEMS AT OLD WORLD RESIDENCES - The report regarding the vibration problems at Old World residences was accepted by the Commission. E-2 PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 3. 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS TO THE JANUARY 20, 1988 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E-3 LIST OF COMMITTEES - There were no changes or comments. I PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -23- (9656d) F. PENDING ITEMS The following items were added to the Pending Items list: 1. Interior walls at Old World Beer Gardens (investigation on building permits, construction, etc.) 2. Field inspection regarding grading on archaeological site on Meadowlark Airport property 3. Status of block wall at northwest corner of Heil/Gothard PLANNING COMMMISSION ITEMS None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, AT 1:10 AM, TO ADJOURN TO A JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL, DECEMBER 14, 1987, AND TO A STUDY SESSION, DECEMBER 15, 1987, AT 6:00 PM, TO DISCUSS CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1987, AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED: Mike A ams, ecretary - --If - - - I Z - K nt M. Pierce, Chairman PC Minutes - 12/1/87 -24- (9656d)