Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-02APPROVED 5/16/89 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1989 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P(left @ 8: 00 PM) P P P ROLL CALL: Slates, ,Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, P P P Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig A. CONSENT CALENDAR A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO CONTINUE MINUTES DATED APRIL 4, 1989, FOR FURTHER REVIEW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 85-1 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LOCATION: Between Lynn and Green Streets, north of Los Patos Avenue, south of Curtis Circle Proposed Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 85-1 is a request by the City Council that the Planning Commission review possible street alignments for reasonable access to landlocked parcels located approximately 200 feet west of Green Street and 100 feet north of Los Patos within an R1-CZ (Single Family Residential -Coastal Zone) district. Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 85-1 was tabled by the Planning Commission on August 20, 1985, pending court litigation as to whether or not access easements existed to the subject parcels. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 5, Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed Precise Plan of Street Alignment is within the non -appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Withdraw Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 85-1 with findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Phillip Collins, 139 W. Yale Loop, Irvine, spoke in support of withdrawal. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO WITHDRAW PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 85-1, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED I PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -2- (2652d) C-2 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT N0, 89-3 APPLICANT: ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT LOCATION: Approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the Santa Ana River on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway. Coastal Development Permit No. 89-3 is a request to construct a new ocean outlet for the realigned Talbert Flood Control Channel located approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the Santa Ana River. This project is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 445 which was certified by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on March 24, 1985. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed residential project is subject to the approval of a coastal development permit because it is located within coastal zone boundaries under appeal jurisdiction to the California Coastal Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 89-3 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Gary Gorman, Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy, said he strongly supported the request. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Bob Franklin introduced Don Schmitz from the Coastal Commission who was available to answer any questions. A condition regarding public access after construction on the down coast service road with adequate signage was added per Coastal Commission requirements. The Commission expressed concerns regarding the Lest Turn nesting sites. Staff pointed out that an 8 foot high cantilevered fence would be constructed which would deter disturbance to the nesting areas and would add enhancement and was acceptable by the wildlife agencies, County and Coastal Commission. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -3- (2652d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SLATES, TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 89-3, WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: , AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed realignment and new ocean outlet for the Talbert Channel conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Huntington Beach Coastal Element of the General Plan. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 89-3 is consistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the Shoreline zone as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. At the time of completion, the proposed realignment and new ocean outlet for the Talbert Channel can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Huntington Beach Coastal Element and Coastal'Land Use Plan of the General Plan. 4. The proposed realignment and new ocean outlet for the Talbert Channel conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site•,plan.dated received April 26, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. All new construction and landscaping shall be consistent with existing structures and landscaping within the State Park. 3. An interim beach access, bicycle trail, parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development to assure adequate beach access, bicycle trail and parking is available for the public, employees and contractors, etc. during the project's construction phase. 4. The proposed project shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in Environmental Impact Report No. 455. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -4- (2652d) 1 1 I 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 6. 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. 7. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed within twelve (12) months of the completion of the project. 8. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enpugh to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05% by weight) for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 9. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. . 10. After construction has been completed, public access shall be provided on the down -coast service road and shall be adequately signed, subject to the requirements of the Coastal Commission. C-3 ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 88-22 - OKTOBERFEST APPLICANT: WEST COAST SOCCER LEAGUE LOCATION: -7561 Center Avenue #68 (northwest corner of Center Avenue and Huntington Center Drive) Conditional Use Permit No. 88-22 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 2, 1988, which requested to permit an annual Oktoberfest from mid -September to mid -November for a maximum of 5 years. Condition No. 2 requires an annual review by the Planning Commission prior to the event. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -5- (2652d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 4, Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act. SPECIFIC PLAN: The proposed location for the Oktoberfest is located in Site II of the North Huntington Center Specific Plan. Annual events are permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve annual review of Oktoberfest from mid -September to mid -November (1989) as required by Condition No. 2 of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-22 with revised Condition of Approval No. 1 and 8 and all prior conditions of approval to remain in effect. Staff said there were no major complaints reported or problems experienced at last year's Oktoberfest. The Commission asked if the portable toilets could be relocated. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron Pattinson, representing the applicant, spoke in support of Oktoberfest. 'He said last year's event ran very smoothly and felt that the added conditions helped both the City and the applicant. He said the portable toilets would be relocated this year toward the beer garden. - There were no other persons present to speak for or against Oktoberfest and the public hearing was closed. A_MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-22, WITH REVISED CONDITION"OF•APPROVAL AND ALL PRIOR CONDITIONS TO REMAIN IN EFFECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates; Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None NOTION REVISED CONDITION OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-22: 1. The site plan and floor plan dated received March 17, 1989, shall be the approved layout for the 1989 Oktoberfest and all prior conditions shall remain in effect except for revised Condition No. 8. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -6- (2652d) 8. Parking shall be prohibited on Center Drive and Huntington Village Lane during the Oktoberfest. The applicant shall at a minimum provide and install temporary "no parking" signs on Huntington Village_Lane. C-4 TENTATIVE. TRACT 13920/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0, 89-3 APPLICANT: PACIFIC COAST HOMES LOCATION: Southeast corner of Yorktown and Lake Tentative Tract 13920 is a request to create six (6) lots from a 1.7 acre parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Yorktown and Lake pursuant to Section 9130.2 and 9930.2 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: ' In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Environmental Impact Report No. 89-3, was prepared to analyze the potential historic and seismic impact of the proposed project. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: The site is located within the Yorktown -Lake Redevelopment Project Area, SPECIFIC PLAN: - The site is zoned Oldtown Specific Plan. Development will conform to all aspects of the.specific plan if Tentative Tract 13920 is approved. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: Creation of these lots was considered at the July 19 and September 8, 1988 Subdivision Committee meetings. The proposed tentative tract map includes -an east -west alley as recommended. Preservation of a rail corridor on this property will be satisfied by a condition of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:. (A) Adopt and certify as adequate Environmental Impact Report No. 89-3; and (B) Approve Tentative Tract No. 13920 with findings and conditions of approval,:and with Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B) and Statement of Findings (Exhibit C) by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1409. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -7- (2652d) Commissioner Mountford asked staff if there was a plan for preserving historic buildings. He feels the Redevelopment Agency should restore or relocate the historic buildings to another designated site if warranted and does not feel that it should be the responsibility of the developer. He further stated that the mitigation measures contained in the environmental impact report did not match the specific impacts. Commissioner Ortega said she felt the environmental impact report was inadequate and had concerns relative to the closure of the environmental impact report public comment period four days before the meeting. She referred staff to the memo dated March 12 regarding closing dates of EIRs and allowing for a two week minimum time period. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bill Holman, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request. He said the request was delayed in October per a request by the Historical Resources Board to obtain further information regarding the tin buildings and that demolition permits were also delayed in October -for 45 days pending further study, removal or relocation. The developer had offered the buildings, which he feels are unsafe, to any interested party and no interest has been shown. He feels it is infeasible to look at any more alternatives and does not feel that any further delays or costs should be incurred by the developer. Barbara Milkovich,, Historical Resources Board, said she did not have enough time.to'review.the environmental impact -report; that it was incorrectly conceived and does not include the full project (86 houses instead of 6). She would like to see the site preserved. Jo Anne Viserti-Galinis,'-18842 Lister,Lane, member of the Historical Board,'showed slides.of restored tin buildings,in other cities to - show the --possibilities of restoration. Ida Griffin, 4049 Warner Avenue, member of Historical Board, said this site is an eligible historical site, according to the National Register, -and suggested specific language to be included on a historical monument -plaque to be located at the site. Doug Langevin, 8196-Pawtucket Drive, said the tin -.buildings are not the grandeur of the pyramids however are -historical monuments and should be considered as such. He said there are ways and means to restore and preserve historic monuments. He said the Historical Board does'not have enough.money to move or restore the buildings, even if donated to them by the developer, and,feels the City should cooperate in a joint effort,,through Redevelopment, to preserve our heritage.- He suggested restoration of the buildings with alternative uses (e.g. child care center, offices, etc.). rJ PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -8- (2652d) Bill Holman, -in rebuttal to public comments, said at previous public hearings citizens complained about the,tin buildings and spoke in support of demolishing them. They felt they were eyesores and not worthy of restoration. ;-He expressed concern and requested deletion of the mitigation measure requiring documentation of the buildings, which involves rigourous research and expensive completion of detailed drawings and registration. He said the developer has exhaused all avenues concerning the buildings, is not interested in registering the buildings, and asked the Commission for direction. there were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Discussion ensued among the Commissioners. Some felt the buildings .would create a loss to the City and should be preserved, others felt they were unsafe/unattractive and should be demolished. They did feel that the preservation should be a joint effort between the developer and City. A committee was suggested to work with the Redevelopment Agency and City Council regarding preservation of this site and for a long-range historic preservation plan. A 30-day continuance was also suggested for further review of the environmental impact report. Commissioners Kirkland and Williams said they thought the buildings were unattractive and should be demolished. They did not feel the developer should be responsible for preservation of the buildings and that his offer to donate them to an interested party was satisfactory and supported staffs recommendation to approve the request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO ADOPT AND CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-3 AS ADEQUATE AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13920 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND WITH STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF FINDINGS BY ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1409, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams NOES: Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig ABSENT: Slates (left meeting 8 8:00 PM) ABSTAIN: None 04_ • Ll 1� A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE TRACT 13920 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-3 TO THE JUNE 6, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, NOES: Williams ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 5/2/89 Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig -9- (2652d) C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 89-13 IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-28 APPLICANT: MARK A. AANONSON - HUMANA HOSPITAL LOCATION: 17772 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard south of Newman Avenue) Conditional Use Permit No. 89-13 in conjunction with Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-28 is a request to delete Condition 3.a (requirement to dedicate an offer for reciprocal driveway easement) and 3.b (requirement to remove temporary modular building) of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-48. The 3,600 square foot temporary modular building will remain on site, with approximately 1,800 square feet used as an employee classroom facility and the remainder used as storage. The variance request is for a reduction in parking of 11 spaces. The request to expand the hospital site is pursuant to Article 963 (Unclassified Uses) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Use Permit No. 87-48 was approved by the Planning Commission on December 15, 1987 with conditions (Attachment No. 5). The request was to add 1,000 square feet of administration office area and restripe the parking area to provide additional parking for the hospital expansion. Condition of approval 3.a was to provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate a reciprocal driveway easement between the subject property and the adjacent westerly property. In addition, condition of approval 3.b for the project was to remove the temporary modular building at the northwest corner of the hospital site and reclaim the area for 16 additional parking ,spaces. This combined with restriping would provide the hospital with_935 available parking spaces. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. 1-19 VA4 we Ili LOW uI�19LIV• Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-13 for retention of the modular building only with findings and conditions of approval; and deny Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 98-28 with findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Angela Garland, representing Humana Hospital, spoke in support of the request. She said there have been no complaints regarding the modular building or parking situation. She said the traffic survey that was prepared showed a 20 percent vacancy on site at peak demand and that they were promoting a ride -share plan for employees. She said -a parking structure would be proposed in the future and that a reciprocal driveway access agreement would eliminate 3 parking spaces. PC -Minutes - 5/2/89 -10- (2652d) There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Leipzig suggested a change to Condition No. 5 regarding the annual review. A suggestion was also made to require an offer to dedicate a reciprocal driveway easement with future improvements to be considered at a later -date for proper integration. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.-89-13 WITH A REDUCTION IN PARKING SPACES. AND DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-28, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS -OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon,-Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 89-13: 1. The proposed Humana Hospital use of an existing 3,600 square foot temporary modular building as an in-house 1,800 square foot classroom facility and 1,800 square foot storage area will be compatible with adjacent properties and uses because adequate parking will be provided to reduce any on -site circulation - conflicts-. - 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the temporary modular building as an in-house classroom facility for Humana Hospital will 'not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and not detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood.. 3. The location,'site layout and design of the proposed minimum 913 parking space layout with the temporary modular building used as an -in-house classroom facility and storage area properly adapts the -proposed structures to streets, driveways and other adjacent structures and.uses in a harmonious manner. 4. The combination,,and:relationship of the in-house classroom located in the temporary modular building to the existing Humana Hospital facility�on-site are properly integrated. 5. The'access-to,and parking -for the proposed temporary modular building as an in-house classroom facility and substantiated by the parking -study conducted by the applicant does not create an undue traffic problem. PC Minutes - 5/2/.89 -11- (2652d) 6. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-13 to delete Condition 3.b of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-48 (to allow the 3,600 square foot temporary modular building to remain) and provide.a minimum of 913 parking spaces will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7. On -site parking and circulation as modified to provide a minimum of 913 parking spaces is adequate and does not have the potential of creating a congestion or circulation hazard. 8. Modification to Condition 3.a of Conditional Use -Permit No. 87-48 will allow future circulation between the Humana campus and the westerly property by requiring an.offer to dedicate a reciprocal driveway easement with future improvements to be considered at a later date for proper integration. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-28: 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 type of uses in the same district. 2. Granting of ConditionalException (Variance) No. 88-28 for a reduction of 11 parking spaces would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. The subject property was legally subdivided and developed in a,;manner.consistent with applicable zoning laws. 3.. Exceptional circumstances -do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL --.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 89-13: 1. The site plan depicting the modular building, floor plans and elevations received and dated March 30, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout. a. A minimum-of-913-spaces shall be depicted on the plan and the -lot shall.=be-restriped to.reflect-the approved plan. 2. Prior to use-of.the _building as a classroom, the applicant shall complete the following: a. The property,owner._shall sign,.notarize, and record with the County Recorder '.a_ -"Letter of Agreement" assuring that the temporary -modular building will be -removed at such time that a parking demand warrants the removal of the building which will result.in_ an additional 16 parking spaces on -site. A copy of,the letter of agreement shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and kept on file in Conditional Use Permit No. 89-13. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -12- (2652d) 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. A review of the use shall be conducted within one year of the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or final building permit approval to verify compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable Articles of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. If, at that time, there is a violation of these conditions or code -sections, Conditional Use Permit No. 89-13 may become null and void. 5. An annual review of the proposed minimum 913 parking layout shall be conducted and presented to the Planning Commission, the first meeting in May each year, to insure that adequate parking is provided and that no parking impacts occur on the adjacent properties. The applicant shall provide a parking study to be conducted by a consultant and paid for by the applicant,to verify that adequate parking is continually provided on -site. If it is determined that there is inadequate parking, the modular building shall be removed or measures taken to provide additional parking. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 89-13 if any violation of these conditions or -the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 7. The property owner shall enter into an offer to dedicate an irrevocable reciprocal driveway and parking easement between the subject site and adjacent westerly property. A copy of the legal instrument.shall be approved by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, -shall be.recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. -A-copy shall -be filed with the Department of Community Development. Installation of the physical improvements for reciprocal access will be determined during the annual review of the parking situation.-. APPLICANT: BRIAN ELIA/MARK A. KELLER ASSOC. LOCATION: 8052-Adams Avenue-.- Suie 120 (southeast corner at Beach Boulevard - Seabridge Center) Conditional Use Permit No. 89-14 is a request to allow an animal (veterinary) clinic within -an existing office building in the Seabridge Center; The clinic will provide medical care to small animals, primarily dogs,and cats with emergency overnight care only. The clinic will be open Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM and 10:00.AM-to 1:00 PM on Saturday with appointments only. The animal -veterinary clinic proposes to convert an existing private three -car garage and racquetball court into a 3,000 square foot suite located in the Seabridge Center office building. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -13- (2652d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of.the California Environmental Quality Act. SPECIFIC PLAN: The proposed project is located within the Seabridge Specific Plan and complies with:such requirements. - STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-14 with findings and conditions of approval.. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Brian-Elia, applicant, was present and available to answer any questions. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. It was reported that Wong's Restaurant (tenant at Seabridge Center) had marked several -parking spots "Wong's Restaurant Customer's Only". Staff was directed to investigate the Parking Management Plan of Seabridge Center to see of "assigned parking" was allowed. A MOTION WAS MADE-M WILLIAMS,:SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE -PERMIT -NO: 89-14, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland,-Williams,`Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None _' ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: -None'-. MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The location,=site.layout-and design of the proposed animal -veterinary clinic -properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 2. The -combination and -relationship of,.one proposed use to another on site are properly integrated. 3. The access -to -and parking for,the proposed animal -veterinary clinic-is.adequately provided and does not create an undue trafficproblem.-.• PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -14- (2652d) 4. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-14 to allow an animal -veterinary clinic in the Seabridge Specific Plan will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 5. The establishment; maintenance and operation of the animal -veterinary clinic will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 6. The proposed animal -veterinary clinic is compatible with surrounding residential and commercial -uses. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated April 4, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 3. The remaining vacant suites (Nos. 130, 210, 230) shall be restricted to office type uses only. 4. In the event complaints are received regarding noises associated with the use, the applicant shall work with the Department of Community Development to implement sound attenuation measures to a level of satisfaction acceptable to the Department. 5. Overnight animal care shall not be permitted except for emergency care situations only. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditinal Use Permit No. 89-14 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. C-7 PARKING STUDY FOR FHP SENIOR MEDICAL CENTER - 19066 MAGNOLIA STREET APPLICANT: FHP, INC. LOCATION: '19066 Magnolia (southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue) The original entitlement for the above -referenced Senior Medical Center, Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5, required that a traffic and parking study be completed to evaluate the facility's impact on the commercial center. The applicant had proposed to submit such study in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 88-30, a request to expand enrollment and hours of operation at the medical center. The applicant withdrew Conditional Use Permit No. 88-30 on January 18, 1989, in response to comments from retail tenants and surrounding property owners that the parking facilities were overburdened. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -15- (2652d) Since that time, FHP has taken a number of steps to reduce demand at the Senior Center. For example, health education and physical fitness classes have been moved to the Fountain Valley facility. Also, Saturday business hours (approved by the Planning Commission in 1988) became effective on March 1, 1989, allowing appointments to be spread away from peak weekday hours. S_TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission require FHP to submit a follow-up report for the Commission's review in six months, to ensure that the front portions of the parking lot continue to operate effectively and that_a carpool program or other such measure has reduced employee demand on the rear parking area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Margie Schiller, owner of Margie's Kitchen, spoke in opposition to FHP Senior Center. She said there are 8 empty business locations in the center because of parking problems created by FHP. Her business is declining and fears closure if something is not done to improve the situation. She said there are class-action suits filed against Garfield Plaza because of the business closures. She urged the Commission to deny any more increases to FHP's enrollment and requested a solution to the present parking problems. Dennis Schiller, owner of Margie's Kitchen, presented a petition with 221 signatures opposing FHP expanded use of the parking lot. He said his customers leave because they do not have a place to park and that the FHP security guard does nothing to stop illegal parking. He said that a car-pooling plan has begun with the employees just recently however does not feel this will mitigate the problem. There were no other -persons present to speak for or against FHP and the public hearing -was closed-. The Commission felt that the wording in the original conditions of approval were not strong enough regarding parking. They asked Legal Council if the CUP could be revoked. Council said a warning could be sent stating that .they were not complying with conditions and put "On Notice" for possible revocation. Staff was directed to draft a letter noting concerns expressed at the public hearing regarding the parking situation and advising them that a public hearing would be conducted June 6, 1989, to discuss possible revocation of the.CUP, with a recommendation to attend and present reasons why the CUP should not be revoked. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -16- (2652d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO NOTIFY APPLICANT OF PUBLIC HEARING TO REVOKE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates, Williams (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 88-15 is a request by the Planning staff to revise Article 977 pertaining to front yard fencing heights and Article 908 to define terms used in Article 977. On March 7, 1989, the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No. 88-15 and directed staff to schedule a meeting with the Subdivision Committee, local architects, landowners, contractors and other interested parties to discuss the positive and negative impacts of such proposed ordinance. On April 18, 1989, a study session was held and the Subdivision Committee's recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance. Following considerable discussion regarding establishing a datum point for purposes of measuring fence height and maximum retaining wall height, the Subdivision Committee recommended that the top of the highest adjacent curb be the reference datum; and the maximum height for retaining walls within the front yard setback be restricted to 36 inches as measured from the reference datum. The code will continue to allow deviations to the maximum height subject to the use permit process. For purposes of defining grade, the consensus of the committee was to use finished grade and consider the definition during the processing of a definition code amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development posted draft Negative Declaration No. 88-49 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 88-49 and Code Amendment No. 88-15 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -17- (2652d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the code amendment and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-15 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-49 WITH FINDINGS, AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates, Mountford (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Code Amendment No. 88-15 creates more consistency in front yard maximum heights permitted for all fencing types. 2. Code Amendment No. 88-15 clarifies the method of determining fence height and may be applied in all zones. 3. Code Amendment No. 88-15 will not adversely affect the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. 4. Code Amendment No. 88-15 will enhance the scenic values along the streets and highways of Huntington Beach. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO TRAIL PUBLIC HEARING ITEM C-9 IN ORDER TO BRING FORWARD NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1 AND D-2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates, Kirkland (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-9 CODE AMENDMENT NO 88-12/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 89-9 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach Code Amendment No. 88-12 is a request by Planning staff to revise Article 960, Downtown Specific Plan, and all other code references to parking requirements. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -18- (2652d) Code Amendment No. 88-12 intends to revise existing provisions of the Ordinance Code and Downtown Specific Plan pertaining to on -site parking and landscaping regulations. Proposed changes were presented for Planning Commission input and discussion on April 19, 1988, February 22 and March 7, 1989. Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development posted draft Negative Declaration No.'89-9 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 89-9 and Code Amendment No. 88-12 with findings and forward to City Council for adoption. There were numerous questions/suggestions regarding changes to the proposed code amendment. It was suggested that instead of discussing all of the concerns at this time that each Commissioner contact staff regarding their individual comments so they could be prepared to answer and schedule a study session prior to the the May 16, 1989 meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-12 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-9 TO A STUDY SESSION, MAY 16, 1989, AT 5:30 PM AND THEN TO THE REGULAR MEETING AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates, Kirkland (Out of Room) ABSTAIN• None MOTION PASSED ITEMS D-1 AND D-2 HEARD OUT OF ORDER FOLLOWING MOTION BY COMMISSION. D-1 LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO, 89-3 APPLICANT: DANIELL HANSEN - SIGNS WEST, INC. LOCATION: 9872 Hamilton Avenue (south side of Hamilton approximately 300 feet west of Brookhurst) Limited Sign Permit No. 89-3 is a request to modify (face change) an existing 20 foot high, 96 square foot, nonconforming freestanding pole sign. The applicant is requesting the face change as a result of a change of business name from Huntington Beach Athletic Club to L.A. Fitness. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -19- (2652d) Section 9610.8(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code specifies I that the Planning Commission may allow a change of face for nonconforming signs and extend their use for up to two years. A cash bond is required to guarantee their removal at that time. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 11, Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: i Approve Limited Sign Permit No. 89-3 with findings and conditions of approval. j A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-3 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates, Mountford (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Allowing the maintenance of the sign for an additional two years will not adversely affect other signs in the area. 2. The proposed sign face change will not be detrimental to j property located in the vicinity of such sign, and will be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. 3. The sign in its existing location along Hamilton Avenue will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. 4. Due to the unique circumstances applicable to the sign, - immediate alteration, removal or replacement of the sign will ! result in a economic hardship. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and sign elevations received and dated April 18, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Limited Sign Permit No. 89-3 shall be valid for two years (until May 12, 1991). PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -20- (2652d) u 1 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a cash bond in the amount of $2,000 with the City for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the sign. If the sign is not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign ordinance after two years from the date of approval, or remodel of the property, whichever comes first, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter the property where said sign is located and remove said sign and the cost of removal shall be deducted from the cash bond and summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of Huntington Beach, and the remainder, if any, returned to the person depositing the bond. 4. This special sign permit shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, and returned to the Planning Division; and until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. D-2 REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-8 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 88-4 APPLICANT: Jack Grossman LOCATION: 16731 Carousel Lane (Humbolt Island in Huntington Harbour, approximately 1,600 feet northeast of Pacific Coast'Highway) The applicant has requested a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 88-8 and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-4 which were initially approved by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1988. The project is a request to construct a third floor observatory tower in a proposed two story single family home in the R1-CZ (Low Density Residential District -Coastal Zone). The applicant has indicated that a one-year extension of time is necessary in order to complete the plan check process and obtain financing. Section 9843.4 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code specifies that upon written request by the applicant, the Planning Commission may grant extensions of time not to exceed one year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 88-8 and Coastal Development Permit No. 88-4 to April 19, 1990, with all previous conditions of approval to remain in effect. PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -21- (2652d) Commissioner Williams stated he does not approve of "rubber stamping", in general, requests for extensions. He feels that careful checking for compliance of current codes -should be completed before approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-8 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-4, TO APRIL 19, 1990, WITH ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS -OF APPROVAL TO REMAIN IN EFFECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None viv A MOTION WAS MADE-BY,ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO AGENDIZE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT (DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, TOWNLOT AND OLDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO REQUIRE 4 PARKING SPACES PER BUILDING SITE) AS A DISCUSSION ITEM AT THE MAY 16, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO AGENDIZE BACKFLOW SYSTEMS ON SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS FOR THE MAY 16, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -22- (2652d) i A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, DIRECTING STAFF TO RESEARCH OTHER JURISCIDTIONS REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION STIPEND, AND AGENDIZE FOR THE JUNE 6, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: j AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Slates ABSTAIN: None I MOTION PASSED n A MOTION WAS MADE AT 10:35 PM TO ADJOURN TO A STUDY SESSION (REVISIONS TO PARKING AND LANDSCAPING PROVISIONS), TUESDAY, MAY 16, 198.9, IN ROOM B-8, THEN TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED APPROVED BY: Mike Adams, Secretary eanning C mmissio ai an PC Minutes - 5/2/89 -23- (2652d)