Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-06APPROVED 5/15/90 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1990 Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, STUDY SESSION - 5:30 PM REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Civic Center California P P P P P ROLL CALL: Shom_aker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, P P Bourguignon, Leipzig Commissioner Williams presented a resolution and gavel to Ken Bourguignon for his service as Planning Commission Chairman for the past year. Commissioner Williams then suggested that a resolution be prepared from the Planning Commission recognizing Victor Leipzig for his many hours of humanitarian and civic dedication during the recent oil spill. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO PREPARE A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION TO VICTOR LEIPZIG IN RECOGNITION OF HIS DEDICATION AND THE HUMANITARIAN AND CIVIC ACTS PERFORMED DURING THE RECENT OIL SPILL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Leipzig MOTION PASSED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -(4 MINUTES TIME TO OTHERS) Anyone wishing submit a form to speak prior to Hearing items. No action can be Commission on this date, unless None PER PERSON, NO DONATING OF to speak must fill out and Oral Communication or Public taken by the Planning agendized. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO MOVE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 AND B-2 TO THE END OF THE AGENDA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, THE MINUTES WILL REFLECT THE NORMAL NUMBERING ORDER OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-12/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-8 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 21, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: City-wide Revisions to parking and landscape provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and Downtown Specific Plan were continued from the February 21, 1990 Planning Commission public hearing. The final draft has been revised to reflect a new format. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 89-8 and Code Amendment No. 88-12 with 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. Staff was asked to prepare a legislative draft for presentation at the next meeting and to delete the mention of "compact cars" from the draft. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-8 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-12 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -2- (5725d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Code Amendment No. 88-12 preserves on -street parking for general use by requiring property owners to provide additional parking on -site. 2. Code Amendment No. 88-12 protects residential areas from excessive on -street parking resulting from commercial, industrial and/or multiple family residential developments with high occupancy levels. 3. Code Amendment No. 88-12 enhances the scenic and environmental values within Huntington Beach by the implementation of the landscaping provisions city-wide. 4. Code Amendment No. 88-12 will not adversely affect the goals and policies of the General Plan. B-2 CODE AMENDMENT NO 89-14/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-61 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 21, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: City-wide Code Amendment No. 89-14 is a request to amend Article 961, Signs, to allow various businesses to have changeable copy signs by approval of a planned sign program. This item was generated at the request of the City Council to allow churches, hotels, entertainment establishments, etc. to have changeable copy signs which are in conformance with all other sign code regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development posted Negative Declaration No. 89-61 for 21 days, and written comments were received from the Environmental Board supporting the negative declaration. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended a negative declaration be issued. COASTAL STATUS: An amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program implementing ordinances will be filed with the California Coastal Commission to incorporate the changes of this code amendment following approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 89-61 and Code Amendment No. 89-14 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -3- (5725d) The Commission asked staff to prepare a new legistative draft incorporating a more acceptable square footage for total allowable sign area. A continuance was suggested. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 89-14 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-61 TO THE MARCH 20, 1990 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Williams, Bourguignon NOES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Since Code Amendment No. 89-14 had already been continued from two previous meetings, it was suggested that staff prepare a legislative draft and forward it to City Council instead of bringing it back to the Planning Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-61 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 89-14, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Leipzig NOES: Bourguignon ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Code Amendment No. 89-14 creates regulations and procedures to ensure that changeable copy signs will not be detrimental to existing and proposed uses. 2. Code Amendment No. 89-14 establishes a review process to ensure scenic and environmental values are maintained within the City of Huntington Beach. 3. Code Amendment No. 89-14 will not adversely affect the goals and policies of the General Plan. B-3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 89-397/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION VARIANCE) NO 89-54/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-51 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 21 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: ELIZABETH SMITH LOCATION: 5452 and 5402 Old Pirate Lane Tentative Parcel Map No. 89-397, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-54 and Negative Declaration No. 89-51 is a request to PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -4- (5725d) 1 subdivide a portion of Block 4 of Tract No. 86 into four parcels pursuant to Article 990 (Subdivision) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-54 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 9110.2(b) which specifies that the minimum lot width shall be 60 feet. The applicant is requesting a minimum lot width of 57.5 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 89-51 for twenty-one (21) days, and no verbal comments were received. One letter recommending approval of Negative Declaration No. 89-51 was received from the Environmental Board. A copy of the letter is attached. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 89-51, Tentative Parcel Map No. 89-397 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-54 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ray Picard, 8176 Bridgepoint, said the property must be sold and the assets divided. He said division of the property is not in his best financial interest however, the intent is to preserve the 1906 farmhouse at the site. Elizabeth Smith, applicant, spoke in support of the project. She said the property and house has been in her family for years and their intent is to create two marketable lots while preserving the farmhouse. She urged the Commission to approve. Bob Runyard, 5451 Old Pirate Lane, said the residents love their lane, there is no traffic and they don't want any. He said there is an existing six foot easement for a sidewalk, however the residents are happy with no sidewalks and the present width of the street. He said it is a very private community and they want to preserve it. He urged the Commission to eliminate the requirement for a sidewalk. The representative from Public Works said an easement for pedestrian access must be reserved for future use, if needed. He said when the street is recycled recommendations will be made for easements on both sides of the street. Mr. Runyard said 10 feet has been provided for pedestrians on their dead-end street and objects to the City taking away private property for sidewalks that are not needed or wanted. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -5- (5725d) Jerry Person, Historical Resources Board, said that after research and review of the subject property it has been determined that the structure is an historic structure and is shown on an internal list of 61 high priority structures in the City and urged the Commission to use all avenues to preserve the house. Ronna Ricks, 5362 Old Pirate Lane, said she has lived on Old Pirate Lane (which contains 13 residences) for 17 years. She said her and her neighbors object to sidewalks in the neighborhood. She said the street is not maintained by the City and that they have their own water well. She urged the Commission to approve the project and to preserve the Oak Trees on the lane. Jovita Rosenblatt, 16707 Graham Street, said her home is located just east of the subject property and that she will be directly impacted by the project. She said she is a 24 year resident and loves her street. She said the bathroom in her house is located next to the 6 foot easement and objects to any sidewalks. She is concerned that when the subject property is graded that it will create a wall, thereby ruining her ocean breezes. Chuck Messig, 5372 Old Pirate Lane, spoke in support of the restoration of the farm house however opposes any sidewalks on the street. He said there is no traffic on his street presently and objects to additions to density that will create traffic. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-51, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 89-397, AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-54, WITH THE DELETION OF SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Chairwoman Ortega requested that it be noted in the minutes that there was concern with two items in the environmental assessment and felt that a more thorough check should be made. The items were: 1) page 3, item 4, impacts to plant life; and 2) page 6, item 20b, adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 89-397: 1. The request to subdivide a portion of Block 4 of Tract No. 86 for purposes of residential use as revised to include a 46 foot easement is in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for that type of development. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -6- (5725d) 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for low density residential was placed on the subject property. 4. The size, depth, frontage of three of the four parcels, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed establishment of the subject property are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standards, plans and specifications required by the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-54: 1. Granting of the conditional exception (variance) for a 57.5 foot wide lot in lieu of the minimum required 60 feet will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of residents of neighboring properties or injurious to improvement of property in the vicinity. The 57.5 foot lot width is adequate to properly develop the site and provide the necessary access. 2. Granting of the conditional exception (variance) for a 57.5 foot wide lot is necessary in order to ensure that the historically significant Graham House is preserved. 3. Granting of the conditional exception (variance) for a 57.5 foot wide lot in lieu of the minimum required 60 feet will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 4. Granting of the conditional exception (variance) for a 57.5 foot wide lot in lieu of the minimum required 60 feet does not constitute a grant of special privilege from other properties in the vicinity. 5. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map received and dated January 11, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The map shall be revised to show the placement of one double car garage on Parcel 4 which complies with the open space regulations as specified in Article 9110.9(A). PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -7- (5725d) 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any building permits, and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. If applicable by the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, parcels two and three shall be connected to the City's water system. 4. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's sewage system and applicable fees shall be paid at the time said parcel is developed. 5. All utilities shall be installed underground from the easement to the homes at the time said parcel is developed. 6. The tentative parcel map shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances.- 7. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Community Development. 8. All Public Works improvements shall be constructed to City standards as deemed necessary by the department of Public Works. 9. Drainage flow/direction shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 10. A grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit). A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. 11. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 12. All existing mature trees (specifically the Oak Tree and Magnolia Trees) shall be retained and incorporated into the site plan to the greatest extent feasible. All trees removed shall be replaced on a 2:1 ratio with 36 inch box trees which shall be incorporated into the projects landscape plan, and shall be distributed acorss parcels 2, 3 and 4 evenly. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -8- (5725d) B-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-72/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO 90-8/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-66 APPLICANT: KEITH G. WHITE, ARCHITECT LOCATION: 8302 Atlanta Avenue Conditional Use Permit No. 89-72 is a request to permit a 60-unit apartment complex pursuant to Section 9120.1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The request includes an 11-unit density bonus (23 percent), which requires conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9630(D) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-8 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 912 (Medium High Density Residential District), Section 9120.11(b), which specifies that the minimum distance between main buildings on the same parcel shall be 15 feet. The applicant is requesting to reduce the building separation in two locations, to 7 feet and to 9.63 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 89-66 for twenty-one (21) days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 89-66, Conditional Use Permit No. 89-72 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-8 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Keith White, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He said the project consists of 60 apartment units (11 designated low cost housing) in an area predominantly designated medium -high density. He said the underground parking is situated so that all units are conveniently located to two elevators. He further stated that the variance request will present a soft effect on Atlanta and will provide extra parking spaces (approximately 30). THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed the density bonus request and felt that they would be comfortable granting the request if it was backed up by a monitoring system. Commissioner Williams objected to the project because of the high density. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -9- (5725d) An amendment was suggested by Commissioner Leipzig to require the monitoring of the density bonus for the physical life or economic life of the building. It was also felt that the covenant regarding the density bonus be tightened up. The Commission suggested a continuance and requested clarification of issues related to the proposed affordable housing convenant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-72, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 90-8 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-66 TO THE MARCH 20, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-61/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-59 APPLICANT: PEPPER'S RESTAURANT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street (tenant improvement at Pierside Pavilion) Conditional Use Permit No. 89-61 is a request to permit a 13,000 square foot nightclub and restaurant as a tenant improvement at Pierside Pavilion pursuant to Sections 4.5.01(b)D. and R. of the Downtown Specific Plan. Pierside Pavilion is currently under construction at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. Pepper's Restaurant would seat approximately 275 patrons, and the Golden Bear nightclub would seat approximately 450 patrons. It is anticipated that the club would provide live entertainment seven nights a week. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 89-59 for twenty-one (21) days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. COASTAL STATUS: Coastal Development Permit No. 88-3 for the Pierside Pavilion project was approved by the Planning Commission on April 5, 1988. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -10- (5725d) 1 SPECIFIC PLAN• The site is located within the Downtown Specific Plan, District 3 (Visitor -Serving Commercial). The proposed uses are permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: This site is within the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: The proposed elevations were reviewed by the Design Review Board on February 1, 1990. Since the architecture, colors and materials for the Pierside Pavilion structure have been previously approved by the City Council and Design Review Board, the review of Pepper's focused primarily on the "Golden Bear" entry to the club and on the appearance of the outdoor dining and waiting areas. The applicant plans to use decorative elements from the original Golden Bear nightclub to accent the entry to the club. Photographs of the artifacts proposed to be used as well as an elevation of the club entry were reviewed. The Board unanimously approved the conceptual design, with the condition that any changes be brought back for review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No. 89-59 and Conditional Use Permit No. 89-61 with findings and conditions of approval. COMMISSIONER SHOMAKER STATED SHE WOULD BE ABSTAINING FROM THE ITEM UPON ADVICE FROM THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION SINCE THERE IS A POTENTIAL CONFLICT SINCE SHE OWNS PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Steven Platt, architect for Pepper's, spoke in support of the project. He requested that the hours of operation be extended to 9:00 AM to 12:00 Midnight for Pepper's Restaurant and the hours of the Golden Bear Nightclub not later than 2:00 AM., seven days per week. He also reaffirmed their compliance with measures required to mitigate any noise problems. He said the walls are 12 inches thick and the speakers are on isolation pads to reduce noise and vibration. He also said that late night exiting from the club will be on the opposite side from the condominiums. John Tiernan, Executive Director of Pepper's, spoke in support of the project. He also reaffirmed the proposed exiting policy to the back of the club. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -11- (5725d) Richard Harlow, representing the applicant, said full disclosure has been made to all prospective tenants purchasing the condominium units and that everything possible will be done to keep the noise decibals under 45 dBA including double or triple glazing on facing walls. He further stated that the restaurant will be completed before any of the condos are occupied. He said that Pepper's was willing to operate their club in a 3,000 square foot area (as requested by the Planning Commission) with an additional dining facility. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Some of the concerns expressed by the Commission included: 1) expanded hours of the club; 2) limiting live entertainment to Main Street instead of the condominium side; 3) problems with valet parking; 4) location of the Golden Bear facade at the space originally designated rather than located in the alley; and 5) potential problems with this use so close to residential. Commissioner Kirkland stated that disclosures must be made to prospective condominium owners and that he felt the expanded hours would be beneficial to the City. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 89-59 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-61, WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mountford, Williams, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Ortega ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The location, site layout and design of the proposed 13,000 square foot night club and restaurant properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner, because design features and operations will ensure compatibility with nearby residences. 2. The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another on the site are properly integrated. 3. The access to and parking for the proposed rstaurant and nightclub does not create an undue traffic problem, because adequate parking is provided on -site and in the adjacent City parking structure. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -12- (5725d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated February 2, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units; and low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. b. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department and indicated on the floor plans. c. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed, and the Golden Bear entryway as approved by the Design Review Board. d. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. e. The site plan shall include (or reference page) all conditions of approval imposed on the project printed verbatim. 3. Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. b. A fire alarm system shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following: Manual Pulls; waterflow, valve tamper, and trouble detection; 24 hour supervision; smoke detectors; annunciation; audible alarms; visual alarms. C. Fire extinguishers shall be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards. d. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -13- (5725d) e. All exiting from patio dining areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. f. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. Hours of operation shall be 9:00 AM to 12:00 Midnight for Pepper's Restaurant. Hours of operation for the Golden Bear Nightclub shall be not later than 2:00 AM. 6. Measures shall be taken during construction to ensure that, if necessary, the outdoor queuing area for the club can be enclosed at a later date. Such an enclosure plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of building permits. 7. A noise study shall be conducted by the applicant and a report forwarded for Planning Commission review within six (6) months of issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the adjacent condominiums. The report shall assess impacts from club operations including carryover of music/noise from within the club, and impacts from the outdoor queuing and dining/waiting area. The applicant shall comply with measures recommended to correct problems, as required by the Planning Commission. The adjacent condominium units shall be retrofitted if necessary to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA. 8. 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. 9. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 10. 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. 11. This Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 12. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy adequate parking must be identified and approved by the Director of Community Development. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -14- (5725d) B-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-66 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 90-6/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 89-456 APPLICANT: Southridge Homes LOCATION: Northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Fifteenth Street Conditional Use Permit No. 89-66 is a request by Southridge Homes to construct a four unit condominium complex with special permits for: 1) three foot encroachment into the front yard setback; 2) 55 percent site coverage in lieu of 50 percent; 3) reduced common open space; 4) reduced private open space; 5) relief from 10 foot second to third story offset. Tentative Parcel Map No. 89-456 consolidates two lots into a one -lot subdivision for condominium purposes. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15182(a), this project is exempt from further analysis under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). EIR No. 82-3 for the Downtown Specific Plan was certified by the City Council in November 1983. The proposed project has been filed pursuant to the Specific Plan and is in general conformance. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed residential project is subject to approval of a coastal development permit because it is located within coastal zone boundaries. It is further located within the appealable jurisdiction and may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. SPECIFIC PLAN: This project is located in the Downtown Specific Plan - District 2 which was adopted by the City Council in November 1983. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: The Design Review Board reviewed the proposed residential development for conformance with the Downtown Design Guidelines on January 11, 1990. By a vote of 3 to 1, the Design Review Board approved the project. The Board members felt the building orientation, arrangement and architectural design complied with the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 89-66 with modified special permits in concept and refer final architectural approval to the Design Review Board, Coastal Development Permit No. 90-6 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 89-456 with findings and conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -15- (5725d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Richard Kelter, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He said after being approved by the Design Review Board, and his experience with the special permit process, he expressed dismay with the Commission's concerns. He said they were told to build large units and are now being told to cut back on size. He said for five months they have been told that in concept they were moving ahead in an approved manner and is now surprised at the Commission's reluctance in approving. He also asked for extended time to comply with Conditions 13 and 14 (Park and Recreation fees and Water Division fees) . Chris Fowler, 111 15th. Street, spoke in opposition to the project. He said his property is located right behind the proposed project and feels the project will cause exiting problems in the alley. He feels the developer should comply with standards instead of maximizing his investment at the expense of surrounding neighbors. Yvonne Fowler, 111 15th. Street, said she feels the project should be developed to standards and codes. She asked if the curb on their project would be located in line with hers or extend beyond and also ask if the power pole in front of her home would be moved? Public Works representative said all power would be underground. Herb Steinfeldt, 116 15th. Street, urged the Commission to consider all of the neighbor's concerns before approving. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission felt that the proposed request was too much project for a 50 foot lot. Commissioner Mountford could not recall ever seeing a request with five special permits and said he did not think he could come up with findings to support the request. Commissioner Bourguignon said if the developer was experienced with working with staff that he should not have been surprised at their denial of three of the special permits. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-66 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-6 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 89-456, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Leipzig NOES: Bourguignon ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes-•3/6/90 -16- (5725d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-66: 1. Due to design deficiencies the proposed four unit condominium will be incompatible with adjacent properties and uses. 2. Due to design deficiencies the proposed four unit condominium will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity. 3. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed four unit condominium does not properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 4. The access to and parking for the proposed four unit condominium will create parking and traffic problems. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL PERMITS: 1. The requested special permits do not promote a better living environment by adapting the Downtown Specific Plan requirements to better suit a four unit condominium. 2. The special permits will be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience, and detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood and the City in general. 4. The special permits are inconsistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan standards in achieving a development which is adapted to the existing terrain and will be incompatible with the surrounding environment. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 89-456: 1. Due to its design, the four unit condominium project is too intense for this site location (on a 50 foot lot) and is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. B-7 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-5 APPLICANT: D. D. DUNLAP COMPANIES, INC. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Algonquin Street Special Sign Permit No. 89-5 is a request to modify an existing off -site sign for Huntington Harbour Mall. The sign is located in a landscaped planter in the public right-of-way at the northwest corner of Warner Avenue and Algonquin Street. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -17- (5725d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Special Sign Permit No. 89-5 as recommended by the Design Review Board with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Moss, Vice -President of Dunlap Co., spoke in support of his original proposal and urged the Commission to approve. He said they are proposing to incorporate awnings and space frame with the existing sign to lessen the hardship of tenants in the center that have no visibility and wants to beautify the landscaping strip. He said he opposes the recommendation made by the Design Review Board. Jim Evans, 3626 E. 7th Street, Long Beach, said he has recently taken over maintenance of the parkway landscaping and feels it has greatly improved and beautified the site. Cozette Thalman, Representative from the Merchant's Association, said she represents the 30 tenants in the center and they need more visibility. She said since the residents are concerned with illumination that plans have been made to put signs on a meter to shut off automatically at 10:00 PM. She feels the space frame and awnings will be an improvement. Jack Leverenz, 17071 Malta Circle, spoke in opposition to the proposed sign. He feels the sign should only contain directional information. He said the existing sign was a mistake and urged the Commission to not make another. He said the existing sign is clearly visible to all residents and also feels the west wall should be raised for protection to the residents. R. E. Stiles, 17021 Malta Circle, urged denial of the proposed sign and said the mall is used primariy by local residents and does not feel there should be any directional signs on Warner Avenue and that most of the adjacent neighbors also object to an additional sign height of 8 to 10 feet. June Economakas, 17051 Malta Circle, presented photographs of problems being caused by the existing sign. She said the sign has everything possible on it and feels the height and location is detrimental to adjacent homes. She feels the lights will shine directly into the master bedrooms of two story homes and says from the second story residents can see the sign. She also feels traffic safety will be impacted by the sign. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -18- (5725d) The Commission felt that denial of the proposed sign might cause a loss of opportunity to improve the existing sign and that the Design Review Board recommendation was the best. A continuance was suggested to allow the applicant and staff the opportunity to arrive at an alternative that was satisfactory to the Planning Commission, staff and the applicant. Further, the Commission provided direction that the proposed sign should come closer to complying with Code. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-5 TO THE MARCH 20, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Shomaker, Mountford ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 9 AND JANUARY 23, 1990 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 9 AND JANUARY 23, 1990, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 RESOLUTION NO, 1428: SHORTENED REVIEW PERIODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 1428, designating the Director of the Department of Community Development as the person authorized request shortened review periods for environmental documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to (CEQA). PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -19- (5725d) Commissioner Mountford said he felt the decision to request the shortening of the review period of an environmental document more appropriately rests with the Planning Commission and does not feel it should be delegated to the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Leipzig said he feels the mechanism (public hearing process) is already in place and feels the review by Planning Commission according to Resolution 1438 to oversee environmental documentation provides the safety of an adequate overview of environmental documentation. He feels confident that staff can and should have the burden of the decision to request a shortened review period on EIRs. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO DENY RESOLUTION NO. 1428, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mountford, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: Shomaker, Williams, Kirkland, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1428, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Mountford ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 1J PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -20- (5725d) �I RESOLUTION NO. 1428 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DESIGNATING THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AS THE PERSON AUTHORIZED TO REQUEST SHORTENED REVIEW PERIODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 886 took effect on January 1, 1990, and AB 886 amends CEQA Guidelines Section 15073 and 15087 regarding minimum review periods for environmental documents prepared pursuant to CEQA, and AB 886 mandates that the minimum time limits for public review of environmental documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act are now as follows: 30 days for an Environmental Impact Report unless it is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review in which case the minimum review time is 45 days, and 21 days for a Negative Declaration unless it is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review in which case the minimum review period is 30 days; and AB 886 mandates that requests for shortened review periods must be made by the lead agency's decision -making body or by a person designated by that body by ordinance or resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby finds that in the interest of expediting projects the Director of Community Development should be so designated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby designates the Director of Community Development as the person authorized to request shortened review periods for Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations from the State Clearinghouse pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to the requirements of AB 886, when the Director requests a shortend review period, the Planning Commission shall be informed of such request at the next regularly scheduled meeting. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -21- (5725d) D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1 REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN FOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO 89-6 (CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 21, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: James R. Hetzler LOCATION: 11750 Gothard Avenue (northeast corner of Gothard and Belva Avenues) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the revised design of a right -turn exiting only drive apron on Gothard Avenue. COMMISSIONER BOURGUIGNON STATED HE WOULD BE ABSTAINING FROM THE ITEM DUE TO ADVICE OF THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION SINCE THE APPLICANT IS HIS NEIGHBOR. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN FOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89-6, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bourguignon MOTION PASSED MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated November 6, 1989 shall be the approved layout with the following modification: a. A "No Left Turn" exit sign shall be placed at proposed drive approach. b. A striping plan shall be submitted and a driveway apron be designed on Gothard Avenue to prevent left -turn movements out of the site onto Gothard Avenue as well as to the site directly from Gothard Avenue. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and Planning Commission. c. The applicant shall post a bond ($1,500) with the Public Works Department for a period of one year to place raised pavement markers along the proposed striping plan for Gothard Avenue. 2. All other conditions of approval for previously approved Administrative Review No. 88-3 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 88-149 shall remain in effect. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -22- (5725d) 0 1 3. The Fire Department requirements are as follows: a. Provide and maintain 27 ft. wide unobstructed drives. b. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards. 4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary Public Works permits. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Building Division and Fire Department. D-2 ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-3/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-5 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 21, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: Satra Development Corp. LOCATION: 7801 Garfield Avenue (North side, approximately 225 feet west of Florida Street) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a one year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 89-3 in conjunction with Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-5 to February 21, 1991, with all previous conditions of approval to remain in effect. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME (UNTIL FEBRUARY 21, 1991) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-3 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-5 WITH ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO REMAIN IN EFFECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Williams ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-3 REQUEST FOR A SECOND ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 89-37 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-77 APPLICANT: Dennis G. Foster/Evangelical Free Church LOCATION: Church Facility: 1912 Florida Avenue/ Auxiliary Lot: 250 feet south of church facility STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a second one year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-37 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-77 to February 12, 1991, with all previous conditions of approval to remain in effect. PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -23- (5725d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO APPROVE SECOND ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME (TO FEBRUARY 12, 1991) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-37 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 87-77 WITH ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO REMAIN IN EFFECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, D-4 ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-44/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-35 APPLICANT: Ramesh Bajaria LOCATION: 7949 Garfield Avenue (Northwest corner Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the One Year Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit No. 88-44 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-35 and continue as a Public Hearing Item for the March 20, 1990 Planning Commission meeting in order to adopt the additional condition. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-44 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-35 TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADOPT THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS None Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, F. PLANNING COMMISSION SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS None PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -24- (5725d) 1 G. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES None H. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Commission requested that the Design Review Board and Subdivision Committee minutes reflect all votes and roll call of members attending. I. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS None J . ADJOURNMENT /kla A MOTION WAS MADE AT 11:43 PM BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO ADJOURN TO A 5:30 PM STUDY SESSION (DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT AND AGENDA REVIEW), TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1990, AND THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Chairman PC Minutes - 3/6/90 -25- (5725d)