Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-07APPROVED 9/18/90 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 7, 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: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, P P Bourguignon, Leipzig 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 B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PER PERSON, NO DONATING OF to speak must fill out and Oral Communication or Public taken by the Planning agendized. B-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 90-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-13 (continued from July 10, 1990) APPLICANT: HUNTINGTON BEACH CHURCH OF RELIGIOUS SCIENCE LOCATION: Northeast corner of Yorktown and Main This item was first presented to the Planning Commission on June 19, 1990. Since only four (4) Commissioners were present, the item was continued to July 10, 1990, in order to allow the project to be reviewed by the full Commission. However, subsequent to printing of the staff report for July 10, the applicant requested an increase in hours of operation and maximum occupancy over that originally proposed and outlined in the staff report. The Planning Commission continued the proposal to August 7, 1996, in order to allow staff time to analyze the revised request. Ll ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 90-13 for a twenty-one (21) day review and comment period prior to the hearing date, 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. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 90-16, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 90-13. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: The proposed church is located within a -CD (Civic District) zoning suffix, which requires that new structures be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. The Board reviewed the applicant's plans, colors and materials on May 17, 1990, to determine their compatibility with the surrounding office park and residential uses. The Board voted 3 to 0 to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with the following conditions: 1. Any changes on the proposed elevations should be referred back to the Design Review Board for review and approval. 2. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Any future change of use on the site should be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No. 90-13 and Conditional Use Permit No. 90-16 as modified by staff, with findings and conditions of approval: THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dr. Roger Teel, 2205 Main Street, said he did not feel that runaway growth was being experienced. He also stated that quality, not growth was the projects objective. Dr. Teel feels this use is not detrimental. Joseph A. Broderick, 2205 Main #23, explained their search for a site in Huntington Beach. He stated there is no zoning for a church within the City, so no matter where they went they would need to apply for a conditional use permit. He also said he would like to keep the intensity of the church in the same area. This specific site meets their business needs. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -2- (6898d) 1 Tom Menser, 2120 Main Street, discussed the design approach of the building. He stated the building was set away from the property owners of Pacific Ranch as much as possible. The average setback is 53 feet, smallest setback is 32 feet. The building entrance is located 160 feet from the nearest residence. He also stated that the noise will be no more than normal office noise. Stephen Schwartz, landscape architect, stated they will try to reinforce trees and shrubs as sound barriers. They will also keep as much distance between the residential community and the project. Tom Willard, 2205 Main Street #23, Project Coordinator, stated they are looking to stay in the current neighborhood. They do not wish to leave the Huntington Beach area or to shrink their activities. He said they will be responsible to the neighborhoods requests and needs. Mr. Willard also said that it is a place of worship with families and not prone to loudness. Elmar Baxter, 7492 Seabluff Drive No. 112, spoke in opposition to the project. His concerns were inadequate parking, heavy car emissions, noise pollution. Regina Lofe, 7402 Coho Drive, #112, spoke in opposition to the project. Ms. Lofe said it will affect the quality of life for the residence. She feels that the walls will not quilt the noise from the church. She also stated that the scope of the project was too great for the area, and felt there were better sites for a church. Dorothy Kelly, 7402 Yellowtail Drive #101, said she agrees with the opposition speakers. She also feels it would be a good project, if not wedged into the Pacific Ranch residences. Ms. Kelly also feels the noise and car fumes will be a problem. Dorthy Wallace, 7351 Coho Drive #104, stated she felt the project would only grow to greater numbers, and questioned who would monitor this growth. Ms. Wallace said it was not an appropriate place to start a growing church because there is no place to go (grow). Delores DeLuca, 7351 Coho Drive #203, was concerned about the air and noise pollution. She also feels that they should not locate the growing church in a place where there is no where to expand. David Brahms, 7321 Coho Drive #202, said he agrees with the opposition speakers. Ms. DeLuca said she would not have bought her residence if she had known there would be a church built in that location. Lisa Brahms, 7321 Coho Drive #202, concerned about the environmental impacts that will affect the children in Pacific Ranch, mainly emissions from cars. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -3- (6898d) James R. Reed, 7371 Sea Bluff Drive #106, concerned about the noise pollution and the night activity, including lights. James Creason 19502 Ranch Lane #101, spoke in opposition. He stated the average member is adult, which means more cars in the area, thus, more traffic and parking problems. Doris Stephens, 7401 Sea Bluff #105, stated she bought her residence because it was off the street and was told the proposed site was an office park. She does not want to put up with the car fumes. Susanne Rasmussen, 7311 Coho Drive #206, is concerned about the value of her property, if the proposed project is located at that site. She is also concerned about noise and air pollution. Peter J. Menza, 7351 Coho, stated he was opposed to the project.for various reasons including noise, parking, and safety. Kathy Pierson, 7412 Sea Bluff Drive 3107, is opposed to the project for reasons previously sited. Ms. Pierson feels that they were misrepresented by the Huntington Beach Company when buying their residence, if in fact a church goes in. She also stated that the noise and air pollution will compromise their lifestyle. She said the residents need a high quality of life, because of the amount paid for their residence, and the church needs more space for their site. Paul Murphy, 19431 Ranch Lane, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Murphy stated that he did not live that close to the proposed project site, but he was there to support his neighbors. He also said he felt residence at Pacific Ranch bought their residents for the atmosphere and the lifestyle, knowing that an office park would be their neighbor not a growing church development. Janet Krantz, 19432 Pompano Lane #107, supported her neighbors in opposition. She stated for the record that she was opposed. Philip Krantz, 19432 Pompano Lane, stated for the record that he was opposed. Bill Yunek, 7402 Coho Drive #110, stated he was strongly opposed to the proposed project. Mr. Yunek referred to page two of the staff report "The noise, lights, auto traffic and activity associated with a large church use on the site will exceed the intensity normally associated with an office park in an OP (Office Professional) Zone", he stated this is what the residents of Pacific Ranch were saying all along. Robert Lope, 7402 Coho Drive #112, opposed to the proposed project for obvious reasons stated previously by other speakers. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -4- (6898d) Andrew Einhorn, 7311 #103, stated he was opposed to the proposed project. He said he chose to live in Pacific Ranch because it was an extremely quite community. He is concerned with'the noise of traffic and car emissions. Mr. Einhorn is also concerned with the safety of the traffic circulation, if there would be a state of emergency. Benita Yunek, 7402 Coho Drive #110, stated she was opposed for reasons previously stated. Her main concerns were noise and air pollution. Dr. Regina L. Uliana, 19311 Sunray Lane, #101, stated she was opposed to the proposed project. She feels there is not enough room for the project or parking available. Glynis Hatcher, 7311 Coho Drive #103, spoke in opposition to the project. Her concerns were after services or activities, there would be additional time spent in the parking lots, readying to leave, group talks of about 1 and 1/2 hours. Don Stephens, 7401 Sea Bluff Drive #105, stated he was opposed to the project. His concerns were noise, traffic, parking and the safety of a large amount of people in a small area. Gloria R. Winscott, 7442 Coho Drive #106, stated she was not opposed to progress, just this project. Her concerns were parking, after hour noise (employees leaving and arriving early), the monitoring of expansion, sound escaping from open windows. Tom Vasil, 7531 Sea Bluff Drive #103, stated for the record he was opposed to the proposed project. His concerns were noise and air pollution, parking problems and the decreasing value of the property. Steve Raznick, 7291 Coho Drive #107, spoke in opposition. He feels the scope of the church is greater than the size of the site. He also agrees with everything previously said in opposition. Calvin Ota, 19311 Sunray Lane, spoke in opposition. His concern was that the noise level would increase with the proposed project. Rosemary Jones, 7412 Sea Bluff Drive #110, spoke in opposition. Her concerns were noise and air pollution. She also felt the proposed project should not be sandwiched between residential. Sam Layton, 19342 Sunray Lane #102, spoke in opposition. His main concern was increased traffic and parking. He stated he supported the church whole heartedly, not the site. Leonard Johnson, 7442 Coho Drive #014, spoke in opposition. His major concerns were traffic, peak hours being evenings and weekdays, and the air condition noise. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -5- (6898d) Bob Pierson, 7412 Sea Bluff Drive # 107, stated for the record that he was opposed to the project. Darlene Ward, 19342 Sunray Lane, stated for the record that she was opposed to the project. Henry Schulthesz, 7371 SeaBluff Drive #102, stated for the record that he was opposed to the project. Gerald Charlton, 19512 Pompano #103, spoke in favor, feels traffic, noise, parking will not be a problem created by the proposed project. Don C. Jones, 7412 Sea Bluff Drive #110, stated for the record that he was opposed to the project. Linda Moon, 2134 Main Street, STE 220, is a tenant in the Seacliff Office park. Her concerns were not being notified of the hearing, traffic safety and parking. Claire Delany, 7281 Coho Drive, stated for the record that he was opposed to the project. Gary B. Beard, 7492 Sea Buff #107, spoke in opposition. Mr. Beard stated that when he purchased his residence he was told the proposed site was and would be an office park. Mr. Beard suggested a study of the mega churches and their problems be looked at, before they put a church of this size in such an area. Jerry Hamilton, 19562 Pompano Lane #106, spoke in opposition. His concern is trying to wedge a very large church into a small site. Pedro Jose Diaz, 19351 Sunray Lane #204, stated for the record that he was opposed to the project. Gerald Gould, 19512 Pompano Lane #105, spoke in opposition. Mr. Gould stated he was highly in favor of the church, but could not understand why such a succesful organization would confine themselves to such a small area. His concerns were traffic, pollution, and safety. Ida Joued, 19512 Pompano Lane #105, stated for the record she was opposed. Rose Marie Studio, 19372 Sunray Lane, #102, stated for the record she was opposed. Glen Stringer, 19372 Sunray #104, stated for the record he was opposed. Fay Ogden, 7531 Sea Bluff Drive #102, stated for the record she was opposed. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -6- (6898d) Richard J. Silber 2134 Main Street, #130, spoke in opposition. Mr. Silber is a tenant at the office park. His concerns are the traffic, impact of increase of cars, safety of people. He stated he admires the church for its accomplishments, but does not think it belongs on that site. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-13, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-16 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon NOES: Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-16: 1. The proposed church will not be compatible with adjacent residential uses on the existing office park because the noise and traffic generated by a 1,935 seat capacity building will be excessive. 2. On -site parking, circulation and access are inadequate for the proposed 2 story 42,000 square feet church because there is not adequate parking on site for the amount of demand generated. B-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-30 APPLICANT: THE FLAGSTICK GROUP LOCATION: 16512 Burke Lane (Southeast corner of Heil Avenue and Burke Lane) PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -7- (6898d) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-30 is a request by the Flagstick Group to establish a warehouse and distribution use with adjunct retail sales in a designated mixed -use project area at 16512 Burke Lane pursuant to Section 9530 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The Flagstick Group is the parent company which owns the Nevada Bob's Discount Golf retail stores. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit 90-30 with findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bill Elias, 2701 Harbor Boulevard, Partner, explained what a Nevada's Bob store was, and locations. Mr. Elias explained that the purpose of the Huntington Beach site is to have a warehouse in a centralized location to their other retail stores now and in the future. He also explained if there future openings reach 6 to 7 in number the Huntington Beach store would become strictly a warehouse. Jim Kuriluk, 2111 Business Center Drive, Irvine, stated they see the store as basically a warehouse with some retail. He said they feel the retail will become smaller and smaller as more retail outlets open up. They have approxiately 15 customers per day, which equals out to 1 1/2 people per day so he feels parking will not be a major impact. He also stated that the previous business (California Nut House) was of similiar use. Brent King, 17327 Santa Lucia, Fountain Valley, Broker, stated there purpose was to set up a warehouse mainly to accomodate future growth. Glen Carstater, 3801 Parkview Lane, Irvine, Agent, stated all the basic issues have been covered by the previous speakers. He also questioned Findings for Denial Nos. 2 & 3, feeling parking and circulation were not inadequate and the use was not detrimental to the general welfre of persons working or residing in the area. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -8- (6898d) 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY SHOMAKER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-30 WITH ALTERNATE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Williams ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS MOTION BY ADDING A CONDITION NO. 5 REQUIRING A 6-MONTH REVIEW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Williams, Ortega, Kirkland NOES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 90-30 1. The proposed warehouse/distribution use with adjunct retail sales will be compatible with adjacent uses. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the warehouse/distribution use with adjunct retail sales will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 3. On -site parking and circulation are adequate for the proposed warehouse/distribution with adjunct retail sales and have the potential of creating a congestion and circulation hazard. 4. The granting of Conditional warehouse/distribution with adversely affect the General Beach. Use Permit No. 90-30 for adjunct retail sales will not Plan of the City of Huntington CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-30: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations dated July 21, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: PC Minutes - 8/7/90 am (6898d) a. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a covenant assuring that the areas designated as warehouse and retail shall not exceed the approved floor areas. 3. There shall be no outside storage of equipment or trailers. 4. Signage shall comply with the approved planned sign program and Article 961, Sign Code. B-3 USE PERMIT NO, 90-34 APPLICANT: ROBERT IACINO LOCATION: Mangia Mangia Restaurant 16079-81 Goldenwest Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Use Permit No. 90-34 is a request to expand an existing 1200 square feet by 1080 square feet restaurant with joint use parking pursuant to Sections 9220.1(c)R and 9602 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit No. 90-34 with findings and conditions of approval: THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bob Iacino, 2800 Shantar Drive, Costa Mesa, Applicant, stated that the restaurant was well received within the community. He said they currently have no parking problems, that it seems there is an abundance of parking spaces. Don McCallum, 6841 Nyanza Drive, stated he was not there to speak for or against the project, just to bring to the Commissioners attention problems he feels currently exist within the project area parking lot. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 90-34 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -10- (6898d) AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Kirkland (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT N0, 90-34: 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed restaurant expansion with joint use parking properly adapts to other adjacent uses in a harmonious manner, because the demand for parking for restaurants increases after adjacent businesses are closed. 2. The combination and relationship of one proposed use to another on a site are properly integrated, because the demand for parking for restaurants increases after adjacent businesses are closed. 3. The access to and parking for the proposed restaurant expansion with joint use parking does not create an undue traffic problem, because the demand for parking for restaurants increases after adjacent businesses are closed. 4. The proposed restaurant expansion with joint use parking is compatible with adjacent uses in the center. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 90-34: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated May 24, 1990 shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan must be submitted showing screening and must be approved. b. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. c. A Joint Use Parking Agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development and recorded by the property owner prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by 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. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -11- (6898d) 3. Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. b. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. c. Fire extinguishers shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. d. 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. 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. 6. Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to the Community Development Department. b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. c. Signs shall comply with Article 961. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this Use Permit No. 90-34 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 8. This Use Permit No. 90-34 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. B-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 90-36/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO 90-9 APPLICANT: ORANGE FOLKS/HUNTINGTON BEACH INC. LOCATION: 7148 Edinger Avenue (South side of Edinger Avenue approximately 400 feet east of Goldenwest Street) PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -12- (6898d) 1 Conditional Use Permit No. 90-36 is a request to permit the on -site sale of general alcoholic beverages (beer, wine and distilled spirits) in conjunction with a bona -fide eating establishment (PoFolks Restaurant) pursuant to Section 9636.1 B(1) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Planned Sign Program No. 90-9 is a request to permit a sign program for the restaurant which includes double stroke exposed neon conduit and changeable copy pursuant to Section 9610.2(a)(3)(5) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the the Planning Permit No. 90-36 and Planned Sign conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Commission approve Conditional Use Program No. 90-9 with findings and Steve Weddel, 425 Ryan Drive, San Marcos, representative for the applicant stated he was there if the Commissioners had any questions. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-36 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 90-9 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 90-36: 1. The location, site layout, and design of the existing restaurant with on -site sale of general alcoholic beverages properly adapts the existing and proposed use to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. The site is provided with adequate on -site parking and is buffered from the school use to the north by Edinger Avenue. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -13- (6898d) 2. The combination and relationship of the existing restaurant with the proposed on -site sale of general alcoholic beverages are properly integrated. The existing restaurant is provided with adequate seating and floor area to accommodate the addition of on -site sale of general alcoholic beverages. 3. The access to and parking for the existing restaurant does not create an undue traffic problem. Access to the site is provided on Edinger Avenue and Goldenwest Street and the existing 878 on -site parking spaces is adequate for the existing commercial uses. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 90-9: 1. Planned Sign Program No. 90-9 will provide for signage that reflects a common theme for the proposed restaurant incorporating similar design elements in terms of materials, colors, illumination, and sign type. 2. Planned Sign Program No. 90-9 provides for signs that will be compatible with the architectural style and colors of the building. 3. The signs will be compatible with other signs in the surrounding commercial center and with the sign criteria as outlined in Planned Sign Program No. 88-8. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-36: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated July 24, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. The restaurant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Uniform Building code, and Uniform Fire Code. 3. All Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) requirements shall be met prior to alcohol sales. 4. Live entertainment shall be prohibited unless a conditional use permit for such entertainment is granted by the Planning Commission. 5. Hours of operation shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday thru Thursday and 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 90-36 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 90-9: 1. The location of the proposed signs shall be generally as shown on the site plan and building elevations dated July 24, 1990. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -14- (6898d) 2. All double stroke exposed neon shall comply with the Huntington Beach Electrical Sign Criteria. 3. The colors for the proposed building and signs as submitted to the Design Review Board on July 19, 1990 shall be the approved layout. 4. Any proposed sign that does not comply with the standards of Planned Sign Program no. 90-9 shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a Special sign Permit by the Planning Commission. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Planned Sign Program No. 90-9 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. B-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-25 APPLICANT: PAC-TEL CELLULAR, THE PLANNING CONSORTIUM LOCATION: 15922 Pacific Coast Highway (North side of Pacific Coast Highway near Marina Drive) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-25 is a request to establish a cellular telephone facility, consisting of electronic equipment housed within an office suite and grid -panel antennas mounted behind rooftop screening. The office suite is located within an existing three-story office/commercial building. The small grid -panel antennas will be mounted on the roof behind the existing rooftop railing. The request is pursuant to Section 9630 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is within the coastal zone boundaries, however the project is exempt from Coastal Development Permit requirements pursuant to Section 989.5.3.1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-25 with findings and conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -15- (6898d) fI THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Dean Brown, 2355 Main Street, Irvine, consultant to applicant stated he concurred with staff's recommendations and was there to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-25 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-25: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the cellular phone facility will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, nor to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit for a cellular phone facility will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The cellular phone facility is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. 4. The cellular phone facility will reduce parking demand at the site because the facility is unmanned. 5. The antennas will be screened by the rooftop railing and will therefore not be unsightly. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-25: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated June 1, 1990, shall be the approved layout with the following conditions: a. Antennas shall be painted to match the existing rooftop railing. b. Antennas shall not project above the existing rooftop railing. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -16- (6898d) 2. Placement of additional antennas on the site shall require approval by the Planning Commission. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards. 5. 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. B-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-26 APPLICANT: PAC-TEL CELLULAR, THE PLANNING CONSORTIUM LOCATION: 16052 Beach Blvd. (Southeast corner of Beach Blvd. and Edinger Avenue.) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-26 is a request to establish a cellular telephone facility, consisting of electronic equipment housed within an office suite, and grid -panel antennas mounted behind rooftop screening. The office suite is located within an existing two- story office building. The small grid -panel antennas will be mounted on the roof behind the existing parapet wall. The request is pursuant to section 9630 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-26 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED THERE WERE NO PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-26 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -17- (6898d) AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-26: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the cellular phone facility will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, nor to property and improvements in the vicinity. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit for a cellular phone facility will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The cellular phone facility is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. 4. The cellular phone facility will reduce parking demand at the site because the facility is unmanned. 5. The antennas will be adequately screened by recessing the equipment along the roof and by the rooftop parapet and therefore will not be unsightly. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-26: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated July 19, 1990, shall be the approved layout with the following conditions: a. Antennas shall be painted to match the rooftop parapet. 2. Placement of additional antennas on the site shall require approval by the Planning Commission. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards. 5. 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. i PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -18- (6898d) 1 B-7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 90-27 APPLICANT: PAC-TEL CELLULAR, THE PLANNING CONSORTIUM LOCATION: 9901 Adams Avenue (Northwest corner of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-27 is a request to establish a cellular telephone facility, consisting of electronic equipment housed within a commercial suite, and grid -panel antennas mounted behind rooftop screening. The commercial suite is located within an existing commercial building (Mervyns Center). The small grid -panel antennas will be mounted on the roof behind the proposed screening. The request is pursuant to Section 9630 U. of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-27 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED THERE WERE NO PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-27 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-27: 1. The establishment,, maintenance and operation of the cellular phone facility will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, nor to property and improvements in the vicinity. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -19- (6898d) 2. The granting of the conditional use permit for a cellular phone facility will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The cellular phone facility is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. 4. The cellular phone facility will reduce parking demand at the site because the facility is unmanned. 5. The antennas will be screened by the rooftop screening and will therefore not be unsightly. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-27: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated June 1, 1990, shall be the approved layout with the following conditions: a. Antennas shall be painted to match the rooftop screening. b. Antennas shall not project above rooftop screening. c. The rooftop screening shall be compatible with the existing commercial building. 2. Placement of additional antennas on the site shall require approval by the Planning Commission. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances and standards. 5. 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. B-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 90-24: APPLICANT: SMART AND FINAL IRIS COMPANY LOCATION: 16130 Gothard Street (Southeast corner of Gothard and Lorge Circle) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-24 is a request by Smart and Final Iris Company to establish off -sale beer and wine sales at their existing wholesale grocery store located at 16130 Gothard Street pursuant to Section 9530 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -20- (6898d) 1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 15301, Section 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-24 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Donald Alvarado, Smart & Final, said he was there if the Commissioners had any questions. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-24 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 90-24: 1. The proposed beer and wine sales will be compatible with adjacent uses. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the beer and wine sales 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. On -site parking and circulation are adequate for the proposed beer and wine sales and have do not have the potential of creating a congestion and circulation hazard. 4. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-24 for beer and wine sales will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-24: 1. The site plan and floor plans dated received May 31, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -21- (6898d) 11 2. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from any view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscaped Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plan materials (location, type, size, quantity), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. b. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9608 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. the set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. 4. The existing freestanding sign shall be removed within two (2) years of the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-24. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 5, 1990 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 5, 1990, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon NOES: None ABSENT: Mountford (out of room) ABSTAIN: Leipzig MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -22- (6898d) D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-29 (6 month review) APPLICANT: JAMES MALONE LOCATION: 19047 Bushard (Southwest corner of Garfield & Bushard) Conditional Use Permit No. 89-29, to permit a restaurant and bar in an existing retail center, was approved by the Planning Commission on August 1, 1989. A conditional use permit was required for the sale of alcoholic beverages pursuant to Section 9220.1(d) and Section 9636 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Due to the retail center's proximity to existing residences, the Planning Commission imposed the following condition of approval: #8. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission within six months of the date of approval (February 6, 1990) to ensure compliance with conditions of approval and compatibility with surrounding residents. This item was brought to the Commission for review on February 6, 1990. However, the applicant had only obtained a Certificate of Occupancy in January, 1990. Staff therefore recommended that the review hearing be continued for six months in order to allow the applicant to establish his business and to demonstrate compliance with conditions of approval relating to noise, hours of operation, and entertainment restrictions. The Planning Commission continued the review to August 7, 1990. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the conditions of approval as outlined in Conditional Use permit 89-29 are adequate and that the applicant is in substantial compliance with the conditions. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-29 SIX MONTH REVIEW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, NOES: None ABSENT: Mountford ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig (out of room) PC Minutes-,8/7/90 -23- (6898d) D-2 LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-4 APPLICANT: QUALITY PROJECT COORDINATOR LOCATION: 9842 Adams Street (south side of Adams Street approximately 300 feet west of Brookhurst) Limited Sign Permit No. 90-4 is a request to modify (face change) an existing 32 foot high, 160 square foot, nonconforming freestanding pole sign. The applicant is requesting the face change as a result of a change of business name from Bob's Big Boy Restaurant to a Music Plus music and video store. Section 9610.8(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code specifies 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 the removal of the sign upon expiration of the extension of time. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 11, Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Limited Sign Permit No. 90-4 with findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-4, WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Mountford (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-4: 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 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 Adams Avenue will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -24- (6898d) 4. Due to the unique circumstances applicable to the sign, immediate alteration, removal or replacement of the sign will result in a substantial economic hardship. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-4: 1. The site plan and sign elevation received and dated July 10, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Limited Sign Permit No. 90-4 shall be valid for two years (until August 7, 1992). 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a cash bond in the amount of $5,000 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. Limited Sign Permit No. 90-4 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-3 LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-8 APPLICANT: SMART AND FINAL IRIS CO. LOCATION: 16130 Gothard Avenue (southwest corner of Gothard Avenue and Lorge Circle) Limited Sign Permit No. 90-8 is a request to permit a 2 year extension of time for an existing 35 foot high, 185 square foot, nonconforming freestanding sign. The applicant is requesting the two (2) year extension of time in order to consider alternatives to the existing signage on the property. Section 9610.8(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code specifies that the Planning Commission may grant a two (2) year extension of time for nonconforming signs. A cash bond of $2000 is required to guarantee the removal after the expiration of the extension of time. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -25- (6898d) L_J ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 11, Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Limited Sign Permit No. 90-8 with findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-8 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Mountford (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO, 90-8: 1. Allowing the maintenance of the sign for an additional two years will not adversely affect other signs in the area. 2. The proposed extension of time will not be detrimental to 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 Gothard Street 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 substantial economic hardship. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-8: 1. The site plan and sign elevation received and dated July 24, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Limited Sign Permit No. 90-8 shall be valid for two years (until August 7, 1992). PC Minutes - 8/7/90 2W-1! (6898d) [i 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a cash bond in the amount of $5,000 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. Limited Sign Permit No. 90-8 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. E. DISCUSSION ITEMS None F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES None G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Ortega - Requested the status of the Hedges item which was sent to City Council. She was told it was scheduled for the August 20, 1990, City Council meeting. Commissioner Leipzig - Questioned the removal of follow-up items from the Pending Items List. He requested that we continue to add pending City Council items to the list. H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS Mike Adams reiterated action taken at the City Council meeting held August 6, 1990. PC Minutes - 8/7/90 -27- (6898d) J I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO ADJOURN TO A 5:30 STUDY SESSION (AGENDA REVIEW, SUB -COMMITTEE REPORT), TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1990, AND THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Mountford ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kj 1 APPROVED BY: A-J Mike Adam , Secretary Planning Commission Chairwoman PC Minutes - 8/7/90 ` -28- (6898d)