Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-21APPROVED 9/18/90 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 1990 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION - 5:30 PM REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, P P Bourguignon, Leipzig A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (4 MINUTES PER PERSON, NO DONATING OF TIME TO OTHERS) Anyone wishing to speak must fill out and submit a form to speak prior to Oral Communication or Public Hearing items. No action can be taken by the Planning Commission on this date, unless agendized. None B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO ACT ON ITEM B-2 BEFORE B-1 BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF B-1, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Mountford (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-40: APPLICANT: Jeffrey C. Rohring LOCATION: 17296 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 50 feet north of Holland Drive) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-40 is a request to permit dancing and live entertainment (2-4 musicians, taped music) in an existing restaurant within Holland Center pursuant to Section 9220.1(d)D 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 deny Conditional Use Permit No. 90-40 with findings. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-40 TO THE SEPTEMBER 18, 1990, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Williams ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2: PIERSIDE RESTAURANTS: APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency City of Huntington Beach/ Jonathan Chodos LOCATION: Ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and First Street (southeast of the pier) The purpose of this hearing is to allow the Planning Commission and the public a forum to offer input on Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2. The merits of the Pierside Restaurant development will not be discussed tonight, nor will a decision be made on the Draft Environmental Impact Report or project. PC Minutes - 8/21/90 -2- (7064d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing in order to solicit comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2, and continue the hearing to September 18, 1990, for action on Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90-2, Conditional Use Permit No. 90-17 and Coastal Development Permit No. 90-18. Ken Bourguignon, Planning Commissioner: Suggested raising the structure approximately three additional feet above the water table so that building will be cheaper, safer, more easily maintained. He feels the view corridors will not be adversely impacted by such action. Ed Mountford, Planning Commissioner: Questioned when the comment period for the EIR would end. He also asked staff if the public would have access to these comments, and will the comments made tonight be considered as comments for the EIR. Staff explained that the comment period would end September 8, 1990, but since it was a Saturday it would be extended to Monday, September 10, 1990. Staff also explained that the comments made tonight would be included in the EIR and the public would have access to them. Geri Ortega, Planning Commission Chairwoman: Feels that alternative site analysis should be included. EIR needs more analysis of Coastal and Downtown Specific Plan policies, explanation of previous alternatives covered. Chairwoman Ortega also reminded the public that their comments tonight were to be directed only to the EIR , they will be published in the docoment and responded to at that time. It will be presented to the Planning Commission September 18, 1990, for the final report. Victor Liepzig, Planning Commissioner: Feels that another project alternative should be considered which looks at one or two restaurants. Lower intensity development will reduce visual impacts. Alternatives analysis in original EIR 82-2 is meager, and may not suffice for this supplemental document. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kay Seraphine, 509 - 17th Street, stated loss of view is a significant adverse impact. Would like the EIR to reference Shoreline Access Section of the Coastal Element Section 2.2.9 and EIR 82-2 Section 2. On page 48 of EIR 90-2, give examples of what is meant by indirect views. Are proposed buildings taller than the existing Maxwell's? A lower intensity alternative should be considered because the land is assembled and owned by the City; a higher density is not required for economic (land cost) reasons. Page 8 of EIR 90-2 is a video arcade on acceptable use? Also page 8 - what are the minor variations referred to under permissible buildout? Explain whether proposal consists of 2 or 3 buildings with multiple restaurants or 2 to 3 restaurants. PC Minutes - 8/21/90 -3- (7064d) Ursula Coffin, 209 - 21st Street, stated a shuttle bus system may help reduce traffic impacts. View obstruction by buildings is objectionable. Eileen Murphy, 281 - 21st Street, feels water in the lower level of parking structure may preclude parking during storm/flood conditions. The height of the buildings should not be raised. Louise Fiorello, 114 Pacific Coast Highway, objects to Building C because it is in front of her property (Block 101). Clarify height restrictions. 2/3 of Building C appears to be over 25' high. View corridors are not adequate - they only benefit drivers on 1st and 2nd Streets Oblique views are not available or acceptable on 101 Block. Page 40, EIR 90-2 describes current view obstruction on PCH - does this refer to grassy median? Views should not be obstructed from public right-of-way or private property. Mark Porter, 19561 Topeka Lane, feels traffic in the downtown area should be recognized as a whole, consider the congestion that will occur in peak hours on other downtown streets and vicinity. Doug Langevin, 8196 Pawtucket Drive, feels alternate sites should be considered. EIR 82-2 called for 30,000 sq. ft. of development on this site to include beach user concessions and a maritime museum. Therefore, a new analysis is required for this larger scale project, an alternative site analysis is appropriate. Jeff Bergsma, 20282 Billingsgate Lane #210, feels alternative sites should be considered. He thinks the project is not tied together, feels the project should be master planned. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT WITH COMMENTS CONCERNING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN, COMMENT SESSION ONLY. B-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-28: APPLICANT: Charles MacGregor/Greg Lavers, Gold's Gym LOCATION: 7432 Prince Drive (North of Warner Avenue approximately 350 feet east of Gothard Avenue) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-28 is a request to permit a health club (Gold's Gym) facility within a mixed -use development with a request for joint use parking pursuant to Sections 9630(H) 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. PC Minutes - 8/21/90 -4- (7064d) 1 F� 1 rj STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-28 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mike Neal, 16761 Burke Lane, stated he was concerned with the traffic and parking impacts the gym would have on the area, does not feel it is an appropriate area. Jeff McClure, 7391 Prince Drive, disagreed with Mr. Neal concerning the traffic and safety items. Mr. McClure feels the gym will be an asset to the community. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-28 AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, TO THE OCTOBER 2, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker, Mountford (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C. CONSENT CALENDER C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 21, 1990 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 21, 1990, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker, Mountford ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 8/21/90 -5- (7064d) D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1 LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-3_: APPLICANT: Cannon & Associates - Replace sign faces for Jeep/Eagle. LOCATION: 16751 Beach Boulevard Limited Sign Permit No. 90-3 is a request to modify (face change) one (1) existing non -conforming freestanding pole sign, two (2) existing non -conforming business identification signs and four (4) existing non -conforming directional signs pursuant to Section 9610.8(c) Limited Sign Permit of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 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. 90-3 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. A discussion ensued among the Commissioners concerning signs being put into immediate compliance with company and City standards. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-3 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Kirkland, Bourguignon NOES: Williams, Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL - LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO, 90-3: 1. Allowing the maintenance of the signs for an additional two (2) years will not adversely affect other signs in the area. The signs along the Beach Boulevard corridor are undergoing compliance with the current sign ordinance and the two (2) year extension will allow the applicant to design a sign program for the auto dealership. 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. The adjacent commercial and residential area will not be affected by the non -conforming signs and are in keeping with the commercial uses and signs along Beach Boulevard. PC Minutes - 8/21/90 -6- (7064d) 3. The signs in their existing locations will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. 4. Due to the unique circumstances applicable to the signs, immediate alteration, removal or replacement of the signs will result in a substantial economic hardship. The immediate conformance to the sign ordinance for the change of sign copy from American Motors to Chrysler will delay the national advertising program. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - LIMITED SIGN PERMIT N0, 90-3: 1. The site plan and sign elevations received dated August 13, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Limited Sign Permit No. 90-3 shall be valid for two (2) years until August 21, 1992. 3. The applicant/owners shall submit a planned sign program for the auto dealership for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to the expiration of Limited Sign Program No. 90-3. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall file a cash bond (cash, cashiers check,.money order) in the amount of $17,500 with the City for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the signs. If the signs are not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign ordinance after the two (2) years from the date of approval, or remodel of the property, which ever comes first, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter the property where said signs are located and remove said signs 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. 5. Limited Sign Permit No. 90-3 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 (10) day appeal period has elapsed. D-2 LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-6: APPLICANT: Pizza Hut LOCATION: 6817 Warner Avenue Limited Sign Permit No. 90-6 is a request to modify (face change) an existing 24 foot high, 86 square foot, nonconforming freestanding pole sign. The applicant is requesting the face change as a result of a change of business name from Winchell's Donuts to Pizza Hut. PC Minutes - 8/21/90 -7- (7064d) 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 after the 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. 90-6 with findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-6 WITH FINDINGS AMD MODIFIED 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 - LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-6: 1. Allowing the maintenance of the sign for an additional sixty days 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 during the next sixty days. 3. The sign in its existing location along Warner Avenue will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. 4. Sixty days is a reasonable amount of time in which to remove the existing non -conforming signs, and replace them with signs in conformance with the current code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-6: 1. The site plan and sign elevations received and dated June 19, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Limited Sign Permit No. 90-6 shall be valid for sixty days (until October 20, 1990). PC Minutes - 8/21/90 -8- (7064d) 1 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 sixty days 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. 90-6 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. 90-7: APPLICANT: Pizza Hut LOCATION: 18801 Beach Boulevard Limited Sign Permit No. 90-7 is a request to modify (face change) an existing 20 foot high, 86 square foot, nonconforming freestanding pole sign. The applicant is requesting the face change as a result of a change of business name from Winchell's Donuts to Pizza Hut. 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 after the 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. 90-7 with findings and conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 8/21/90 (7064d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-7 WITH FINDINGS AMD MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-7: 1. Allowing the maintenance of the sign for an additional sixty days 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 during the next sixty days of such sign, and will be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. 3. The sign in its existing location along Beach Boulevard will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. 4. Sixty days is a reasonable amount of time in which to remove the existing non -conforming signs, and replace them with signs in conformance with the current code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO, 90-7: 1. The site plan and sign elevations received and dated June 19. 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Limited Sign Permit No. 90-7 shall be valid for sixty days (until October 20,'1990). 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 sixty days 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. PC Minutes - 8/21/90 -10- (7064d) 1 4. Limited Sign Permit No 90-7 shall not become effective for 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 Planning Division; and until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. E. DISCUSSION ITEMS None F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES any to the Chairwoman Ortega: Requested of Counsel, the status of the Moody signs. Counsel stated she would have a response at the next Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 1990. Commissioner Williams: Requested of Counsel to look into having the water meter, gas, and electricity at 306 Third Street turned off. Commissioner Willams stated the reason for this request was the tenants do not have a conditional use permit or Certificate of Occupany, it is not a house or an office therefore they are illegal tenants. Commissioner Bourguig_non: Inquired about the Code Committee meeting. Commissioner Mountford: Questioned staff about the Letters they receive about zoning issues. He wanted to know if staff responds to these letters. Staff stated that yes they do. Commissioner Kirkland: Inquired about the Casa Blanca fan sale, did they have a conditional use permit for the five (5) day sale. Commissioner Leipzig: Requested a list of signs with bonds, signs brought into compliance by bonds. Staff stated they would bring him a copy. He also questioned a home on Sunbreeze that was being used for recovering individuals, that had previous complaints, he wanted to know the status. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None PC Minutes - 8/21/90 -11- (7064d) I 1 �1 H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS Mike Adams reiterated action taken at the City Council Meeting of August 21, 1990. He informed the Commissioners that the Hedges item was deleted from the Code. The other item was a General Plan Amendment that was approved by Council. I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO ADJOURN TO A 5:30 STUDY SESSION (AGENDA REVIEW, SUB -COMMITTEE REPORT), WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1990, AND THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kj 1 APPROVED BY: 91, L hlvt""V- Mike Adams, Mecretary Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Planning Commission Chairwoman PC Minutes - 8/21/90 -12- (7064d)