Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-18APPROVED 10/16/90 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 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 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 SHOMAKER TO CONTINUE ITEM B-6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-17, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-18 AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2 TO THE OCTOBER 2, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO RESOLVE SEVERAL REMAINING ISSUES WITH THE APPLICANT, AND TO RESPOND TO ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2, 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 WILLIAMS, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO CONTINUE ITEM B-7 HOLLY-SEACLIFF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON MONDAY SEPTEMBER 24, 1990, AT 7:00 PM TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE COMMISSIONERS RECEIVE THE STAFF REPORT BY 5:00 PM, FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 21, 1990, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Kirkland, Bourguignon, NOES: Mountford, Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS MOTION FROM 7:00 PM MONDAY SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 TO 5:00 PM MONDAY SEPTEMBER 24, 1990, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Mountford ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None B-1 CODE AMENDMENT 90-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 90-17: APPLICANT: JIM CAVIOLA LOCATION: City Wide The Planning Commission continued this item from the September 5, 1990 meeting, in order to allow the Huntington Harbour Code Committee the opportunity to review and discuss the proposed code amendment. The Commission also asked that staff research items related to DFG eelgrass updates and code allowances for opaque materials on the bottom of windscreens. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 90-17 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. Prior to any action on Code Amendment No. 90-3, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 90-17. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -2- (7265d) 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: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Negative Declaration 90-17 and Code Amendment 90-3 and forward the proposed ordinance to the City Council for adoption based on the findings. 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 ORTEGA, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-3 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-17 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, 1. Code Amendment No. 90-3 will be consistent with the goals and policies contained within the City Local Coastal Program by protecting environmental sensitive areas. 2. Code Amendment No. 90-3 will not adversely affect the surrounding properties or property values, by regulating the location and size of projective decks. 3. Code Amendment No. 90-3 will not adversely affect the goals and policies of the General Plan by establishing reasonable regulations for the construction of projecting decks. B-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-43/APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) ACTION: APPLICANT: DAVID M. LAUTNER LOCATION: 217 Main Street (west side, approximately 125' south of Olive Avenue) PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -3- (7265d) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-43 is a request to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages at a new restaurant/pub pursuant to Section 9636 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code. The applicant wishes to rehabilitate an existing building on the west 200 block of Main Street for use as a neighborhood pub. The appeal concerns the Design Review Board's action on the building owner's request to use certain types and colors of materials for the exterior building rehabilitation. The owner wishes to use colors and materials which were historically part of the building. The Design Review Board felt that the proposal did not conform with the Downtown Design Guidelines and was not compatible with the surrounding area. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 15301, Section 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS• This project is in a non -appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. It is exempt from Coastal Development Permit processing pursuant to Section 969.5.3.1 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, which exempts improvements to existing structures. REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: This project is located in the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area. SPECIFIC PLAN• The project is within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries. DESIGN REVIEW REVIEW BOARD: Design Review Board Action: The Design Review Board, on August 30, 1990, denied the building owner's proposal for the exterior rehabilitation of the structure. The owner is attempting to complete an historic rehabilitation to the standards of the department of the Interior, in order to qualify the building for placement on the National Register of Historic Places, and to obtain Federal Tax credits for historic rehabilitation. The owner proposed to recreate the original building form, colors, and materials used when the building was constructed in 1904. The following buildings elements were proposed: 1) Roofing material to be natural finish, galvanized steel corrugated roofing. 2) Rear building elevation to consist of painted wood boards, and doors composed of six fixed glass panels. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -4- (7265d) 3) Side elevation facing City mini -park to be natural redwood vertical board. 4) Setback area between building and City mini -park to be natural redwood vertical board. 5) Setback area between building and City mini -park to be paved with bricks. 6) Front building elevation to be composed of painted wood board and trim, fixed glass windows, and main door. The Design Review Board denied the request by a vote of 3 to 0 based on the following concerns: 1) Due to the effort the City is making to upgrade the downtown area, the proposed materials, particularly the metal corrugated roof, are not compatible with materials used on adjacent buildings. 2) The three elevations exposed to public view (front, side, rear) are not compatible with the structure across Main Street or with the proposed structure across from the mini -park. 3) It is not appropriate to reproduce the original building at this location. 4) The proposal does not comply with the downtown Design Guidelines. 5) Changes to the building materials and architectural features may render the building more compatible with the surrounding area. For example, a heavier cornice, maintain transoms, incorporate doors and/or windows facing the mini -park, use stucco and fireproofed wood shingles, or painted metal roof. Discussion• The structure is located on a block designated by the City and Redevelopment Agency for potential historic rehabilitation. This is further discussed in the Analysis Section, below. Environmental Impact Report No. 89-4 covered all rebuilds and expansions of more than 10% on this block, and although not applicable to this proposal, some general guidelines for buildings on this block may be found in the document's standard City policies and Mitigation Measures Section (Environmental Impact Report No. 89-4, Sections 6.4 and 6.5). Among the policies and measures relating to building design is the following: The Design Review Board shall ensure that all architecture within the project incorporated elements of the Downtown Design Guidelines and also incorporate elements of the historic period of the structure under review, prior to approval of building permits. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -5- (7265d) The Downtown Design Guidelines call for a contemporary Mediterranean style of architecture. Uniform materials and consistent style must be evident in all exterior elevations, and the dominant exterior material of a building is to be either stucco, smooth block, granite, or marble. A harmonious color scheme is also suggested. Roof materials most indicative of Mediterranean architecture include clay or concrete, shingle tile, copper, and painted metal. Window should be multipaned. The Design Review Board, since November, 1989, has reviewed a number of proposals on the subject block which involved rehabilitation of historic buildings. The goal of combining historic features of the period with Mediterranean features compatible with newer, surrounding development has been achieved primarily by the use of materials suggested by the Design Guidelines, and incorporation of historical architectural elements. Such elements may include multipaned windows and transoms, certain types of cornice treatments, certain types and locations of entry doors, use of awnings, etc. The Design Review Board has generally concluded that such combination of elements can result in an attractive structure that is successfully integrated with surrounding downtown development. Staff supports this conclusion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 1) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-43 with findings and conditions of approval; and 2) Approve the Appeal of the Design Review Board's action, with findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Doug Langevin, 8196 Pawtucket Drive, property owner, stated that he is trying to restore a historic building back to its original condition. Mr. Langevin told the Commission that his building was the first real gas station in Huntington Beach, built by Mr. Talbert in 1904. He also said that the plans submitted to the Design Review Board were the plans submitted to him by Redevelopment. Mr. Langevin said he did not sign the Owner Participation Agreement with the City, in order to save the City money. He stated that he funded this project by himself and questions why the City does not approve of it. His request for a metal corrugated roof was also withdrawn. Bruce Milliken, 16712 Summercloud Lane, contractor, discussed the window placement in the building. He explained to the commission that if the park on the adjoining property became dedicated they could have windows on that side of the building, otherwise it would not be allowed. He also explained that they found extensive water damage while reconstructing, which added to the amount of reconstruction necessary, and were then shut down by land use because the City considered it a demolition. Mr. Milliken explained that they had not hired an architect or an engineer but they had consulted with one. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -6- (7265d) David M. Lautner, P.O. Box 958, Sunset Beach, stated he has a tentative Lease Agreement with Doug Longevin, and would like to just get on with the project. Guy Guzzardo, 515 Walnut Avenue, Historical Resource Board, explained the historical value of restoring Mr. Longevin's building, which included: 1. Age, integrity of location and tenants. 2. Restoration of Appearance -Outside. 3. Significance of time period. Mr. Guzzardo also stated that he is the laison between the Historical Resource Board and the Design Review Board, and was not able to attend the Design Review Board's meeting at which they considered this project. If he had been present he would have recommended the project, for the above stated reasons. Jerry Person, Chairman Historic Resource Board, stated he was requested to determine the historic significance of the site. Mr. Person stated that it is listed on Historic Resource List as a "B" structure. Dave Burris, 419 Main Street, Suite 73, stated the block is a historical rehabilitation block, and if they tear it all down they loose the old town history. He does not feel that all buildings should be built to mediterranean. He feels that the wood look would be more suited to this project. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A discussion ensued among the Commissioners. Their concerns included: ° Wiring a restaurant with 120V wiring. ° Exterior materials used on wall next to setback up to code. ° Windows and a door on the park side of the building. • A condition that proper plans be brought before staff for approval. ° It is not historically significant enough. ° If it is to be a restaurant/bar better plans need to be seen. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY LEIGPZIG, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-43 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND APPROVE THE APPEAL TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Kirkland ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -7- (7265d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-43: 1. The proposed use conforms with the General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Commercial/Office and complies with the provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan with regard to non -conforming structures. 2. The use is compatible with surrounding commercial development in the downtown core area. 3. The proposed use meets the intent of Downtown Specific Plan District 5 by promoting a vital and interesting Main Street, compatible with the visitor serving uses along Pacific Coast Highway. 4. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare or safety of persons in the vicinity, not injurious to the value of property or improvements in the vicinity. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-43: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 13, 1990 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The facade shall be in compliance with Exhibit A dated September 18, 1990 and attached herein. b. A composite material roof shall replace the proposed galvanized roof. c. Windows shall be incorporated in the park side elevation of the building, unless precluded by the Uniform Building Code. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Floor plans shall depict natural gas 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. If outdoor lighting is included, gas lighting may be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. f. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -8- (7265d) 3. Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. 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. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. This conditional use permit does not authorize live entertainment. Any request for live entertainment shall be reviewed as a separate conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. B-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-33: APPLICANT: RHONDA VOLZ, VOLZ & ASSOC. LOCATION: 16847 Algonquin, Huntington Beach, CA (Huntington Harbour Mall) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-33 is a request to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption in conjunction with a bona fide eating establishment (Davenport's). Pursuant to Section 9636 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code, the sale of alcoholic beverages requires a conditional use permit. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. COASTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 989.5.3.14(e). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-33 with findings and conditions approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Scott L. Olson, 16092 Waikiki Lane, said he was there to answer any and all questions the Commission may have about the request. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -9- (7265d) There were no 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 BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-33 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 90-33: 1. The establishment of alcohol sales for on -site consumption will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building since the use is consistent with the commercial zoning designation and the past uses of the site. 2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-33 for alcohol sales for on -site consumption will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. The retail activity is a permitted use within the General Commercial designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 90-33: 1. The floor plans dated August 31, 1990, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Hours of operation shall be Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday 8:00 AM to 8:30 PM , Thursday, Friday and Saturday 8:00 PM to 11:00 PM and closed on Monday. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. All alcohol beverage control requirements shall be met prior to alcohol sales. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 90-33 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -10- (7265d) 1 B-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-29/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 90-28: APPLICANT: WARREN G. FRANDSEN LOCATION: 920 Olive Avenue Conditional Use Permit No. 90-29 is a request for expansion of an existing legal non -conforming single family dwelling pursuant to Section 9652 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-28 has been initiated because the proposal requires variances from the following standards of Article 913 (Townlot Specific Plan) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code: Section 9130.7 Interior Side Yard 9130.7 Exterior Side Direct Entry Garage 9609(b)(3) Parking Spaces ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Required Proposed 5 feet 3.0 feet 22 feet 5.0 feet 2 1 The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act. SPECIFIC PLAN: Townlot Specific Plan Area 1. The proposal has been reviewed under the standards of the Specific Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-29 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-28 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Warren G. Frandsen, 920 Olive Avenue, applicant, stated the project was being initiated because of a growing family. He said they have lived in the house 18 years, and feels this general upgrade will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. Brian J. Hoyt, 19269 Archfield Lane, is a neighbor who lives across the street. He stated he was all for the project, feeling it would enhance the neighborhood. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -11- (7265d) The Commission asked staff if this request would compromise the neighbors rights if the buildings would only be 16 inches apart, and does neighbor have right of refusal. Staff explained that it was the neighbor who had encroached into the applicant's property, causing a 16 inch separation between buildings. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-29 AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 90-28 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams, Kirkland (out of the room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-42: APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL KEN PETERSON, PRINCIPAL LOCATION: 9700 Levee Drive (north of Atlanta Avenue, east of Bushard Street, Burke School Conditional Use Permit No. 90-42 is a request to permit the operation of a private christian high school consisting of 65-75 students, seven (7) faculty members and twelve (12) classrooms in the Burke Elementary School site pursuant to Section 9630.(c) 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: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-42 with findings and suggested conditions of approval TO PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Pat Foley, 8642 Mays Avenue, Garden Grove, Board of Directors, urged the Commission to approve this project. He also stated that he was there to answer any questions the Commission may have. Stella Griffin, 20241 Running Springs Lane, stated her daughter attends the school and she is very happy to see it open again. Ms. Griffin stated that they had stopped using the park because it was vacant and she felt unsafe. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -12- (7265d) THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Leipzig questioned whether it was necessary to stripe 84 spaces in the blacktop area and displace playground and recreational area. Staff suggested the condition be revised to displace only as deemed necessary by a six month review. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY SHOMAKER TO APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-42 WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Williams ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 90-42: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the California Lutheran High School with maximum 100 students will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit for the California Lutheran High School with maximum 100 students will not adversely affect the General Plan of the city of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposed California Lutheran High School is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use map because the property was originally developed as a school site. 4. The access to the parking for the proposed use does not create an undue traffic problem because adequate parking and drop-off areas are provided on site, and no excessive traffic will be generated. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 90-42: 1. The site plan received and dated August 23, 1990 shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. The private high school's hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:30 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. 3. The total enrollment shall not exceed 100 students per day. Any expansion in number shall require approval of the Planning Commission. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -13- (7265d) 4. Any additional uses on the school site (i.e. schools, daycare/pre-school, organizations) shall require a new conditional use permit with completed traffic and parking analysis prepared by a traffic consultant to analyze current and projected traffic counts and impacts upon local streets for each existing and proposed use. 5. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. A detailed parking layout plan shall be submitted in conformance with Article 960, Off -Street Parking. The plan shall indicate, bus parking, van parking, staff parking and student parking areas. b. A perimeter parking area fencing plan shall be submitted. c. A relocated recreation amenity plan shall be submitted prior to any relocation of amenities, however, a parking study shall be submitted to determine the need to implement the parking layout plan. The parking study and amenity relocation plan shall be reviewed within six months of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-42. d. The existing parking area shall be restriped to conform to provisions of Article 960, as deemed necessary by the six (6) month review. 6. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall obtain approval from Orange County Social Services Department. Applicant shall file with the Department of Community Development a copy of the license issued by the Social Services Department within 90 days of approval. If the applicant fails to obtain license from Orange County Social Services Department this conditional use permit shall be revoked with all monies spent at applicant's risk. 7. Applicant shall obtain a business license from the City of Huntington Beach prior to operation. 8. The California Lutheran High School shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code including Section 9634.3, Building Division, and Fire Department. 9. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 10. The fire alarm system shall meet the 1988 Uniform Fire Code Standards. 11. 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. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -14- (7265d) 1 B-8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-5 - SIX MONTH REVIEW OF PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN: APPLICANT: FHP, INC. LOCATION: 19066 Magnolia Street (southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue) On March 20, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the status of FHP's Parking Management Plan for the FHP Senior Medical Center. They found that FHP had made progress toward resolving a number of problems at the facility, and continued the review for six months in order to 1) resolve a pending lawsuit involving FHP and other tenants at the shopping center; and 2) allow staff and FHP to reassess the needs of FHP and the shopping center as a whole. The following is a brief summary of past actions on the FHP Senior Medical Center: Date Action February 17, 1987 Planning Commission approved original entitlement (Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 87-9) for a 25,859 square foot medical office with joint use of parking (reduction of 67 spaces). Conditions included a maximum of 10,000 members with a maximum of 300 appointments per day, hours of Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM, Parking Management Plan and follow-up study every six months for two years. February 18, 1988 Planning Commission approved a request to add Saturday hours of 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM, plus temporary relocation of Opthamology from Fountain Valley for six weeks. Included temporary evening hours of 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM. Enrollment at 8,700. March 21, 1989 Parking Update. FHP had planned to submit study in early 1989 with Conditional Use Permit No. 88-30, a request to expand hours of operation and enrollment. Request was withdrawn January 18, 1989, with parking study in process. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -15- (7265d) SUMMARY OF ACTIONS (Continued) Date Action April 4, 1989 Planning Commission required parking study to be completed by April 18, 1989, for review at May 2, 1989 meeting. May 2, 1989 Planning Commission held public hearing to review parking study and determined that parking problems remained for other tenants. Scheduled Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5 for possible revocation on June 6, 1989. June 6, 1989 Revocation Hearing. Planning Commission made motions to: (a) Form subcommittee of FHP representatives, tenants, landowners, and Commissioners Bourguignon and Ortega. (b) Require composite Parking Management Plan and Parking Study. Continued revocation hearing to July 18, 1989. June 21, 1989 First subcommittee meeting - problems and solutions discussed. July 12, 1989 Second subcommittee meeting - alternatives reviewed with City Parking Consultant. July 18, 1989 Planning Commission continued revocation hearing to August 15, 1989, with subcommittee's concurrence. August 9, 1989 Third subcommittee meeting to review new parking study. August 15, 1989 Planning Commission reaffirmed Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5 with amended conditions and scheduled review for February 21, 1990. February 21, 1990 Planning Commission continued review of parking situation to March 20, 1989, for further information on parking demand, possible physical alterations. March 20, 1990 Planning Commission continued review of parking situation to September 18, 1990, to allow for resolution of lawsuit, and reassessment of FHP/Garfield Plaza needs. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -16- (7265d) The following is the currently approved set of conditions of approval, including all amendments and additions made by the Planning Commission since February 17, 1987. These conditions were approved by the Planning Commission on August 15, 1989. 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 11, 1987, shall be the approved layout. 2. Total enrollment for the Senior Medical Center shall not exceed 10,000 members. FHP shall submit verification of membership to the Department of Development Services on an annual basis. 3. The maximum number of scheduled and non-scheduled patient appointments (includes specialities, etc.) shall not exceed 260 per day Monday through Friday and not exceed 150 per day Saturday and Sunday. Any changes to this condition shall be subject to review by the Planning commission and their determination of whether or not a conditional use permit would be required. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8 AM to 7 PM Monday through Sunday. Any additional hours of operation shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission and their determination of whether or not a conditional use permit would be required. 5. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Department of Development Services a parking management plan. The plan shall designate parking spaces in the rear of building 300 as employee parking for FHP and other commercial tenants of that building. FHP shall provide security in the parking lot to insure their employees utilize the designated parking area. 6. The medical services offered at the center shall be primarily for senior citizens. A change in the nature of the operation (i.e. senior medical care to general practice/obstetrics) shall be subject to the filing of a new conditional use permit. 7. Plans for remodeling the interior of the structure must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. The automatic sprinkler system must be brought up to current standards including provisions to sprinkle the mansard area. 8. All exiting must comply with the Uniform Building code. 9. Should any medical gas systems be installed, the system must be approved by the Fire Department. 10. Construction of tenant improvements shall comply with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 8.40. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -17- (7265d) 11. A parking analysis and study under the control of Development Services Department will be conducted every 6 months for a period of 2 years and submitted to the Planning Commission; it shall correlate with the appointments on the day of the analysis. If there is a deficiency in parking noted in the analysis the applicant will be responsible for a solution to the problem. 12. FHP will reduce the number of appointments by about 15 percent between 10 AM - noon since that is one of the peak parking demand periods of the day. 13. FHP will maintain their existing parking program (i.e. parking lot security guard, etc.). 14. FHP will submit an alternative parking lot layout which increases the overall number of parking spaces for the center. This alternative layout shall include tenant designated parking spaces. This layout shall be submitted in conjunction with "A" for Planning Commission consideration. 15. A Parking Management Plan shall be submitted by FHP to include the items discussed herein. In addition, FHP will work with the property owner and other tenants in the center (Century 21, Thrift & Loan, etc.) to have their employees park behind the FHP building. 16. FHP will attempt to work with the property owner to update the planned sign program for the center. It is to include upgrading individual tenant wall signs. 17. FHP will further analyze a car pooling system for patients. 18. Alternative customer entrances (rear of building) to the other businesses within the center shall be considered where feasible. 19. A review by staff and report to the Planning Commission of these measures and their impact upon the parking area shall be conducted in six months. The Planning Commission may add, amend or delete conditions as deemed necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Amend condition no. 16 of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5 as follows: FHP shall accomplish the following items within the following time frame: PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -18- (7265d) a. Within 30 days, FHP shall post a bond in the amount of $1,000 per sign for the removal of their copy within the two non -conforming freestanding signs. b. Within 45 days FHP shall submit a Planned Sign Program for all signage in the center. c. Within 60 days FHP shall remove their copy from the existing non -conforming freestanding signs and replace the copy with blank panels. 2. Approve the parking study and parking management plan as presented; and 3. Schedule for a one year review (September 17, 1990). THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Gary Goldstein, 18000 Studebaker Road, Cerritos, commented that the parking study was done by a contractor staff recommended. Kathryn Adair, 18000 Studebaker, Cerritos, gave a presentation on what they were doing to alleviate the parking problem: ° Employees are being shuttled. ° Three (3) parking lot attendants. ° Open additional week end hours to spread out appointments. ° Designated retail customer parking. • Free prescription delivery. Parking lot tram system. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A discussion ensued among the Commissioners concerning intimidation by the parking attendants for the restaurant parking. They also felt the parking study was not conclusive. They also questioned why FHP should develop a complete sign program for the entire center. Staff stated it was a strong incentive for FHP to come up with a plan. A MOTION WAS BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RELATED TO SIGNAGE, APPROVE THE PARKING STUDY AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN AS PRESENTED, AND SCHEDULE FOR ONE YEAR REVIEW (SEPTEMBER 17, 1991), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -19- (7265d) 1. Amend condition no. 16 of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-5 as follows: FHP shall accomplish the following items within the following time frame: a. Within 30 days, FHP shall post a bond in the amount of $1,000 per sign for the removal of their copy within the two non -conforming freestanding signs. b. Within 45 days FHP shall submit a Planned Sign Program for all signage in the center. c. Within 60 days FHP shall remove their copy from the existing non -conforming freestanding signs and replace the copy with blank panels. 2. Approve the parking study and parking management plan as presented; and 3. Schedule for a one year review (September 17, 1991). 4. Allow temporary relocation of Opthamology from Fountain Valley to become permanent relocation. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JULY 10, 1990: Commissioner Leipzig requested that all future minutes have reasons stated in any continue motion regarding why a continuance was requested. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JULY 10, 1990, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, 1 PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -20- (7265d) C-2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JULY 17, 1990: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JULY 17, 1990, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 17, 1990: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 7, 1990, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 21, 1990: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 21, 1990, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1 PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO, 90-13: APPLICANT: MARK FRANK LOCATION: 20972 Magnolia Street (northeast corner of Magnolia Street and Atlanta Avenue) PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -21- (7265d) Planned Sign Program No. 90-13 is a request for a sign program at a newly constructed commercial building pursuant to Section 9610.6 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: Approve Planned Sign Program No. 90-13 with findings and conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY WILLIAMS, TO APPROVE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 90-13 WITH FINDINGS AND 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 - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 90-13: 1. Planned Sign Program No. 90-13 will provide for signage that reflects a common theme for the development, incorporating similar design elements in terms of materials, colors, illumination, and sign type. 2. Planned Sign Program No. 90-13 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 area and with the Downtown Design Guidelines. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO, 90-13: 1. The attached sign program dated August 15, 1990 shall be the approved program, with the following modifications: a. The Blockbuster Video sign widths on the west, south and east elevations shall be reduced to 25 feet 0 inches in order to meet the 151 square foot maximum sign area. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -22- (7265d) b. The sign on the east elevation for Alternative A shall be placed a minimum of 9 feet (10% of the eastern facade) from the south edge of the building. c. The sign on the north elevation for Alternative B shall be placed a minimum of 9 feet (equal to the south facade) from the front edge of the building. 2. The location of the proposed signs shall be generally as shown on the elevations dated May 24, 1990, with the exception of proposed revisions. 3. Any proposed sign that does not comply with the standards of Planned Sign Program No. 90-13 shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a Special Sign Permit by the Planning Commission. 4. The applicant shall submit a written text of guidelines of all conditions and requirements prior to approval of any permits for signs. 5. Flag poles shall fly the United States and the State of California flags only. No corporate logos, flags or pennants shall be permitted. D-2 LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-5: APPLICANT: WILLIAMS SIGN COMPANY LOCATION: 19131 Brookhurst Limited Sign Permit No. 90-5 is a request for a two year extension of time for an existing non -conforming pole sign pursuant to Section 9610.8(c) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The sign is sixty-four (64) square foot in size and twenty (20) feet in height, as opposed to the allowed fifty (50) square foot and seven (7) foot tall sign. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Limited Sign permit No. 90-5 with findings. There were three persons requesting to speak on behalf of the project. Since this was not a public hearing item the Commission allowed one representative to be chosen to speak. Jack Carrol, 3100 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, stated that the sign had been in place for 12 years. Mr. Carrol stated that the majority of the signs in the area were of the same height, and he also feels he does have a hardship claim. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -23- (7265d) The Commissioners discussed the fact that the way they get signs into conformance is when ownership changes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON TO DENY LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO 90-5 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-5: 1. Strict compliance with Article 976 will not result in a substantial hardship to the applicant, because a 50 square foot seven (7) foot tall would be permitted. 2. The existing sign at 19131 Brookhurst may obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. D-3 PLANNED SIGN PERMIT N0, 90-11: APPLICANT: RIC RUSSELL LOCATION: 7949 Garfield Avenue (northeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Beach Boulevard) Planned Sign Program No. 90-11 is a request to permit a sign program for a Unocal carwash/detail center with gasoline sales pursuant to Section 9610.6 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 15301, Section 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Planned Sign Program No. 90-11 with findings and conditions of approval. 1-1 PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -24- (7265d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY MOUNTFORD, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 90-11, WITH FINDINGS AND 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 - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 90-11: 1. Planned Sign Program No. 90-11 will provide signs that reflect a common theme for the proposed carwash/detail center by incorporating similar design elements in terms of materials, colors, illumination, and sign type. 2. Planned Sign Program No. 90-11 provide for signs that will be compatible with architectural style and colors of the buildings. 3. The signs will be compatible with other signs in the surrounding commercial vicinity and with the sign criteria as outlined in Planned Sign Program No. 90-11. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO, 90-11: 1. The location, size, colors and materials shall be generally as shown on the site plans and building elevation dated received August 16, 1990, with the following modifications: a. The two (2) directional (sign #9 & #10) signs shall be modified to permit a maximum sign area of 2.2 square feet and limited to directional information only (exit, entrance). 2. All internally illuminated signs shall comply with the Huntington Beach Electrical Sign criteria. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Provide intensified landscaping between the northerly property line and the detail center to the satisfaction of Community Development Department. b. All conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 88-44 shall be completed. c. All landscaping shall be in place as indicated on the approved landscape plans. d. All conditions as specified herein shall be completed. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -25- (7265d) 4. No sign shall be installed, erected, altered, or reconstructed without prior City approval and issuance of appropriate Building Division permits. 5. Prior to submittal for plan check, the sign plans must be approved by the owner or owner's representative. 6. There shall be no signs affixed or maintained upon the exterior walls of the premises or the building, or in the parking lot and landscaped areas other -than as permitted herein, excepted with the city and property owner's approval. 7. Any proposed sign that does not comply with the standards of Planned Sign Program No. 90-11 shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a Special Sign Permit by the Planning Commission. 8. This planned sign permit shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Division; and until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 9. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Planned Sign Program No. 90-11 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. E. DISCUSSION ITEMS None F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES Commissioner Kirkland: Asked staff if they followed up on his request to look into Casa Blanca Fan trailer. Staff stated they did, and Casa Blanca Fans was issued a citation. He also asked for a status report on the senior project at Florida and Main. Commissioner Bourguignon: Asked staff if hiring the new Senior Engineer will speed up plan checking. He feels a 20 day wait for a plan check is unreasonable. Staff indicated with the additional revenues recently acquired more people will be hired. PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -26- (7265d) Commissioner Ortega: Stated that she had calls claiming some homes had been moved into in the Dahl Development, therefore, breaking compliance with the conditions. She also requested a review of Southwest Diversified's conditions of approval, and to keep the Commission apprised of the findings. Commissioner Ortega also questioned staff as to how a street (Ellis) could be completely blocked off without the City knowing of it. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS I. Mike Adams, Director of Community Development, reiterated action taken at the September 17, 1990 City Council meeting. The items included Parking Code revisions, Planning fees, an appealed Commission decision that was upheld (convenience/gas station), and the Zoning Ordinance Contract to rewrite Zoning Code. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO ADJOURN TO A SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1990 AT 5:00 P.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kj 1 APPROVEDI L BAY/ V � Mike Adams, Secretary 2- j 2., � 12, 44 V- a2,: � Planning CommissioiY Chairwoman PC Minutes - 9/18/90 -27- (7265d)