Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-19APPROVED JUNE 6; 1991 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY MARCH 19, 1991 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: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega 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 corm to speak prior to Oral Communication or Public Hearing items. No action can be Lak-on by the Planning Commission on this date, unless agendized. None B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO 91-1 (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5, 1991): APPLICANT: MR. RAY NEWTON LOCATION: 7551 Burton Drive (South of Slater Avenue, 100 feet west of Griffin Lane) On March 5, 1991 the Planning Commission continued Special Sign Permit No. 91-1 in order to allow the applicant to work with staff on code conforming wall sign alternatives. In addition, the Commission directed staff to investigate the possibilities of allowing the applicant a freestanding sign along Burton Drive for improved business street visibility. Staff has met with the applicant and has discussed wall sign alternatives. The applicant has not agreed to the wall sign alternatives as proposed by staff because the alternatives would require major modifications to the applicant's existing wall sign. Also, staff has informed the applicant that the site is permitted a freestanding monument sign along Burton Drive. The applicant has indicated to staff that he would like to proceed with the special sign permit request as submitted and pursue the code permitted freestanding monument sign at a later date. Based upon the aforementioned, Planning staff maintains its recommendation of denial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Special Sign Permit No. 91-1 with findings as outlined in the Planning Commission staff report dated March 5, 1991. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Ray Newton, 7551 Burton Drive, applicant, stated that he would like a monument sign but he would also like to keep his wall sign because of his shops poor visibility. Rita Healy, 16791 Bolero Lane, spoke in opposition to the request. Ms. Healy stated that it was not in line with the neighboring building signs. She felt a monument sign would be sufficient. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commissioners discussed the sign code adherence, and -encouraged the applicant to consider the use of the monument sign. It was also felt that the current wall sign was difficult to see. The Commission discussed modifying the conditions of approval to include the reduction of the letter size, elimination of the word "Ray" and removal of the horizontal bars if they were to approve. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-1 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Ortega ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -2- (9467d) Fj J A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 91-1 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Bourguignon, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Leipzig FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 91-1: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant. 2. The proposed 210 square foot non -illuminated business identification wall sign may adversely affect other signs in the area. The sign is excessive in sign area and is not proportional or compatible with the approved industrial signs in the area. 3. The proposed sign may be detrimental to property located in the vicinity of such sign because of the signs excessive area and because the sign is not compatible with existing and approved signs in the area. B-2 DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION N0, 90-28: APPLICANT: PACIFIC COAST HOMES LOCATION: Negative Declaration No. 90-28 addresses potential environmental impacts resulting from 15 non-contiguous subdivisions located in the Seacliff/17th. Street area generally bounded by 17th. Street, Palm Avenue, Goldenwest Street and Yorktown Avenue (see area map). Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 has been prepared by the City of Huntington Beach in order to adequately address potential environmental impacts associated with 15 non-contiguous tentative tract maps in the Seacliff/17th Street area as submitted by Pacific Coast Homes. The proposed subdivisions are located on former "oil island" parcels where oil production facilities have been abandoned. The 15 tentative subdivisions are low density development proposals which are generally consistent with the City's General Plan. Some of the sites are currently zoned High Density Residential (R4) and the applicant has submitted zone changes which redesignate the sites to Low Density Residential (R1). Two of the zone change requests will require an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program which is reviewed by the California Coastal Commission. PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -3- (9467d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Draft Negative Declaration No. 90-28 with mitigation measures and forward to the City Council for approval. The Commission stated their concerns regarding the park locations and size. They questioned staff whether the developer or the residents of the area would make these decisions. Staff stated that it was not the purpose of this hearing to discuss the parks but to discuss the negative declaration. The Commission also expressed concern over the 16 designated sites that were shown on the map, and the fact that only 15 were reported in the staff report. Staff explained the 16th would create no impacts. Staff stated that no plans are anticipated at this time, however, it was necessary that it be covered by an Environmental Assessment. Staff also stated that the negative declaration is only a checklist and if the Commission felt additional mitigation measures were needed, they should outline them to staff. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Russ Lines, 2120 Main Street, applicant, stated his surprise over last minute changes, and that he was opposed to changing the mitigation measure regarding the parks. He said the City cannot require dedication of land for park purposes and there is no obligation from Pacific Coast Homes for parks. Mike Adams, Director of Community Development, stated that the changes to mitigation measures came late because they must be specific. The City must collect land or fees. Debbie Cook, Save our Parks, stated the residents are patiently waiting for parks which should be designated now. She feels the residents deserve the parks. Nick Tomaino, 6812 Scenic Bay Lane, President Homeowners Association, stated that the parks were needed. He explained the concern of the residents that they be centrally located and accessible. Jeffrey C. Metzel, Jr., 19391 Shady Harbor Circle, stated there were two items not covered by the negative declaration. 1) Vehicular movement impact; and 2) Water recourse impact after adding 100 homes. Tom McGreevy, 6831 Scenic Bay, asked that Pacific Coast Homes be good neighbors and work with them to solve the problems. Ken Cain, 19512 Surfdale, stated his concerns regarding impacts created by traffic circulation, earth movement, water, non-resident traffic and noise levels. He feels the impacts from the above are too extensive for a negative declaration and an environmental impact report should be done. 7 L PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -4- (9467d) John Roe, 19382 Surfdale, stated that the environmental report was very difficult to read and the mitigation measures need to be more precise. Jim Crowse, (SP?) stated that the water was not covered adequately. He said there was nothing in the study about where water would go or who would pay for a new pumping station. Nancy Howard, 6551 Morning Tide Drive, asked where is the ultimate location for the soil taken for studies and who will monitor it. Dennis Groat, Fire Department, stated that the soil which contains crude oil in its natural state was not hazardous waste. City code does require that the soil be cleaned and treated before it can be built on and the Fire Department will monitor process. Jay Kreitz, 19781 Island Bay Lane, felt the request should be denied or continued until it can be tied in with the Holly-Seacliff proposal. His major concern was increased traffic impacts. Cathy Bush, 6581 Morningtide, stated concern with higher density and traffic access. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Planning Commission directed staff to re-evaluate potential impacts relating to seismic, drainage, circulation, emergency response, park space and water demand. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 90-28, IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO RE-EVALUATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF CONCERN TO THE COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Leipzig NOES: Newman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Bourguignon, B-3 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-531CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-2: APPLICANT: SUBBARO & SARAH MYLA APPELLANT: COMMISSIONER ROY RICHARDSON LOCATION: 16941 Bolero Lane PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -5- (9467d) Coastal Development Permit No. 90-53 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-2 is a request to add a second story to an existing one (1) story single family dwelling pursuant to Section 989.5.2 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. These items were approved by the Zoning Administrator on February 6, 1991 and have been appealed to the Planning Commission by Commissioner Richardson. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Coastal Development Permit No. 90-53 with findings and conditions of approval and deny Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-2 with findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. John Cowles, 17471 Mashie Circle, architect, explained the changes and variances as it would impact the neighbors. Sarada Mylavarapu, 16183 Caribou Street, feels the addition will add beauty to the neighborhood and not obstruct neighbors views. She stated it would be an asset to the community. Lois Holly, 16931 Bolero Lane, spoke in favor of the addition. Ms. Holly is a neighbor to the applicant and feels it will be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. Subb Myla, 16941 Bolero Lane, applicant, showed the Commission letters of support from his neighbors. He stated that many homes within the harbour are varied, and they do not compromise their neighbors. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioners Richardson and Newman were concerned that a hardship did not exist for the requested variance. The Commission discussed whether the variance was essential to the addition. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-53 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Bourguignon, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Leipzig PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -6- (9467d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 90-53 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1 AYES: Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Bourguignon NOES: Leipzig, Richardson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-53: 1. The request to permit the remodel and second story addition to an existing one-story single family residence conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of The Coastal Element of the General Plan. The proposed project will not obstruct ocean views or access. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 90-53 is consistent with the CZ suffix zoning requirements, the R1 Zoning District, as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. The property meets all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed remodel and addition to an existing two-story single family residence will be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Element of the General Plan. All required infrastructure is currently in place. 4. The proposed remodel and addition to an existing two story single family residence conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project will have no impact upon public, water oriented recreation or access. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-2: 1. Because of special circumstances created by the existing building, including size and shape, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an awkward floor plan for the upper -story. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 91-2 is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an awkward floor plan for the upper -story. PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -7- (9467d) 3. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 91-2 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. The additional coverage will not result in a structure that would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will not be detectable to the naked eye. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 91-2 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed two story single family dwelling is permitted within the low density residential district designated by the General Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations submitted March 14, 1991 shall be the approved layout. B-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-12/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT NO. 91-5: APPLICANT: MR. & MRS. BERNARD DAVIS LOCATION: 202 Sixth Street Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12 and Coastal Development Permit No. 91-5 is a request to permit the construction of a three (3) story single family dwelling with four (4) special permits: 1) 52.3 percent site coverage in lieu of the 50 percent maximum permitted by Section 4.6.05 of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP); 2) to permit a portion of the dwelling to be placed at a five (5) foot minimum front yard setback in lieu of fifteen (15) as required by Section 4.6.06 of the DTSP; 3) to permit a five (5) foot upper story setback (side) in lieu of twenty-five (25) feet required by Section 4.6.09 of the Downtown Specific Plan; and 4) to permit a seventeen and one half (17.5) foot turning radius in lieu of twenty five feet as required by Section 9603.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 91-5 and Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12. The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action on the Special Permits: Special Permit Subject 1 Site Coverage 2 Front Setback 3 Third Story Setback 4 Turning Radius Action Deny No special permit is necessary if the structure is placed five (5) feet to the rear of the property. Approve a 7 1/2 foot avg. Approve 1 PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -8- (9467d) 1 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Bernard L. Davis, 607 - llth Street, applicant, stated he felt significant restraints were put on his lot that were not typical of downtown. Mr. Davis also explained the two (2) variances that staff could not support. Keith Wichner, 1721 Pine Street, realtor, reiterated Mr. Davis's comments, stressing that the lot did carry a hardship. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission asked the applicant if the changes made by the Design Review Board were acceptable to him. Mr. Davis said they were acceptable but staff's modifications were not. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECOND BY NEWMAN, TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-5 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Bourguignon, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Leipzig A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECOND BY NEMAN, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-12 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Bourguignon, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Leipzig After Item B-6 Commissioner Shomaker asked for a reconsideration vote on the foregoing item. Commissioner Shomaker had mistakenly made the motion to approve with staff's modification, her intent had been to approve as recommended by the Design Review Board. This vote will be reflected in the minutes at this point for clarification purposes. PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -9- (9467d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECOND BY NEWMAN, TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE OF ITEM B-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-12 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-5 BECAUSE COMMISSIONER SHOMAKER HAD MISTAKENLY MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF'S MODIFICATIONS, HER INTENT HAD BEEN TO APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECOND BY NEWMAN, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-12 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 91-5, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Bourguignon NOES: Richardson, Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-5 SIX MONTH REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-6 HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK EQUESTRIAN CENTER (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 5, 1991) APPLICANT: National Equestrian Centers 18381 Goldenwest Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: (West side of Goldenwest Street, between Talbert and Ellis Avenue Conditional Use Permit No. 90-6, a request to expand the Huntington Central Park Equestrian Center, was approved by the Planning Commission on March 20, 1990. Condition No. 24 of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-6 required that a six month review be conducted by the Planning Commission. On December 4, 1990, the review was conducted by the Planning Commission. At that time, the staff reported that approximately eight conditions of approval had not been complied with by the applicant, and that three conditions were permitted to be bonded. After review by the Planning Commission, the Commission voted to allow the applicant 60 days in which to comply with the outstanding conditions of approval. PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -10- (9467d) On February 5, 1991, the Planning Commission again reviewed Conditional Use Permit No. 90-6. At that time, the staff reported that the applicant was making substantial progress on the outstanding conditions of approval including grading and security lighting. At that time, the Commission took no action and were informed by staff that this item would be brought back on March 19, 1991 as a public hearing item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the six (6) month review and schedule an additional non-public hearing review for July 16, 1991, to evaluate restroom facilities and review the status of bonded items. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Connie Mandic, spoke in favor of the request. Ms. Mandic stated that the improvements began at the request of citizens. She said the applicant has complied with all conditions of approval within their control. Berleen Pashby, 8647 Indian Hill Road, Escondido, stated that she has traveled the country and seen many horse stables. Ms. Pashby said this stable it is common for is well lite and very water to stand after clean. She also stated that rain. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE THE SIX MONTH REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-6 AND SCHEDULE AN ADDITIONAL NON-PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW FOR JULY 16, 1991, TO EVALUATE RESTROOM FACILITIES AND REVIEW THE STATUS OF BONDED ITEMS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Bourguignon, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Leipzig B-6 SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 91-1: APPLICANT: NATIONAL EQUESTRIAN CENTERS, INC. LOCATION: 18381 Goldenwest Street (Westside of Goldenwest St. approximately 650 feet north of Ellis Ave.) PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -11- (9467d) Site Plan Amendment No. 91-1 is a request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 90-6 which was approved by the Planning Commission on March 20, 1990 and the approved site plan for the expansion of the equestrian center facilities. The amendment is to permit the use of with the existing office facility to house a 24-hour security guard code required on -site parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Amendment No. 91-1 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. CONNIE MANDIC, 1112 Main Street, spoke in favor of the request. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission discussed approval of the lighting at the site, and if lighting was required for the entrance'sign. A MOTION WAS MADE KIRKLAND, SECOND BY NEWMAN, TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-1 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-1: 1. The revision which includes the use of an existing facility as a 24 hour caretaker's unit does not constitute a substantial change. 2. The use of property as an equestrian center will remain the same. 3. The revision which includes the use of an existing facility as a 24 hour caretaker's unit results in an improved development. The security guard will provide improved security and immediate care in case of emergency. 4. The revision complies with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -12- (9467d) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-1: 1. The site plan received and dated January 10, 1991 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modification: a. Two (2) parking spaces shall be designated for caretaker's parking and located within 200 feet of the caretaker's quarters. 2. The applicant shall submit a copy of the revised site plan, pursuant to condition no. la for review and inclusion in the entitlement file prior to the issuance of a certificate to operate. 3. All conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 90-6 shall be adhered to and completed prior to issuance of a certificate to operate for the occupancy of the caretaker's unit. 4. The Fire Department requirements are as follows: a. A smoke detector shall be installed pursuant to Fire Department standards. b. Fire Department access shall be provided pursuant to City Specification No. 401 or to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 5. The Police Department requirement are as follows: a. The telephone number of the caretaker's unit shall be provided for Police/Fire Emergency Contact. 6. A Certificate to Operate shall be issued by the Department of Community Development as required by Section 9730.80 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke this site plan amendment if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. PURSUANT TO PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS PUBLIC HEARINGS AFTER 11:00 PM REQUIRES AN APPROVED MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AFTER 11:00 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Bourguignon, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Leipzig PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -13- (9467d) B-7 ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-22: APPLICANT: WEST COAST SOCCER LEAGUE LOCATION: 7561 Center Avenue #8 (Northwest corner of Center Avenue and Huntington Center Drive) Conditional Use Permit No. 88-22 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 2, 1988, which permitted an annual Oktoberfest from mid -September to mid -November for a maximum of five years. Condition No. 2 on the original conditional use permit requires an annual review by the Planning Commission prior to the event. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve annual review of Oktoberfest from mid -September to mid -November as required by Condition No. 2 of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-22 with all prior conditions of approval to remain in effect. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Ron Pattinson, 18600 Main Street, representing West Coast Soccer League, stated he agreed with the staff report and urged approval. He also asked the Commission to consider the revision of Condition No. 2, allowing future annual reviews to be heard by the Zoning Administrator. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-22, WITH THE REVISION OF CONDITION NO. 2 WHICH WILL ALLOW FUTURE ANNUAL REVIEWS TO BE HEARD BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED REVISED CONDITION OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-22: 2. Prior to future Oktoberfest annual events, approval by the Zoning Administrator must be granted. Requests for subsequent events shall be made no later than February prior to each future event, with review and public hearing by Zoning Administrator no later than March. The Zoning Administrator shall review and evaluate past events for compliance with all conditions of approval and determine the need for new or modification of conditions of approval. The Zoning Administrator may approve, conditionally approve or deny such requests. PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -14- (9467d) 1 B-8 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO 91-3 IN CONJUNCTION WITH PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO, 90-11: APPLICANT: WOODS SIGN AND LIGHTING LOCATION: 18822-18862 Beach Boulevard (Southeast corner of Beach Boulevard at Constantine Drive) Accept the applicant's request of a sixty (60) day continuance for Special Sign Permit No. 91-3 in conjunction with Planned Sign Program No. 90-19. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO CONTINUE FOR SIXTY (60) DAYS SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 91-3 IN CONJUNCTION WITH PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 90-19, AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1 RESOLUTION TO AMEND SECTION 10 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS PERTAINING TO PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE: REQUESTED BY: COMMISSIONER LEIPZIG At the Planning Commission meeting of March 5, 1991, the Commission directed the City Attorney's office to prepare a resolution limiting motions to reconsider previously approved items. Resolution No. 1445 will require that any motion to reconsider a Commission action must be made at the meeting at which the vote was taken. Also, the reconsideration must be heard at a public hearing agendized for the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. This resolution will amend the Planning Commission By -Laws. Commissioner Leipzig stated that since reconsideration was not a topic in the Commission by-laws and the only guidance they had was Roberts Rules of Order, the Commission should adopt Resolution No. 1445 in order to clarify the procedure. The Commissioners expressed concern regarding the restrictions this put on reconsideration especially in situations where new evidence may become apparent. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1445, THERE WAS NO SECOND, MOTION FAILED. PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -15- (9467d) C-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO 91-3 (CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 5, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING): APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LOCATION: Northwest corner of Goldenwest Street and Clay Avenue General Plan Conformance No. 91-3 was continued from the March 5, 1991 Planning Commission meeting due to a 3-3-1 vote; a split vote results in an automatic continuance. The request is to review the disposition of a 12,240 square foot parcel owned by the City of Huntington Beach, as it conforms to the City's General Plan. The subject property is currently vacant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve General Plan Conformance No. 91-3 pursuant to Section 65402 of the California Government Code with suggested findings. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO DENY GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 91-3 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Shomaker, Kirkland ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Ortega MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 91-3: 1. Disposition of the subject property would deprive the City of a parcel that is of potential use for water facilities, such as a reclaimed (recycled) water reservoir, because of its relatively high elevation, which is of hydraulic advantage because of minimized energy costs of pumping water. 2. The conveyance would be inconsistent with the following policies contained in the General Plan: a. Achieve wise management and planned utilization of the area's water resources by encouraging water conservation, reclamation, and desalinization. (2.1.2.2) b. Provide and maintain an adequate level of community facilities and municipal services in all community areas. (3.3.5.1) PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -16- (9467d) 11 1 C. Improve and upgrade community facilities when necessary. (3.3.5.1) d. Promote the provision of adequate community facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. (3.5.6.1) e. Incorporate energy -saving measures and devices in the design of new City buildings. (3.5.6.3) f. Investigate opportunities for City involvement in resource recycling activities. (3.5.6.4) C-3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 23, 1991 A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARDSON, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 23, 1991, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Bourguignon, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Leipzig D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1 THREE (3) MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89 APPLICANT: BOY'S & GIRL'S CLUB LOCATION: West side of Delaware Street approximately 345 feet south of Yorktown Avenue. The applicant Chris Schneider representing the Boy's & Girl's Club of Huntington Valley, is requesting a three (3) month extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 89-70 in conjunction with Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-66 and Negative Declaration No. 89-64 which was approved by the Planning Commission on February 6, 1991. Conditional Use Permit No. 89-70, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-66 and Negative Declaration No. 89-64 is a request to construct an 18,000 square foot Boy's & Girl's Club located within the 5.8 acre McCallen Park. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-66 is a request to reduce the amount of code required parking from 182 parking spaces to 63 parking spaces. PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -17- (9467d) The applicant is requesting the three (3) month extension of time because of delays in preparing an earthquake fault study as a result of the project being located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Study Zone. In addition, the applicant has encountered delays in preparing modifications and corrections for the required grading and landscape plans. To date, the applicant's progress includes the finalization of all necessary geotechnical reports, obtaining grading and building permits and expects foundations and construction to begin within the next 90 days. Staff recommends that two (2) additional conditions of approval be added to the project as a result of the requested extension of time. These conditions of approval shall be added to the project to put the developer on notice regarding new City fees pertaining to Water and Traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a maximum three (3) month extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 89-70, Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-66 and Negative Declaration No. 89-64 to May 16, 1991, with all previous conditions of approval to remain in effect and two (2) new conditions added: 1. The developer shall be responsible for the payment of Traffic Impact Fees at the time of final building permit inspection. 2. The developer shall be responsible for payment of any additional fees adopted in the upcoming Water Division Master Plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO APPROVE A THREE (3) MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME, AS SUGGESTED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-11/CONVENIENCE MARKET WITH BEER AND WINE SALES - ANNUAL REVIEW UPDATE: APPLICANT: AHMAD MOZAFFARI/MAX MARKET LOCATION: 17438 Beach Boulevard (Eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of Slater Avenue). PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -18- (9467d) 1 On February 6, 1991, the Planning Commission tentatively scheduled a revocation hearing of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-11 within 30 days unless the applicant was able to demonstrate immediate and consistent compliance with the conditions of approval. The review determined that the applicant was in non-compliance with the conditions of approval associated with signage for the center. In order for the applicant to indicate compliance with the conditions of approval, staff noted that the applicant must submit for review and approval a planned sign program for the center along with the applicant's request for a special sign permit to retain the freestanding pole sign. On February 13, 1991, staff, the applicant and property owner met to discuss the annual review and the submittal of a planned sign program. The applicant and property owner are currently working with a representative of Superior Electrical Advertising Company on the final details of a planned sign program. Staff has been in contact with the sign representative and notes that the planned sign program will be submitted prior to the end of March. After staff review, the planned sign program and special sign permit request will be processed concurrently for Planning Commission action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission accept the annual review update and continue the review to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to submit the planned sign program application and allow staff to schedule the hearing process accordingly. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO ACCEPT THE ANNUAL REVIEW UPDATE AND CONTINUE THE REVIEW TO APRIL 16, 1991, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -19- (9467d) D-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-40/FAMILY BILLIARDS AND ARCADE CENTER - ANNUAL REVIEW UPDATE: APPLICANT: TECH YIN AND KORK YAN/ROCKETS AND POCKETS LOCATION: 19092 Beach Boulevard, #L On January 23, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the annual review of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-40 to establish a family billiard and arcade center (Rockets & Pockets). The Planning Commission based their action upon the condition that the property owners and Homeowners Association within 300 feet of the project are notified and have no objections to the Planning Commission's approval of the annual review. On February 28, 1991 Planning staff mailed 142 notices to all property owners within 300 feet of the project. To date, no written notices of objection have been received by the Community Development Department and, therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve and accept the annual review as conditioned. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the annual review update of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-40 as conditioned and schedule the annual review accordingly. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO ACCEPT THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-40 AS CONDITIONED AND SCHEDULE THE ANNUAL REVIEW ACCORDINGLY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 89-6(A)/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13439: APPLICANT: THE DAHL COMPANY On March 8, 1991, the Department of Community Development was notified that numerous Eucalyptus trees located within Tract No. 13439 had been trimmed, thinned out and cut down. Code Enforcement staff were sent to the site to determine the extent of the work being done by the Dahl Company. The majority of the work had been completed when Code Enforcement arrived; however, photographs were taken to document the tree work. PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -20- (9467d) Condition No. 3b of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6(A) states that: "Removal or replacement of any trees shall not take place during the nesting period of any native wildlife, or prior to April 1, 1990". Although the condition identifies April 1, 1990 as the time prior to which removal cannot occur, staff would suggest that April 1, is the key date rather than the year. The intent was to protect nesting areas during the nest construction or nesting time periods. Should the Commission determine that a violation of condition no. 3b has occurred, the Commission may choose to schedule a public hearing for the purpose of taking public testimony and determining whether a revocation hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 89-6(A) should be scheduled. The Commission discussed with staff the total disregard of the conditions of approval, the year 1990 erroneously placed in the conditions and what could be done to correct the situation. Staff told the Commission that no permits were issued for cutting trees, and staff never authorized any work. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO SCHEDULE A REVOCATION HEARING FOR APRIL 16, 1991, WITH A STATUS REPORT AT THE APRIL 2, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-5 HARBOUR CODE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Code Amendments to Articles 911, 977, 973 and 908 transmitted for review and discussion. DISCUSSION ONLY - NO ACTION TAKEN D-6 ELLIS/GOLDENWEST PARK ISSUE: DISCUSSION ONLY - NO ACTION TAKEN E. DISCUSSION ITEMS None PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -21- (9467d) F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES Commissioner Ortega - stated that the she.had seen banners on the Blockbuster sign pole that had recently come before the Commission, and requested staff to check on their permits. G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS Mike Adams, reiterated City Council action of February 18, 1991. Actions included the approval of Pierside Restaurants, approval of Bijan Sassonian's project and the continuation of Meadowlark Master Plan appeal. Mr. Adams also informed the Commission of a joint study session with City Council on April 1, 1991 at 5:30 PM. I. ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO ADJOURN TO A 7:00 PM JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL, ON APRIL 29, 1991 AND THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kj 1 APPROV D BY: 11 1"V Mike ams, Secretary lanni Commiss on hairperson PC Minutes - 3/19/91 -22- (9467d)