HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-21I
MINUTES
HUNTINGTON 13EACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Room B-6 - Civic Center
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach California
WEDNESDAY, MAY 21,1997 - 1:30 P.M.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Herb Fauland
STAFF MEMBER: Susan Pierce, Mary Beth Broeren, Kim Langel (recording
secretary)
MINUTES: February 5, 1997 Minutes were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: None
ITEM 1: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-16/VARIANCE NO. 97-8 (RECYCLING
FACILIT3a
APPLICANT: Mobile Recycling, 11292 Western Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680
PROPERTY OWNER: Savon Realty Inc., PO Box 27447, Salt Lake City, UT 84127
REQUEST: To permit a recycling operation consisting of two (2), eight (8) feet by
25 feet containers with variances to allow location within the required
parking area drive aisle and a reduction of three (3) parking spaces.
LOCATION: 100 11 Adams Avenue (north side of Adams Avenue, east of
Brookhurst Street)
PROJECT PLANNER: Susan Pierce
Susan Pierce, Staff Planner, displayed site plan and photographs stating the request is to permit a
recycling operation consisting of two (2), eight (8) feet by 25 feet containers with variances to
allow location within the required parking area drive aisle and a reduction of three (3) parking
spaces at 100 1 Adams Avenue. The containers would be used to collect newspapers, glass, soda
pop bottles and cans. Originally the applicant submitted plans that showed two (2) recycling
containers that were approximately eight (8) feet wide and 25 feet long adjacent to a landscape
planter. Staff requested that the applicant come up with an alternate proposal. The applicant's
second proposal was to locate the containers parallel to the building. Review of the proposal and
the parking layout for the center showed that the containers would encroach into the minimum
drive aisle area, so staff could not support the proposed location.
There is a current code requirement (based upon the mix of uses) at this site to have 490 parking
spaces, including three (3) spaces for the proposed use. There are currently only 457 parking
spaces provided in the center. Staff believes that a reduction to the minimum code requirements
for parking and drive aisle widths would be detrimental to the employees and customers at the
center. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to work with staff to find an alternate
solution.
Staff has received two (2) letters from the Store Maintenance Coordinator and Store Maintenance
Department of American Drug Stores. Both letters indicate the purpose of the recycling
containers are to satisfy a State of California requirement that a certified recycling center be
located within a half (1/2) mile zone of beverage dealers, or they will be subject to a fine. Staff
has suggested the use of reverse vending machines, but the applicant feels reverse vending
machines are a visual hazard and a detriment to the community.
Staff is recommending that the two recycling containers not be permitted due to the reduction of
the parking and the drive aisle, and the fact that there are alternate methods of recycling that are
available to the Sav-On Drugstore. Staff is recommending denial of the request with the findings
for denial as outlined in the staff report.
Herb Fauland, Zoning Administrator, stated that he had also received the letters from American
Drug Stores and a letter from Melba Overhall dated May 19, 1997, stating opposition to the
request. Mr. Fauland stated that he had visited the site and asked staff if they had considered
locating the containers behind the building. Staff stated that they had investigated that option,
however, adjacent to this property is a condominium complex and apartment complexes, and
staff felt that this might increase noise activity that could be detrimental to these residents.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED.
Don Conners, 10174 Ascot Circle, President of the Homeowners' Association of the adjacent
property, spoke in opposition to placing the containers in this center. He stated the center is
currently in disrepair and the addition of the recycling containers would decrease their property
values.
Susan Reese, 100119 Adams Avenue, business owner in the center, spoke in opposition to the
request. She stated that the center is already unattractive and the proposed use will have negative
impacts on traffic circulation.
Wendy West, 11292 Western Avenue, Stanton, applicant, stated that they are required by the
State to provide the recycling containers or be fined. Ms. West stated that the reverse vending
machines would be more unsightly and cause more problems for the center. She stated that
landscape screening would be provided to hide the recycling containers.
Roberta Jones, 10 15 8 Ascot Circle, stated concern with the location of the containers and stated
that putting them behind the center would be more conducive to the center.
ZA Minutes - 5/21/97 2 (97ZM0521)
Margaret Kieva, 19797 Margate Lane, spoke in opposition to the request stating that the
containers will be an eyesore and will have negative impacts to the center's traffic.
THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE
REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Herb Fauland, Zoning Administrator, asked staff if the proposed request was brought about by a
Code Enforcement violation. Staff stated that is was. Mr. Fauland stated that he has two
concerns, aesthetics and the parking variances. The first concern regarding aesthetics is brought
about by the recent adoption of the updated General Plan which has set goals and policies for the
aesthetic development of the City. The updated General Plan includes an Urban Design Element
which encompasses the aesthetics of the community. He noted that Brookhurst Street is
identified in this Element as a Primary Path/Image Corridor and should be considered whenever
a proposal is presented that may affect the corridors image. Mr. Fauland stated that he agrees
with the speakers concern that the center is run down and is in need of an overall renovation. His
second concern is the reduction in parking and reduced aisle width. He feels the proposed
located of the recycling containers will have a negative impact on the number of parking spaces
and the circulation pattern and access. He also noted that the applicant's alternative suggestion
to place landscape/tree containers along the arterial frontage would not visually buffer the use
adequately.
Mr. Fauland stated that he would be denying the application with the findings as outlined by staff
�yith an additional finding which states that the proposal does not meet the goals and policies of
the Urban Design Element.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-16 AND VARIANCE NO. 97-8 WERE DENIED
BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS FOR
DENIAL. HE STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-16:
1 . Conditional Use Permit No. 95 -3 0 for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a
staffed recycling facility will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or
residing in the vicinity and detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the
neighborhood. The recycling collection containers will be visible from Brookhurst Street,
having negative visual impacts to the neighboring residents and uses. Noise generated by the
use will affect area residents and commercial uses.
2. The proposed recycling center will not comply with the provisions of the base district and
other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 and any specific condition required for the
proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The proposed facility does not have
adequate parking at the proposed site. The proposed container location obstructs the required
drive aisle width.
ZA Minutes - 5/21/97 3 (97ZM0521)
3. The granting of the conditional use permit to allow a staffed recycling center will adversely
affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the General
Plan:
a. Require that Commercial General uses be designed and developed to achieve a high level
of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses and development.
(Policy LU 10. 1. 12)
b. Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach. (Goal UDI)
c. Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated corridors.
(Goal CE 7)
d. Enhance existing view corridors along scenic corridors and identify opportunities for the
designation of new view corridors.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - VARIANCE NO. 97-8:
1. The granting of Variance No. 97-8 for a reduction of three (3) parking spaces is not
necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. A recycling
center could be provided at the shopping center via reverse vending machines which would
not have to be located in the existing drive aisles.
2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape,
location or surroundings, which result in the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance
depriving the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
under identical zone classifications. The site is fully developed and could provide an
alternative means for recycling facilities.
3. The granting of Variance No. 97-8 will be detrimental to the public welfare or in urious to
property in the same zone classifications. The subject property is part of a commercial
center with non conforming parking. A minimum of 490 parking spaces are required for
the center including three (3) for the recycling facility and attendant. Only 457 parking
spaces are provided. A further reduction in parking spaces and drive aisle width will have a
negative effect on employees and customers of the center.
4. The granting of Variance No. 97-8 will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone
classification. The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requires that
sufficient parking be provided on site.
5. The granting of the variance for a reduction of three (3) parking spaces and reduction in drive
aisle width will adversely affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent with the following goals
and policies of the General Plan:
a. Provide safe and convenient parking that has minimal impacts on the natural
environment, the community image, or quality of life. (Policy CE 5.1.2)
ZA Minutes - 5/21/97 4 (97ZM0521)
I
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:00 PM BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 28,1997 AT 1:30 PM.
Herb Fauland v
Zoning Administrator
:kjl
ZA Minutes - 5/21/97 5 (97ZM0521)