Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-07 (6)Approved July 20, 1982 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, July 7, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None ELECTION OF OFFICERS: ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TIM PAONE WAS NOMINATED AND ELECTED FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Paone (NOTE: Frank Mirjahangir is a new member of the Planning Commission and will not vote until being sworn in as a member.) COMMISSIONER PAONE ASSUMED THE POSITION OF CHAIRMAN. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER MARC PORTER WAS NOMI- NATED AND ELECTED FOR CHAIRMAN PRO-TEM OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Porter CONSENT CALENDAR: Staff announced that an additional item was added to the consent calendar which was a conformance with the General Plan. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1982, AND A CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 82-5 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 2 ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-12/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-08/ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-558 (Continued from June 15, 1982) Applicant: Robert J. Zinngrabe To permit: 1) the construction of an eleven story, 68,261 square foot office/medical building; 2) a reduction in lot area, lot cover- age, and reduction of parking for the proposed building; and 3) a subdivision of one parcel of land into two parcels for the construc- tion of said building. Subject property is located on the east side of Delaware Street approximately 450 feet south of Main Street with- in the Pacifica Community Plan area. Jim Barnes gave a brief presentation stating that an additional con- dition was distributed to the Commissioners that was inadvertently omitted from the staff report. Also distributed was a letter from the applicant regarding restriping of the parking lot. After some discussion on this issue, the applicant stated he would like to withdraw his request stated in the letter. Since the public hearing was opened and closed at the previous meeting, Chairman Paone did not reopen the public hearing. Dis- cussion took place regarding parking requirements, small parcel coverage, etc. These concerns were incorporated in the motions listed below. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-12 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the City's General Plan and the purpose and intent of the Pacifica Community Plan. 2. The proposed use will not adversely affect surrounding proper- ties provided that the existing parking lots are reconfigurated pursuant to the layout contained in the revised site plan dated June 30, 1982. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The revised site plan received and dated June 30, 1982, and floor plans and elevations received and dated May 13, 1982, shall be the approved layout. 2. The applicant shall execute an agreement with the City subject to the approval of the City Attorney -which guarantees that with- in one year of the date of approval of this application, or within 90 days of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs sooner, a parking study shall be conducted at the expense of the applicant reviewing the adequacy of parking for the facility. Based on the parking study and review by the Department of Development Services, if it is determined that parking is inadequate, the applicant shall be required to take steps to provide additional parking to eliminate congestion. As stated by the applicant in his letter to James Palin dated May 5, 1982, such steps shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Staggering work shifts and requiring employees to park in low use areas of the parking lot. b. Revise the parking lot layout to provide 20 percent compact car parking. This can be done with minor changes to the parking lot. c. Revise the parking lot layout to provide 40 percent compact car parking. This will require major modifications to the present parking layout. d. Revise the parking lot layout to provide 40 percent compact car parking and construct a parking structure to accommodate the parking needs. The chosen method shall be at the discretion of the Planning Commission. 3. The applicant shall designate Lot B as employee parking except for approximately 20 spaces which shall be designated for con- valescent hospital guests. 4. The applicant shall install directional signing subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works at the Florida Avenue access and within the proposed employee parking area (Lot B) to direct visitors and patients to the appropriate parking areas. 5. Off -site improvements (i.e., streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc.) shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 4 6. Sewer, drainage and water improvements shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works Department standards. 7. The subject building shall be provided -with systems related to fire and life safety as deemed necessary by the Fire Department and all applicable codes. 8. All rooftop -mechanical -equipment shall be fully screened from view. The building shall be painted a color scheme which is reviewed -and -deemed acceptable by the Director of -Development Services. 9. An engineering -geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the -ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this develop- ment shall be -constructed in -compliance with the,g-factors as indicated -by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits..-_ AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND,SECOND BY"LIVENGOOD TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-558 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS "FOR -APPROVAL: 1. The proposed subdivision of one parcel into two parcels for the purpose _of commercial development is -in --compliance with the size and -shape of property for that type of development. 2. The -General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of land use. 3. The property was previously studied for thisintensityof land use at the time the land use designation for office professional allowing construction of a building was placed on the subject property. 4. The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design improve- ment features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file -with the City"as well as in compliance with the State Minutes, H.B. July 7, 1982 Page 5 Planning Commission Map Act and supplemental subdivision ordinance and provisions contained in Conditional Exception No. 82-08. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Department of Develop- ment Services on June 25, 1982, shall be the approved layout subject to amendments as delineated by the Department of Public Works. 2. No additional structures shall be allowed on either Parcel 1 or Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 82-558. 3. A parcel map shall be filed and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 4. The parcel map shall comply with all applicable City ordinances. 5. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the De- partment of Development Services. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-08 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. There are exceptional circumstances which apply to this pro- perty that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed on other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications becuase of the off configuration of the lots. The proposed amount of parking within the development is ade- quate because of the joint use of all parking facilities within the development and lesser demand demonstrated through infor- mation submitted by the applicant and the staff's analysis. 2. Granting of this conditional exception request will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification because the proposed project will not adversely impact surrounding property and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Pacifica Community Plan District. 3. Since Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 82-558 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 6 are integrated, the lot coverage on Parcel 1 combined with Par- cel 2 does not exceed the allowable 25 percent of the overall site. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN or CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5 (Continued from June 22, 1982) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the the east. The Plan will be the zoning for the area. It requires a minimum project size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited to no more than two feet of cut and two feet of fill, and the drain- age swale areas are delineated at open space corridors in which no residential development will be allowed. The plan also delineates a system of internal collector streets for the area and a backbone system of riding trails. Environmental Impact Report No. 82-1 has been prepared for this specific plan. The public hearing remained closed. The Commission received a list of their proposed revisions from the June 22nd staff report, that they did not get a change to discuss at the meeting held on that day. Chairman Paone asked the Commissioners to deal with this in the same manner as the consent calendar, pulling any revisions that needed further discussion. The following items were pulled for in- dividual discussion and straw vote: Page 22, Section 5.3.3.7 Apply uniform architectural standards to all common stable facilities. After staff's clarification, the following straw vote was taken. A "yes" vote will recommend that the Specific Plan not contain detailed uniform architectural standards for common stable fa- cilities. AYES: Higgins, Livengood,_ Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Page 22 Section 5.3.3.7 Require the developer to build the common stable facility. A "yes" vote would recommend the requirement to provide area for Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 7 one horse per every two dwelling units with the developer re- quired to construct 50% of any proposed common stable facility. A "no" vote retains the "one -for -one" requirement with the de- veloper being required to construct only 25% of any proposed common stable facility. The straw vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Page 22, Section 5.3.3.7b Do not allow "one acre of riding area" to satisfy requirement. Require a fenced arena of 5,000 square feet for every 15 horses. Commission consensus agreed with this recommendation, however, a straw vote was taken to add clarifying language to explain that if there was one more horse than 15 (or, in other words, a 16th horse)it will require an additional 5,000 square feet of arena area. This vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Page 24, Section 5.3.3.8 All common improvements (stables, trails, perimeter project fencing, common open space landscaping, etc.) should be constructed by developer prior to sale of lots. Commission agreed with staff's recommendation to remove the word "stable" from the listing since it is discussed in detail pre- viously (on Page 22). However, Commission took a straw vote to determine if "wash rack" should be added to the examples listed. The vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Page 26, Section 5.3.3.9 Require that four oil island sites in Subarea Two be mandatory rather than optional. After staff's clarification of this recommendation. A "yes" vote will indicate that access will be preserved in Subarea Two on a voluntary basis. The vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Pace 31, Section 5.3.3.13.lr Relax the turnaround radius re- quirement on long driveways. Staff did not agreed with this recommended revision because the requirement is set forth in the Uniform Fire Code. However, Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 8 Commissioner Schumacher felt it was asking "too much" of the de- veloper. A straw vote was taken to include other alternatives such as hammerhead streets, circular drives and cul-de-sacs in lieu of turnarounds to fulfill the requirement. The straw vote resulted in the following: AYES: Higgins, Paone NOES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Discussion on the above straw vote ensued. It was further clari- fied that the Fire Chief has the right to waive these requirements which are set forth in the Uniform Fire Code. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THIS SECTION WAS DELETED AND WILL BE REPLACED WITH A REFERENCE TO ITS TRUE ORIGIN IN THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher NOES: Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The following straw vote was taken to approve of the recommended revisions which were not pulled for discussion: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 82-1 WAS DEEMED ADEQUATE AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:_ ____Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1292 APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-5 (ELLIS- GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN) WITH REVISIONS APPROVED IN THIS AND PREVIOUS MEETINGS TO INCLUDE THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO BE GOTHARD STREET, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, -Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO RECOM- MEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE, BY RESOLUTION, THE RE- Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 9 IMBURSEMENT OF CITY COST FOR PREPARATION OF THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN. THIS VOTE RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWING TIE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Higgins, Paone, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Paone called for a 5-minute recess. Commission reconvened at 7:50 PM. Commission consensus was that the issue regarding the two draft ordinances on the previous item should show some action. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE TWO DRAFT ORDINANCES WERE ADOPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 82-4 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach The conformity to the General Plan of a proposal to retain 2+ acres as an addition to Irby Neighborhood Park, located north of Marilyn Drive and east of Dale Vista Lane, and declare the remaining 6+ acres of undeveloped park as surplus to the needs of the City. Chuck Clark and Bob Aldrich of staff gave a brief slide presentation. Before opening the public hearing, Chairman Paone cautioned the public who wished to address this issue, to address the issue at hand which is a statement that the proposal conforms to the General Plan; and not looking at any particular design or use. Commissioner Higgins asked if there would come a time that the particular use of the area could be addressed by the public. Staff stated that this would occur at the time an application is filed. Commissioner Winchell stated that she felt the Planning Commission should deal with the purpose of the land use at this time. The public hearing was opened. Gerald Klein, Esq., stated that the land which was dedicated as parkland can only be used as such; and further recommended that an EIR be conducted in the area. Other concerns voiced by the public included traffic and safety impacts and the possibility of liquifac- tion in the event of an earthquake. The following persons addressed this issue: Marilou Shipman Tom Stone Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 10 Pete Holman George Suttles Theresa Ayers Cordell Viehweg Tom Miller Barbara Flynn The public hearing was closed. The Commissioners discussed the con- cerns raised by the public testimony and felt that there were many questions which were not heretofore addressed by staff, as follows: Can dedicated and gift properties be sold? What would the cost be to prepare the property for Rl use? What is the history of this land and how was it acquired by the City? (Include a map and address the treatment record of each segment.) Although the Open Space/Conservation Element was addressed by staff, there are other elements that were not addressed by staff (i.e., traffic, seismic, etc.), including a statement from the City Attorney's office on an EIR. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY HIGGINS TO CONTINUE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 82-4 TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 82-19 (APPEAL) Appellant/Applicant: Sun Computers An appeal of the conditions of approval imposed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments pertaining to landscaping and signing require- ments. The original request was to establish retail sales in an existing building located on the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Holt Avenue. The applicant stated that the conditions imposed by the BZA regarding landscaping were now solved, however, the applicant was still taking exception to the requirements re- garding signing. The public hearing was opened. D. Graham, representing Sun Computers, spoke in favor of granting the appeal. Also speaking in favor of granting the appeal were Jim Costanzo, representing the owner of the building; and Ronald Brindle. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 11 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE THE APPEAL TO USE PERMIT NO. 82-19 BY OVERRULING THE CONDITIONS RELATING TO SIGNING BY THE BZA. THIS MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell NOES: Higgins, Paone, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED BY THE BZA ON USE PERMIT NO. 82-19 WERE UPHELD WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING FOR DENIAL: An alternate sign height is available which would provide sufficient exposure. AYES: Higgins, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Livengood, Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-14 Applicant: Lonnie Painter A request to permit a video game arcade in an existing building located on Main Street, approximately 75 feet northwest of Walnut Avenue. A letter was received by the applicant requesting a con- tinuance. The public hearing was opened. Speaking against the application were Ted and Gigi Mauter. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL USE PER- MIT NO. 82-14 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JULY 20, 1982, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-6 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach An amendment to Section 9331 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, which will allow temporary.storage of recreational vehicles in the Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 12 Ml-A (Restricted Manufacturing) District. The public hearing was opened. Seeing no one came forward to ad- dress this item, the public hearing was closed. Brief discussion took place regarding the number of industrial units that would fit the present criteria. Savoy Bellavia further suggested a modification to the ordinance which will include elimination of language under Section 9512 that prohibits recreational vehicle storage in the Ml-A District. Commission consensus agreed with this modification. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-6 WAS APPROVED WITH AMENDED REVISIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: Revisions to the Coastal Element The Commission was asked to take straw votes on all proposed revi- sions to the Coastal Element except for intensities. A study ses- sion has been scheduled for July 19, 1982, at which time staff will have additional analysis of reduced intensity limits. A straw vote was taken to determine the Commission's pleasure with the proposed revisions. A "yes" vote agreed with these revisions, as follows: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None Presentation on Energy Conservation Initiatives' - Keith Neuman of staff gave a presentation of the report he prepared on energy conservation initiatives in the'City. City Council Action of June 28 and Julv 6. 1982 Secretary Palin informed the Commission of the action taken by City Council at their meetings of June 28 and July 6, 1982. The City Council overruled the Planning Commission decision of Use Permit No. 81-40 (the Biddle property), allowing the use to go in with stipulations. The "Ranch" project was referred back to staff to resolve problems in the layout to comply with open space corridors. Other issues discussed by Council were quit claiming of the rail- road right-of-ways; Article 973, Miscellaneous Provisions; the Ayers miniwarehouse project, etc. Frank Mirjahangir, who was appointed to the Commission by Councilman Thomas, was welcomed. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 7, 1982 Page 13 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Florence Webb informed the Commission that a joint study session to discuss the Downtown Specific Plan would be held on July 19, 1982, instead of July 12. Since the meeting is scheduled to start at 5:30 PM, dinner will be served. COMMISSION ITEMS: Orange County Planning Commission Conference Chairman Paone thanked Commissioner Livengood for attending this important conference and preparing a comprehensive report which benefited the Commission. OTHER ITEMS: Commissioner Porter requested staff to investigate trees that were cut to expose a sign located in front of a medical office at the corner of Adams Avenue and Magnolia Street. Commissioner Livengood requested staff to review the revisions to Article 979 regarding parking for office facilities. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Paone adjourned the meeting at 11:10 PM to a joint study session on July 19, 1982, in the Council Chambers. Tim Paone, Chairman