Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-18APPROVED AS CORRECTED 2-1-83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Schumacher CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE REVISED MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1982 AND THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 1983, WERE APPROVED AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: NOVE14BER 16, 1982: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None JANUARY 4, 1983: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter NOES: None ABSENT:. Schumacher ABSTAIN: Paone, Mirjahangir REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-65/USE PERMIT NO. 82-44 (Continued from 1-4-83 - Negative Declaration No. 82-41 approved on 1-4-83) Applicant: Huntington Breakers Limited A conditional exception request to allow a reduction in the front yard setback; 25% compact parking; a reduction in the minimum square footage of the one -bedroom units; and a 15 foot increase to the permitted build- ing height. The use permit is a request to permit the construction of a 342-unit apartment complex on property located on the east side of Beach Boulevard, approximately 1300 feet south of Atlanta Avenue. Savoy Bellavia stated that the redesign of the project eliminated the H.B. Planning Commission January 18, 1983 Page 2 deficiencies of the front yard setback. Chairman Paone stated that he listened to the tapes of the previous meet- ings and would be eligible to vote on this project. The public hearing had been opened and closed at the December 21, 1982 meeting. Commissioner Livengood asked staff if the proposed project would be im- pacted by the Main -Pier redevelopment project area. Mr. Palin stated that the proposed project area would have no bearing on the proposed apartment complex. Commissioner Winchell stated that she would be voting against the pro- ject because she is opposed to any increase in density in that area. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-65 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Because of the requirement by the Army Corps of Engineers to re- store and maintain the natural area located at the south portion of the property, there are exceptional circumstances related to the land that do not apply generally to properties within the general location and within the same zoning. 2. Because of the unique character of this restored and maintained' natural area, the granting of this conditional exception will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or in- jurious to the conforming land, property or improvements in the neighborhoods or the subject property. 3. The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purpose for which this conditional exception is sought and he will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. 4. Since the property owner/developer has been required by a federal agency to create and maintain a natural water element of 1.2 acres at the southerly end of the project, and the City is requiring that a frontage road be constructed in order to provide access to the project, the developable area has been greatly reduced in com- parison to similar -type developments in like -zoning classifications. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD USE PERMIT NO. 82-44 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: H.B. Planning Commission January 18, 1983 Page 3 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed apart- ment project 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 Use Permit No. 82-44 will not adversely affect the General Plan or the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated Janu- ary 14, 1983, shall be the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations. The architectural treatment depicted on the approved elevations shall be carried out on all four sides of the buildings. All displays used at the meetings of December 16, 1982 and January 4 and 18, 1983, shall be part of the approved plans. 2. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City which will assure the City that 25% of the total units of this project will be developed for persons and families of low and moderate income as defined by the County of Orange and Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. Said agreements shall be acceptable to the City Coun- cil, City Attorney's office, the Department of Development Services, the developer and the developer's lender. Said agreements shall be executed prior to the issuance of building permits for the first units of the first phase of the subject project. 3. Prior to the issuance of the building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City for approval, a tentative parcel map. A final map shall be reviewed by the City and recorded by the County of Orange prior to the occupancy of the first unit within the first phase of the subject project. 4. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the loca- tion of clothes dryers. 5. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the location of cooking fa- cilities, water heaters and central heating units. 6. Low volume heads shall be used on all showers. 7. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. H.B. Planning Commission January 18, 1983 Page 4 8. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or de- tached, shall be constructed in compliance with State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL con- tours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation standards of 45 Dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permits. All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project. 9. If lighting is included in the parking lot and/or recreation areas, energy efficient lamps shall be used, such as high pressure sodium vapor or metal halides. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. 10. A detailed soil analysis shall be prepared by a registered soil engineer. This analysis shall include onsite soil samples and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommenda- tions regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations and retaining walls, streets and utilities. 11. All foil -type insulation is to be used. A fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 12. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report in- dicating the ground surface accelleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the G-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and struc- tural members to withstand anticipated G-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. All buildings including the semi -subterranean parking structures, shall be fire sprinklered and/or constructed in accordance with all applicable fire prevention regulations and provisions as required by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 14. If at any time an entrance gate or gates are proposed for the ve- hicular access roads, location and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Development Services and by the Fire Department. 15. All approved drives shall be considered fire lanes and shall be signed as such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire De- partment. 16. The applicant shall be required to provide and install all traffic control devices as required by the Department of Public Works. 17. The applicant shall be required to dedicate and/or exchange equal I H.B. Planning Commission January 18, 1983 Page 5 amounts of roadway presently located onsite to the City for the property necessary to construct a frontage road and median strip along the easterly edge of Beach Boulevard. If the frontage road or any portion of said road cannot be constructed at the present time, the developer shall submit to the City a bond for the full cost of improving said frontage road. 18. A revised site plan shall also include provisions for landscaping along the easterly property line. If the landscaping is located on the Orange County'Flood Control District's property, the ap- plicant shall submit proof of easement to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. The developer shall be required to install vinyl coated, see -through fencing along the easterly property line adjacent to the flood control channel. 19. The proposed project shall comply with all provisions of Article 932 and any other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and/or Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 20. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for review and approval. Said plan shall depict intensified landscaping within the median adjacent to Beach Boulevard and the front setback of the proposed project. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, a plan for the establishment of the natural water element located along the south property line of the proposed project. Both agencies shall submit in writing to the City, cer- tification and approval of said water element design and construc- tion. 22. The proposed project shall comply with all flood plain development regulations in effect at the time the building permits are issued on the proposed project. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-32/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-12 Applicant: Robert Zinngrabe A conditional use permit request to permit the construction of seven units and a utility room to an existing retirement facility and a con- ditional exception request to permit a parking ratio of one space for each three units in lieu of the required parking ration of two spaces for each three beds. The subject property is located on the east side of Florida Street, -approximately 725 feet south of Main Street. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Roger Slates, representing H.B. Planning Commission January 18, 1983 Page 6 the applicant, was available for questions. Seeing there were none, the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued regarding the definition of a unit used in figuring the parking ratio. Commission consensus was that staff come back at the next regular meeting with a code amendment reducing the parking ratio, using bed counts. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-32 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-12 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (CE 82-12): 1. Approval of Conditional Exception No. 82-12 will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the conforming land, property or improvements in the neighborhood of the property for which such conditional exception is sought. A parking ratio of one space for each three units is more appropriate for a facility of this type. 2. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the land, buildings and premises that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same district. The facility has not experienced a parking problem since the construction of the project by the Board of Zoning Adjustments in 1973. At that time, a parking ratio of one space for each three units was used by the Board in approving the retirement facility. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (CUP 82-32): 1. The proposed addition of seven units is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not be detrimental to the general health and safety of those people residing in the area. 2. The proposed addition of the seven units substantially complies with the criteria set down in the Pacifica Community Plan District of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated De- cember 20, 1982, shall be the approved layout. 2. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of water heaters and central heating units. 3. Low volume heads shall be used on all showers. 4. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at on offsite facility equipped to handle them. H.B. Planning Commission January 18, 1983 Page 7 5. The structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical stan- dards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. The interior noise levels of all dwelling units shall not exceed the California insulation standards of 45 Dba CNEL. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report prepared under the supervision of a person experi- enced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permits. All measures recommended to mitigate noise to acceptable levels shall be incorporated into the design of the project. 6. If foil type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed and approved by the Building Division. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-29/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11883 Subdivider: Hess Circle Limited Surveyor: Donald F. Simons A request to convert an existing 16-unit apartment complex to a 16-unit planned residential development, on property located at 2202 Hess Circle, north of Utica Avenue, between Delaware and Florida Street. Jim Barnes explained to the Commission that, upon field observation, it was revealed that there is a room shown on the site plan that is presently occupied as a unit. Since this situation would affect the open space calculations, it would have to be mitigated before the Commission acts on the applications. For this reason, staff was requesting a continu- ance. Ronald Gesner, representing the,)applicant, was present for questions. He stated he would be willing to agree to the continuance. Because the item was advertised, the public hearing was opened. Seeing no one was present to address the Commission the hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-29 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11883 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1983, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: Resolution Designating Amended Redevelopment Project Area/Adopting Pre- liminary Plan for Main -Pier Area H.B. Planning Commission January 18, 1983 Page 8 Tom Tincher of the Redevelopment Department, gave an overview of the rationale used to identify the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area. He explained some of the benefits that would result such as an improved shopping center and frontage road and replacement housing. He reported a keen interest from the downtown businessmen to cooperate with the seismic safety ordinance. The Commissioners discussed the prospect of eminent domain and the overall benefit to the property owners in the project area. Mr. Tincher and Secretary Palin re-emphasized the benefit of funds being used through redevelopment to upgrade the existing build- ings. They further stated that the City Council established a strong policy to retain the businesses in the area, and that if displacement occurs, the agency has the obligation to provide relocation for that business or person. Commissioner Livengood asked if the high density figure of "more than 25 units" had a maximum. Staff replied that there was no upper limit on high density. Commissioners were also concerned about the boundary of the preliminary plan expanding further. Commissioners noted that the district map contained in the staff report did not reflect the cor- rect zone. Mr. Tincher assured the Commission that this would be cor- rected to reflect "R4-28", on Exhibit B of the report. Mr. Palin also stated that this district map would show the correct boundary. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER, COMMISSION APPROVED RESO- LUTION NO. 1300 DESIGNATING AN AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MAIN -PIER AMEND- MENT NO. 1 AREA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Paone, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Division 9 and Parking Ordinance Revisions Jim Barnes gave a brief presentation of the work done to date on the Division 9 Re -write, with the first phase being the parking ordinance revisions. Commissioner Porter asked if the revisions would reflect variances he noticed with the State Map Act. Mr. Barnes assured the Commissioner that these things would be addressed. Commissioners were also concerned about the length of time it would take staff to complete this undertaking. Mr. Palin said it would take anywhere from 12 to 18 months to complete. City Council Action at the January 17, 1983 Meeting Secretary Palin reported to the Commission that the City Council asked that the Land Use Element Amendment be split up so that four areas of concern would be dealt with. The City Council agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation on Area 2.2, the mushroom farm; on Area 2.4, Huntington Harbour, they completed taking public testimony, however did not make a decision. They directed staff to incorporate into the Specific Plan some additional provisions and bring back the process of a developer agreement. The direction City Council seems to be going is H.B. Planning Commission January 18, 1983 Page 9 to encourage the developer to propose fewer units and increase the park- ing ratio. They are also asking for further analysis on signalization in the area. On Area 2.5, the mobile home park, they concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation to go with the MHP designation. On Area 2.6, Banning and Magnolia, they continued this to an adjourned meeting on January 24, 1983. Also continued was discussion on the Planning Mode Study. They did approve the flood plain regulations, which will go into effect to coincide with the effective date of the federal govern- ment on February 16, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood asked the staff to state its policy regarding attendance at conferences, in particular, at the upcoming League of City's Annual Conference. Secretary Palin informed the Commissioners that although there were budgetary restraints, the.expenses could be paid for two Commissioners to attend. Commissioner Mirjahangir suggested that staff formulate a policy re- quiring developers to install energy -saving systems such as solar powered systems, in their developments. Secretary Palin took this opportunity to inform the Commissioners that Southern California Edison Company is working with staff to analyze the geothermal potential for the City to see if it is economically feasible. Chairman Paone announced that he will resign as chairman and as a member of the Planning Commission, effective after the next regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 P.M. to the next regular meeting of February 1, 1983. Tim Paone, Chairman