Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02-22MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1964 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 7, 1984 MEETING, AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 84-1, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ITEM A-1 AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: Erskine ITEM A-2: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-2/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-01 Applicant: Mola Development Corporation A request for a conditional use permit to construct a 450,700 square foot commercial/office/hotel complex and a conditional exception to deviate from minimum requirements for setbacks and drive aisle widths at property located at the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. Mike Adams reviewed the staff's report. The public hearing was opened. Dick Harlow, representing Mola Development Corporation, gave his reasons for the request for approval. He stated that the original approved plan for this site did not include a spa or hotel, however, the hotel is now in abeyance. Both of these uses, along with the previously -approved theater, would utilize parking primarily in the evenings and weekends. He submitted a chart substantiating his assumptions of parking usage, based on a survey completed by Greer and Company Traffic Engineers. He also stated that people drive slower in a parking structure, relative to the applicant's request for reduced driveway widths in the parking structure. Another substantiation made by Mr. Harlow was that people working in the offices may be sick or out on vacation, which reduces the parking need. Dean Albright spoke to the issue of EIR 81-1 being adequate for this project. He felt that the traffic on Beach and Warner would overflow, impacting the surrounding residential area. He cited a similar situation in the City of Westminster at the corner of Westminster Avenue and Goldenwest Street, where a theater is next to a spa inside a shopping center. He said that it is nearly impossible to shop in the center when the theater is operating. The public hearing was closed. One of the assumptions on parking usage was based on the theater hours not conflicting with regular business hours for the offices. Commissioner Livengood questioned whether a theater owner should have to comply with such a request and, furthermore, did not agree that this would mitigate the problem as school is out three months of the year. He wanted to know the ratio of parking to uses. Commissioner Erskine disagreed and stated that whether the Commission thinks that it is fair or not is not the issue; that the developer would have to attract a theater owner who is willing to abide by that condition. Commissioner Winchell stated that when the applicant speaks of people being sick and on vacation from the offices, this was "nick -picking". She did not agree with approval of the plans for Beach and Warner. Mr. Harlow stated that the traffic signals at the corner of Beach and Warner were designed to accommodate the increased traffic. Chairman Porter requested Larry Greer to answer the question of how much of the conclusions in the parking survey and traffic report, were based on observation. He stated that the conclusion were primarily based on other similar centers in Orange County, in particular, Town Center in Costa Mesa.He also used government surveys. Mr. Greer stated that each of the floors on the parking structures holds 135 cars. He said that by going a half level down and a half level up he could get another 135 spaces. Commissioner Livengood questioned 4.4.2, Circulation in EIR 81-1 as to its adequacy for this project. He asked Public Works staff about the impact to the corner of Warner and Magnolia. Les Evans stated that this corner is a problem with or without the project approval and that Public Works is presently working to resolve it. Commissioner Livengood stated he did not like experimentation in our city and stated that "the parking is wrong". He recommended adding another level to the parking structure. -2- 2-22-84 - P.C. The applicant stated that he concurred for a continuance to the next regular meeting. Chairman Porter stated that, as far as direction to staff, he would prefer to have the applicant file for a conditional use permit rather than a site plan amendment for any future phasing. He further requested that staff contact the planning department in the City of Costa Mesa to get a summary of its approval of Town Center. He also requested a copy of the ULI report. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-2 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-01 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1984, WITH CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-34/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12115 Applicant: W & B Builders, Inc. A request to permit a separate 75 unit planned residential development on Lot 10 of Tract 9580 on property located at the southeast corner of Delaware and Atlanta. Mike Adams stated that this was brought before the Commission in October and, at that time, received approval for a zone change. He said there were some deficiencies, but the applicant has applied for a special permit. The public hearing was opened. Bill Gilmore, representing W & B Builders, questioned the condition dealing with street correction. He said half of the streets are on another tract and they have not yet been completed. The public hearing was closed. Discussion took place regarding the actual condition of the streets in the tract. Staff stated that some maintenance work, including resurfacing, needs to be done. Secretary Palin pointed out that it was W & B who are filing the application, that a full street section is necessary; that the units are occupied at the present time. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-34 WAS APPROVED WITH A SPECIAL PERMIT, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: A special permit was granted to allow the applicant to deviate from the following provisions: 1. Shortage in common open space and usable open space 2. Building separation deficiency 3. Building offset for units located side -by -side 4. Building bulk for roofline variation -3- 2-22-84 - P.C. 6. All approved drives shall be considered required fire lanes and shall be signed as such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 7. A fire sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in all structures deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 8. The covenants, conditions and restrictions shall contain a provision that will prohibit storage of boats, trailers and recreational vehicles onsite unless an area that is specifically designed for such storage, and which is in compliance with the provisions of Article 936, is provided for in this project. AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher,-Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND -BY ERSKINE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12115 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 5.04 acre parcel of land zoned Q-R2-PD is proposed to be constructed having 14.88 units per gross acre. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation for this type of housing. The proposed project complies with the land use element and all other elements of the General Plan. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for Medium Density Residential was placed on the property. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Development Services and the City Attorney's office prior to the recordation of Tract 12115. 2. The covenants, conditions and restrictions and a condominium map for the project shall'be recorded -prior to or concurrently with Tract 12115. 3. A reciprocal ingress and egress easement -agreement shall be recorded prior to or concurrently with Tract 12115. This agreement shall include the accesspoint located at the intersection of Mainmast Drive and Sundown Lane and the common streets shared by Tracts 12115 and 9580. -5- 2-22-84 - P.C. 4. Prior to the recordation of Tract 12115, the existing streets within the development shall be corrected to City standards and approved by the Department of Public Works. 5. A sewer, water and street maintenance agreement between Tracts 12115 and 9580 shall be recorded prior to or concurrently with Final Map No. 12115. 6. The tentative tract map received and dated December 20, 1983, shall be the approved layout. AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-1 Applicant: Atlantic Richfield Company A request to modify an existing service station to a convenience market selling self-service gasoline, food and groceries located at the southeast corner of Slater Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Mike Adams stated that the modification should be sent to design review board which includes closing of existing lube bays, striping for additional parking and new signing. The code also requires that a pass -through window be provided to prevent waiting inside the store for gasoline purchases. The public hearing was opened. Earl Keil, representing Atlantic Richfield, stated that he agreed with the conditions listed in the staff report and requested approval of the project to operate 24 hours a day. Warren DeBates, Don and Janet Gerrick, Tom Albers and Bob Sands, all residents in the surrounding area, gave their reasons for their objection to the proposed plan. It was cited that there was another "AM/PM Market" at the corner of Heil and Goldenwest, only a mile away, that it can become a "hang-out", that there is a noise impact and that it could be injurious for children as an attractive nuisance and with more consumption of "junk food". The applicant added that he would comply with the conditions. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Porter added the fact that he had received numerous phone calls from residents protesting the proposed plan. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-1 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed development will adversely affect surrounding properties. -6- 2-22-84 - P.C. 2. Data in petitions received from surrounding neighbors revealed that other similar businesses, open 24 hours a day, are operating within a mile from the subject site and that another "AM/PM Mini -Market" is approximately a mile north of the subject site. 3. The proposed use is not in conformance with the City's General Plan, inlcuding the goals and objectives for Central Park. 4. The Planning Commission determined from public testimony, that this situation would be an attractive nuisance and possibly hazardous for children. AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO. 83-69/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-3 Applicant: Great Western Savings A conditional use permit request to allow a parking lot in an R3 zone and a use permit request to allow construction of an 11,500 square foot financial building in a C4 zone located at the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Stark Street. Mike Adams stated that the Fire Department requested that a condition be added that a fire hydrant and water system be installed subject to their approval. The Chairman recommended that the applicant file for a zone change to prevent the west extension of the property from being developed as a separate parcel. His main concern was that the building could be sold somewhere down the line. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Welch, representing Great Western Savings, stated for the record that subject property was one parcel. He said the intention was to upgrade the building and, in the process, Beach Boulevard. Some discussion took place regarding the signing on the property. Albert Droth, the architect, stated that the existing pole sign will appear smaller with an added story on the building. The public hearing was closed. Discussion followed on the subject of a zone change. It was determined that this could be filed by the applicant prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and that lot consolidation would be completed, if appropriate. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL USE PERMIT NO. 83-69 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed project is compatible with the General Plan -7- 2-22-84 - P.C. designation of General Commercial and zoning of C4 (Highway Commercial District). 2. The proposed project is designed in accordance with all appropriate requirements of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 8, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop mechanical equipment plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. 3. Landscaping shall comply with Section 9792 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. Applicant shall pursue CalTrans approval of radius type driveways on Beach Boulevard. 6. Driveway on Beach Boulevard shall have a minimum width of thirty (30) feet. 7. The parking lot shall be signed for customer use only. 8. All signs shall comply with Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 9. Low volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 10. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 11. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. 12. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed -8- 2-22-84 - P.C. recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities. 13. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 14. On site fire hydrants and water systems, approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments, shall be installed in compliance with Fire Department and Public Works Department standards. 15. The applicant shall file for a zone change (with lot consolidation, if appropriate) to C4 at the time of taking out building permits and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-3 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed parking lot is compatible with existing residential land uses to the west and will not be detrimental to the general health and safety of those people working or residing in the immediate area. The residential properties located to the west are separated from the existing and proposed commercial building to the east by a 6 foot high masonry wall. 2. The proposed access to the parking lot will not create traffic and circulation problems. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 8, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Development Services and Public Works for review and approval. b. Rooftop mechanical equipment plan. Said plan shall indicate screening of all rooftop mechanical equipment and shall delineate the type of material proposed to screen said equipment. -9- 2-22-84 - P.C. 1 3. Landscaping shall comply with Section 9792 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. Applicant shall pursue CalTrans approval of radius type driveways on Beach Boulevard. 6. Driveway on Beach Boulevard shall have a minimum width of thirty (30) feet. 7. The parking lot shall be signed for customer use only. 8. All signs shall comply with Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 9. Low volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 10. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 11. If lighting is included in the parking lot, high pressure sodium vapor lamps shall be used for energy savings. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. 12. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities. 13. If foil -type insulation is to be used, a fire retardant type shall be installed as approved by the Building Division. 14. On site fire hydrants and water systems, approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments, shall be installed in compliance with Fire Department and Public Works Department standards. 15. The applicant shall file for a zone change (with lot consolidation, if appropriate) to C4 at the time of taking out building permits and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None -10- 2-22-84 - P.C. ,�1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-4/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-53 (Referred by BZA) Applicant: James/John Huish A conditional use permit request to permit a commercial recreation center with game room and a conditional exception to permit encroachment into front and exterior side yard setbacks and to allow development on a 4.43 acre site in lieu of a 5 acre minimum on property located south of Center Drive, west of Interstate 405 offramp and under the Edison right-of-way. Staff recommended denial as no hardship exists and encroachment would constitute a special privilege. Edison Company said that they will be putting their approval (as property owner) for the project in writing. The public hearing was opened. James Huish stated his reasons for requesting approval of the project. He said it is poor land and his center would improve the location and provide a necessary recreational service for the City in general. He cited his other location in Fountain Valley. He also stated that he has a 5-acre site. Tom Love, representing Huntington Shopping Center, stated that he agreed with the staff report for denial of the project. He said it would adversely affect the master plan for the area. The public hearing was closed. Some discussion took place regarding the proposed plan for parking. The angled parking was proposed due to constraints of the overhead electrical wires. Commissioner added a finding for denial that it would adversely affect the shopping center to the south. ON MOTION BY ERKSINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-4 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-53 WERE DENIED BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to justify creating a commercial recreation center on 4.43 acres in lieu of the required minimum 5 acres. 2. Encroachment into the required setback is not compatible with setbacks established for properties to the north and would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon those properties. 3. The granting of a'conditional exception will be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to property in the same zone classification. 4. The applicant has not demonstrated that granting of the conditional exception is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. -11- 2-22-84 - P.C. 5. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 83-53 will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL (CUP 84-4): 1. On -site parking and circulation have the potential of creating a congestion and circulation hazard both on and off -site. 2. Ingress and egress to the site has the potential of creating additional traffic impacts to the intersections along Center Drive. 3. Location of proposed go-cart track has the potential of creating noise offenses to the residential uses north of Center Drive. 4. Establishment of a commercial recreation center is not compatible with the residential uses to the north. 5. Game arcade is not located at an intersection with a traffic signal. 6. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 84-4 will adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 7. The Planning Commission has determined, by means of public testimony and written communication from surrounding property owners, that the proposed use would be detrimental to the adjacent commercial shopping center to the south. AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None Discussion continued regarding the denied project. Glen Godfrey stated that the BZA determined that the proposed plan was too intense for the area. Chairman called for a recess. Commission resumed at 9:40 P.M. PENDING ITEMS: Mike Adams brought the Commission up to date on progress of the pending items. Several items were added to the list including dual access off Beach Boulevard to Newland Center and bowling alley, temporary signs at the shopping center located at Springdale and Edinger and updating the subcommittee list. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Discussion took place regarding the Charter Center plans of undergrounding utilities. -12- 2-22-84 - P.C. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the last City Council meeting and the Coastal Commission, particularly the end of the pier cafe. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:05 P.M. to the next regular meeting of March 6, 1984. -Marcus M. Porter, rm n -13- 2-22-84 - P.C.