Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-24MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 WEDNESDAY, February 24, 1988 - 1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PRESENT:- James W. Patin STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kelly Main Thomas Rogers MINUTES: Minutes of February 10 and 17, 1988 were approved by the Zoning Administrator James Palin, Zoning Administrator, asked staff if there were any continued items. Kelly Main, staff member, stated that two requests for continuance had been made. The applicant had requested that Tentative Parcel Map No. 87-421, which was continued from last week, be continued as she was ill. Mr. Patin stated that he would grant the continuance for only one week. Ms. Main continued that the applicant for Tentative Parcel Map No. 88-131 requested the item be continued to March 9, 1988. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 87-421 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 88-131 WERE CONTINUED UPON REQUEST OF THE APPLICANTS BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO MARCH 99 1988. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: USE PERMIT NO. 88-3 IN CONJ. W/ CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 88-1 Applicant: James F. Casey Use Permit No. 88-3 is a request to permit a 10,000 sq. ft. industrial building to be located at 5622 Research Drive and to be used for storage within 150 feet of residentially zoned property. Conditional Exception No. 88=1 is a request to permit a 10,000 sq. ft. industrial warehouse building with, less than the required 8% of net site of landscaping, a 27 ft. side yard setback in lieu of the required 30 ft., elimination of the 6 ft. landscape buffer required because the property backs a community facility, and an 11 ft. wide parking space against a wall in lieu of the required 11.5 ft. This request is covered by Environmental Impact Report No. 73-16. Kelly Main, staff member, reported that the applicant initially asked for four variances from code. These variances included a reduction in required landscaping, parking stall width, and sideyard setback, and elimination of the six foot landscape buffer required because the property abuts a community facility. The applicant is now asking for variances from the side yard setback and the buffer. The applicant has attempted to meet his -1- landscaping requirement and parking requirement. The staff has made up an alternative plan for a narrower building which is approximately 60 ft. wide by 155 ft. long. Staff has spoken to the applicant about his requirements for rack space, loading area and office space, and this plan meets all the code requirements and increases the applicant's racking area, landscaping area, building area, number of parking spaces, loading area, office and research and development space. Staff stated that the applicant could develop the property fully, even with consideration of the easements, and meet all code requirements. In addition, others on Research had been required to meet setback, parking and landscaping requirements, therefore, granting Mr. Casey the variances would be granting special privileges. Staff is recommending denial. Mr. Patin reopened the public hearing asking Mr. Casey, applicant, if he had any comments. Mr. Casey stated that he was waiting for an opinion on the buffer from the legal department. Mr. Casey stated that the alternative plan restricts his business operation with a building of that width. Applicant stated that he has a new set of plans meeting parking and landscaping requirements, leaving the request for the 6 ft. buffer variance along the school site. He stated the buffer is in conflict with an easement held by the Edison Company. Mr. Patin stated that there are certain restrictions that the Edision Company will place on the easement, for instance, Edison will not let you sever any lines, but staff had confirmed with the Edision Company that they will not restrict the applicant from putting minimal landscaping on this easement. Mr. Patin stated that there are several underground easements throughout the city with landscaping. It is an easement by Edison and it is a requirement by the city for a buffer so the applicant must show justification of why there should not be any landscaping done. Mr. Casey stated that the code requires a tree every 25 ft. in the buffer and that this would create problems for the Edison Company. If the trees cause damage to anything underground he would be liable for damages. Mr. Patin stated that staff could waive the tree requirement, and that they could be placed in alternative locations on the site. Mr. Casey stated that if those easements were not there the building could go back to the property line which would allow the basically square building which is needed and the applicant's number one priority. There was no one else present to speak for or against the request so the public hearing was closed. Mr. Patin stated that over the number of meetings that the hearing has been continued for the applicant to work with staff to resolve the variance requests there has been little progress. He stated that the driveway entrance to the property is awkward with two parking spaces extremely close to the entrance and with the tremendous jog the driveway takes. The side yard setback variance is unnecessary to develop the property fully. The proposed building is too wide for this configuration of property, a configuration legally created by Mr. Casey. Every aspect of the building has been enlarged through staff design. The overall building area has been increased. Landscaping on the site has been increased. Three more parking spaces have been added to the site. The racking area for storage has been increased. The work area has been increased by over 300 sq. ft. The loading and office space has been increased by almost 500 sq. ft. The applicant's plan as submitted has a design hardship and there is no justification for the variance. Mr. Patin stated that he would approve Use Permit No. 88=3 with the condition that the alternative staff layout be the plan pursued for construction on the property and deny Conditional Exception No. 88-1 with findings. -2- USE PERMIT NO. 88-3 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 88-1 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 88-1: 1. Because of the size, configuration, shape and lack of unique topographic features of the subject property, there does not appear to be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that does not apply generally to property or class of uses in the same district. 2. An alternative site plan layout was prepared and reviewed with the applicant which would provide the applicant with increased building area, landscaping, parking, racking, loading, office, Research and Development and product display area. This alternative site plan also reduced a conflict with access to the parcel and parking at the front property line. This alternative is in compliance with applicable standards, ordinances and codes for the M1-A zone. 3. Since the subject property can be fully developed within regular established setbacks, such a Conditional Exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 4. The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. S. Granting of Conditional Exception No. 88-1 would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. 6. Exceptional circumstances, including private easements, do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone classifications. 7. Encroachment into the required setback is not compatible with setbacks established for properties to the East and West and would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon those properties. 8. On -site parking and circulation are inadequate and have the potential of creating a congestion and circulation hazard. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 88-3 - STAFF ALTERNATIVE: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use 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 the Use Permit No. 88-3 will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed use properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. -3- 5. The access to and parking for the proposed use does not create an undue traffic problem. 6. The staff alternative provides a building with roll -up doors facing adjacent industrial property and no opening toward the community facility. This should mitigate some of the noise to which the adjacent facility might be subjected. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted depicting the modifications described herein: a. The alternative layout presented by staff, with any modifications prescribed by the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department as necessary, shall be shown. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the following plans: a. Landscape and irrigation plan to the Department of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval. Trees will not be required in the rear 6 ft. landscape buffer, however, the number of trees normally required for the area will be made up elsewhere on the property. 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. c. Grading plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 3. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed prior to final inspection. 4. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. 5. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 6. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. 7. Maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two inches (29. 8. Driveway approaches shall be a minimum of twenty-seven feet (271) in width and shall be of radius type construction. 9. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 10. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, a noise report shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Development Services. The noise report shall meet the requirements set out in Section 9510.18 in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. -4- 12. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of water heaters, and central heating units. 13. Low -volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. 14. 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. 15. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the subject property shall enter into an irrevocable restrictive covenant limiting use of the building to warehouse with 2,400 sq. ft. of area for office, Research and Development and product display. A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and, when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. A copy shall be filed with the Department of Development Services prior to occupancy. 16. All applicable Public Works Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 2. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 3. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. ; This analysis shall include on -site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 4. Landscaping shall comply with Sections 960 and 951 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke Use Permit No. 88-3 if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88=1 IN CONJUNCTION -WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-1 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Coastal Development Permit No. 88-1 in conjunction with Environmental Assessment No. 88-1 is a request to abandon existing 33 inch storm drain under the municipal pier and install approximately 1,300 lineal feet of miscellaneous sized storm drain under Pacific Coast Highway and or State of California property located on Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and 7th Street. This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 86-1. Eric Charlonne, representative from Public Works, stated staff has incorporated State of California property located on Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and 7th Street. -5- This request is covered by Negative Declaration No. 86-1. Eric Charlonne, representing Public Works, reported that Public Works has incorporated the design of an energy dissipator for the nuisance water alono with a concrete V-Gutter to confluence with the existing system. The other modification is the drop inlet design at 5th Street. We layed out the configuration and elevations for the energy dissipator and the V=Gutter along with the bike trail and existing box culvert of nuisance water. He stated that they will be taking out some trees but they will be replace someplace else. He stated that they are in the process of working through the State Real Estate Division in acquiring this easement which may take between 6 month to 2 years, but we will still need the easement and the reason we are working with the State is because they are the legal owner. He stated that they have requested for additional building setback of five feet off the alleged easement in conjunction with development in this area. The public hearing was opened. There was no one to speak for or against the request so the public hearing was closed. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-1 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-1 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 88-1: 1. The project proposed by the CDP application conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the C-LUP and, therefore, the General Plan. 2. The Coastal Development Permit is consistent with the CZ suffix, the base zoning district or specific plan as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. 3. The proposed project is a portion of Orange County's 25 year storm/flood plan and is necessary to provide infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with C-LUP. 4. The proposed project does not affect the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and elevations received and dated January 11, 1988 shall be the approved layout with the modifications described herein: a. Easement on State of California lands (within parking lot) shall be shown. 2. Prior to construction, a grant deed for a perpetual storm drain easement shall be obtained from the California Department of General Services and recorded. This easement shall apply to appropriate areas owned by the State of California and effected by this project. 3. Provide Fire Department with a time line and/or schedule of construction for emergency response purposes on Pacific Coast Highway. 4. Notification shall be provided to Fire Department prior to beginning construction. 5. Service roads and fire lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted and marked. 10 6. 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. 7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a grading plan shall be submitted to the City's Department of Public Works. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project may be required by the Director of Public Works if deemed necessary. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 2. The applicant shall meet all applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 3. The Zoning Administrator reserves the right to revoke this Coastal Development Permit No. 88-1 if any violation of these conditions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 87-381 Applicant: Mark Chi Tentative Parcel Map No. 87-381 is a request to consolidate four lots into one lot located at 17082 Palmdale Street. This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Section 15315, Class 15, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Staff member, Kelly Main, reported that this consolidation involves three parcels, a vacated street and a vacated ally. There are some problems with the the information provided on the parcel map. Mr. Palin asked staff if there was a problem with the dimension from the property line to the centerline. Ms. Main said yes and stated that she spoke to the applicant regarding this. Mr. Palin asked staff if the applicant has seen the findings and conditions of approval. Ms. Main stated yes. Mr. Palin asked the applicant if he concurred with the findings and conditions. Applicant stated yes. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 87-381 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed consolidation of three parcels, one vacated street and one abandoned alley for purposes of industrial use is in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary 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 use. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for community business district allowing commercial buildings was placed on the subject property. -7- 4. The size, depth, frontage, street width and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standards plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. CONDITIONS OF -APPROVAL: A. TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO USE OR OCCUPANCY OF SAID PARCEL(S) FOR ANY PURPOSE: 1. The Tentative Parcel Map received by the Department of Community Development on February 8, 1988, shall be the approved layout (with the amendments as noted thereon), with the following modifications: a. Proposed buildings shall be removed from the tentative parcel map. b. Indicate the creation of one parcel by labeling subject parcel and darkening proposed parcel lines. c. Remove public right -of=way from the tentative parcel map and correct distance from property line to the centerline of Palmdale to 30 feet. d. Include notes on the tentative parcel map which describe: 1. Existing use or uses of the property and present zoning. 2. Proposed use of property. If property is proposed to be used for more than one purpose, the area, lots or lot proposed for each type of use shall be shown on the tentative map. 3. Statement of the improvements and public utilities, including water supply and sewage disposal, proposed to be made or installed and the time at which such improvements are proposed to be completed. 4. Public areas proposed. 5. Restrictive covenants proposed. e. Remove from plan notes regarding parking to be provided. f. Corners of parcel to be appropriately marked. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water system at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed (if such systems exist within 200 feet of said parcel(s).- 4. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's sewage system at the time said parcel(s) is/are developed (if such systems exist within 200 feet of said parcel(s). 5. Indicate transformer pad and fire backflow preventor locations on landscape plans required for Administrative Review No. 87-36. 6. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcel is developed. 7. Compliance with all applicable City Ordinances. 8. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Community Development. 9. All vehicular access rights along Palmdale Street shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the Zoning Administrator. 10. All applicable Conditions of Approval of Administrative Review No. 87-36 shall apply including, but not exclusively the following: a. All public works improvements shall be constructed to the center line of Palmdale Street. b. Street plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. c. Applicant shall install street lights per Public Works standards. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO: 88-2 Applicant: Diversified Shopping Center Site Plan Amendment No. 88-2 is a request to modify an approved site plan for 5942 Edinger (SW corner of Springdale and Edinger), by reconfiguring Building A, amending the parking layout and eliminating from Condition of Approval #7 (sprinkler system for Security Pacific National Bank). - This request is covered by Categorical Exemption, Class 5, California Environmental Quality Act, 1986. Staff member, Kelly Main, reported that there are a series of plans and entitlements for the project starting with the Conditional Exception granted in 1986 for landscaping of 5.7% of the site rather than the required 6% and a driveway entrance that does not meet all of the requirements for the commercial entrance. This application is for an amendment to that conditional exception. Between their present application and the Conditional Exception in 1986, the applicant came in with a phasing plan to break up the change allowed by this Conditional Exception into two phases. The first phase consisted of exterior improvements to the existing stores and the second phase involves the construction of Building A and several additions to existing buildings. Site Plan Amendment 88-2 is the request to change the square footage of the addition to Save -On to revise the location and square footage of Building A with a resulting change in parking. Staff is recommending approval of the Site Plan Amendment with the condition that the revisions to the site plan required for the original Conditional Exception be made. Additionally, staff would like to require that prior to occupancy of Building A, Phase 1 and Phase 2 be completed. Staff did not find any conditions in the original Conditional Exception that Phase 1 be completed before Phase 2 be started, or complete the landscaping in Phase 1 which is important and should be a condition on occupation of Building A.- Another concern staff has is the effect the revised parking is going to have on landscaping, therefore, staff suggests that a revised landscape plan be submitted for the site prior to issuance of building permits or occupancy. Staff then presented an alternative to the proposed location of Building A and the drive aisles around Building A. The alternative location should improve circulation on the site. Mr. Palin asked the applicant if he had any comments. Greg Collins, representing Diversified Shopping Center, discussed with staff landscaping, location of building, circulation and parking. Applicant stated that his company would need approval of the alternative plan from Von's and Save -On, and that it might be difficult to get approval from these tenants in a timely manner. Lee Weider, Consultant for Diversified Shopping Centers, stated that his client is under pressure for time from the owner. Mr. Palin stated that he would trail the Site Plan Amendment so that the alternative plan would be defined and pursued by staff and the applicant. In discussing a secondary driveway, Mr. Palin stated that he was not concerned about the driveway opening immediately adjacent to Calfed, and that there will ultimately be a raised median that will restrict the driveway in front of Fotomat to right -in and a right -out at some future date. Mr. Palin assured the applicant that the city would work actively to assist with Vons and other tenants who need to be contacted to expedite the possible relocation of Building A some 35 to 37 ft. to the northeast from its original pad, adding that no other closures of driveways or reconfiguration of parking be required other than that which has been discussed with the applicant for the most westerly property line. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 88-2 WAS TRAILED TO MARCH 2, 1988 BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO THE FEBRUARY 29, 1988 STUDY SESSION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. ies W. Palin ing Zoning Administrator 2640r -10-