Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-25APPROVED 10/20/92 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY AUGUST 25, 1992 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California SPECIAL MEETING - 5:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P (5:10) P P P (5:10) P ROLL CALL: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, P P (5:10) Newman, Leipzig A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (4 MINUTES PER PERSON, NO DONATING OF TIME TO OTHERS) Anyone wishing to speak must fill out and submit a form to speak prior to Oral Communication or Public Hearing items. No action can be taken by the Planning Commission on this date, unless agendized. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ACTING CHAIRPERSON RICHARDSON, SECOND BY NEWMAN, TO WITHHOLD ORAL COMMUNICATIONS UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS WERE HEARD, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bourguignon, Richardson, Dettloff, Newman NOES: None ABSENT: Inglee, Shomaker, Leipzig (arrived late) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Commissioner Inglee stated he would be abstaining from Public Hearing Item B-1 due to a conflict of interest. After the public hearing items the Oral Communications were opened. There were no persons present to speak and the Oral Communications were closed. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 92-17 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 92-28/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 14666/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-14 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 18, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency/Coultrup Development Company, 13001 Seal Beach Boulevard, No. 300, Seal Beach, CA 90740 LOCATION: Two block area as follows: Block 104 bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, 5th Street, Walnut Avenue, and Main Street. Block 105 bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, 6th Street, Walnut Avenue and 5th Street. At the August 18, 1992 meeting, the Planning Commission was unable to take a majority vote to approve or deny the project, and therefore, continued this request with concurrence from the applicant. They directed the applicant to submit an up to date and internally consistent set of plans (site plan, elevations, floor plans and tract map) reflecting the changes discussed by the applicant over the last couple of weeks. This is necessary to allow the Commission to better understand the current development proposal which has evolved through incremental design changes since the original submittal. Staff received a revised set of plans on August 20, 1992. An analysis of the plans has been performed. A discussion of the plans, updated zoning conformance matrix, updated special permit matrix, commercial open space, parking, and revised findings and conditions of approval are included in this report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT THE AUGUST 18, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. A discussion ensued regarding the open space, its quality and quantity, and whether it meets the intent of the Specific Plan. A handout had been passed out from the applicant, Jon Coultrup, to the Commission. The Commission took a straw vote to determine if they should go through each item with the applicant. The straw vote passed with 5 ayes, Richardson noe and Inglee abstaining. Jon Coultrup went through each item on his handout. Staff stated, after the presentation, that they were non -supportive of the project, even with the changes suggested by the applicant. PC Minutes - 8/25/92 -2- (4681d) J Commissioner Dettloff thanked the applicant and staff for their work on bringing the project together for their review. She stated she would be voting against the request for the following reasons: concerns with open space; more pedestrian amenities needed; parking insufficient; concerned with the moving of property line on Block 105 to achieve more open space rather than an actual redesign of the project; and the conformance to the Downtown Specific Plan requiring commercial in Block 105. Commissioner Richardson also felt the request did not meet with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan. Commissioner Shomaker stated that she felt commercial in Block 105 was not viable, and the Downtown Specific Plan was wrong. The Commission suggested that if they did not approve this project tonight, perhaps they could relay modifications to the applicant that would meet with the Commission's preference. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-17 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 92-28, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14666 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-14, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bourguignon, NOES: Richardson, ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Inglee Shomaker, Leipzig Dettloff, Newman MOTION FAILED BECAUSE OF A SPLIT VOTE: A MOTION WAS MADE BY NEWMAN, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-17 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 92-28, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14666 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 92-14 IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE AN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Inglee MOTION PASSED Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, The Commission wished to express by Council that there the action failed. the appeal to City was a 3:3 vote o The vote to den Council y minute action to the City n a motion to approve, therefore, was taken in order to expedite PC Minutes - 8/25/92 -3- (4681d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 92-17 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS• 1. The proposed project does not meet the visitor serving commercial land use policies of the Coastal Element and the Downtown Specific Plan by not providing commercial land use along Pacific Coast Highway between Fifth and Sixth Streets, public open space amenities, and for not providing project long-term parking needs. 2. The project is located in District 3 of the Downtown Specific Plan; however, the plan fails to implement a fundamental specific plan policy to maintain a pedestrian level visitor serving commercial orientation throughout the project with public open space amenities. 3. The project does not meet the Specific Plan criteria to be analyzed as a two (2) block consolidated project area, because the two (2) block project is not spatially or architecturally integrated and substantial public open space amenities are not provided. 4. Numerous special permits are proposed although the project does not offer any of the following additional benefits suggested by the Specific Plan to allow for special permit approval: greater open space, greater setbacks, unique or innovative designs, public parking, public open space and the use of energy conservation or solar technology. 5. Approval of the proposed project would adversely affect the City's General Plan. SPECIAL PERMITS: 1. Additional project benefits such as greater open space, greater setbacks, unique or innovative designs, public parking, public open space and the use of energy conservation or solar technology are required for the approval of special permits. 2. The proposed project does not provide any of the above benefits, and furthermore, requests a reduction in the provision of all the above project characteristics. 3. The propose project is inconsistent with the fundamental visitor serving commercial land use policies of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Coastal Element. Special permits can not be approved unless the project is shown to be consistent with the applicable land use planning policies. 4. The proposed project does not offer a better living environment nor does it employ better land use planning techniques because the project does not offer the required residential and commercial open space amenities and visitor serving commercial orientation. PC Minutes - 8/25/92 -4- (4681d) 1 5. The proposed project will be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood and detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood because it is inconsistent with the long term development goals and standards of the downtown specific Plan. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO 92 28: 1. The Downtown Specific Plan specifies that parking shall be provided in combination of on -site and off -site provision. Off -site provisions shall be located within 350 feet of walking distance from the project site. 2. The proposed plan does not indicate how long term parking needs will be met through on -site and off -site provision, and therefore, the project is inconsistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and the Coastal Element. 3. The first phase development of the Main Pier Phase II development project required that parking be provided in an on -site parking and loading structure or in combination with an on -site parking lot and off -site provision. The proposed phase II development does not propose an on -site parking and loading structure, and there are no provisions for off -site parking; therefore, the Phase I parking condition of approval previously approved by the Planning Commission can not be met. 4. The Downtown Master Parking Plan to provide parking for the downtown area has not been adopted, and therefore, provision for long term parking needs can not be met. 5. Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 89-6 and addendum did not include a statement of overriding considerations for parking impacts, and therefore, has been certified under the assumption that project parking impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance and/or has been provided. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 14666: 1. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision does not offer the required dedications required by the Specific Plan and the City's master circulation plan. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 92-14: 1. The proposed development does not conform to requirements and standards of the Huntington of the General Plan by not providing ground along Pacific Coast Highway, and pedestrian amenities. the plans, policies, Beach Coastal Element floor commercial use open space and access PC Minutes - 8/25/92 -5- (4681d) 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 92-14 is inconsistent with the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix, the Downtown Specific Plan as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property by not meeting land use policies and the applicable development standards. C. CONSENT CALENDAR None D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS/INQUIRIES None F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS None G . ADJOURNMENT A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO ADJOURN TO A 4:00 PM STUDY SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 AT CITY HALL, FOR A TOUR OF THE LINEAR PARK AND THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Inglee, Bourguignon, Richardson, Shomaker, Dettloff, Newman, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kj 1 APPROVED BY: 1 �Wvl Mike Adams, Secretary ;nning ommission Chairperson PC Minutes - 8/25/92 -6- (4681d)