Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-27MINUTES Huntington Beach Planning Commission Tuesday, August 27, 2002 Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 Study Session Room B-8 5:16 P.M. 1. 4:45 p.m. THE STRAND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OVERVIEW (BLOCKS 1041105) — Herb Fauland 2. 5:15 p.m. PARKSIDE ESTATES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OVERVIEW (171 SFR) - Mary Beth Broeren 3. 6:15 p.m. AGENDA REVIEW — Herb Fauland 4. 6:20 p.m. MAJOR PROJECTS UPDATEIPLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES — Herb Fauland 5. 6:25 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Dingwall, Dean Albright, Mark Bixby, Bob Harrison, Eileen Murphy, Joe Buelee and Monica Hamilton spoke regarding the Parkside Estates project. David Roefer spoke regarding Old World Village. _Regular Meeting City Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P A ROLL CALL: Stanton, Kerins, Hardy, Shomaker, Livengood, Kokal, Porter APPRECIATION TO OUTGOING COMMISSION MEMBER CONNIE MANDIC - Chairperson Shomaker presented Resolution No. 1576 and a gift of appreciation to outgoing Commission Member Connie Mandic. PC Minutes August 27, 2002 Page 2 AGENDA APPROVAL A motion was made by acclamation to move Public Hearing Item No. B-2 to the beginning of the Public Hearing agenda. The minutes reflect items listed in their original order. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Monica Hamilton, Kenilworth Drive, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Parkside Estates development by Shea Homes. She urged the Commission to deny certification of the EIR because of deficient information related to traffic. Bob Dingwall, Huntington Beach, spoke regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Parkside Estates development by Shea Homes. He discussed the Slater Pump Station and County flood -related information. Dean Albright, Breda Lane, Huntington Beach, spoke regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Parkside Estates development by Shea Homes. He pointed out that traffic information related to Marine View School was not included in the study, and also discussed the Slater Channel flood control capacity. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-07/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-09NARIANCE NO.02-12 (KOURY RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING): Applicant: Keith Bohr Request: To permit the construction of a two-story 8,455 square foot retail/office building with 4,005 square feet of retail space on the first floor and 4,450 square feet of office space on the second floor. The proposed request includes a parking variance for ten (10) spaces based on a reduction in the designated parking in the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Location: 428 Main Street (East side of Main Street, south of Pecan Avenue). Project Planner: Paul Da Veiga Coastal Development Permit No. 02-07/Conditional Use Permit No. 02-09 request: - Construct an 8,455 square foot, two-story retail/office building on a 5,650 square foot vacant lot within District 6 of the Downtown Specific Plan. - Site improvements include 200 square foot outdoor patio and four parking spaces located at the rear of the building. • Variance No. 02-12 request: - Reduction of ten (10) parking spaces identified in Block H of the adopted Downtown Parking Master Plan. • Staff's Recommendation: Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 02-07, Conditional Use Permit No. 02-09, and Variance No. 02-12 based upon the following: - Negative impact on future development based on the proposed elimination of ten parking spaces. (02p=0827) PC Minutes August 27, 2002 Page 3 - Conflicts with the adopted shared parking analysis which provided the basis for retail, restaurant, and office development within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. - Creates a precedent for future development to eliminate identified parking in the Downtown Parking Master Plan. - Impacts future development by resulting in a reduction in the build out square footages for retail, restaurant, and commercial development in Block H of the DPMP. - Disrupts the current balance of parking between Area 1 and Area 2 of the DPMP Staff made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner's Stanton, Kerins, Hardy, Livengood and Kokal disclosed that they had spoken with the applicant, adjacent property owners, and visited the project site. Commissioner Shomaker was unable to stay for the remainder of the meeting and excused herself from further action. Questions/comments included: • Downtown Parking Master Plan map and requirements (based on types of use, availability and area demand) • Downtown build outs • Unimproved parking • Retail versus office (number of spaces) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Jeff Bergsma, Team Design, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item and discussed design issues, parking, and parking reductions in the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Keith Bohr, applicant, Huntington Beach, spoke in support of the item. He discussed the events that led to justifying a parking variance, and pointed out calculation errors within the Downtown Parking Master Plan. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion ensued regarding build out for Block H under the Downtown Parking Master Plan and the required parking, even when certain properties are "grand fathered" into the existing square footage. Staff also mentioned that interior parking is not credited. Staff explained that the options available to business owners to meet parking requirements downtown are through on -site parking, through parking in -lieu fees or a parking variance. (02p=0827) PC Minutes August 27, 2002 Page 4 The Commission and applicant discussed special circumstances that provide justification for a parking variance due to a building collapse prior to the close of escrow on the subject property. Staff provided further explanation of the parking analysis, and it's history of approval by the Planning Commission, City Council, and California Coastal Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY KOKAL, TO CONTINUE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-07/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 02-09/VARIANCE NO. 02-12 (KOURY RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING) TO SEPTEMBER 10, 2002, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stanton, Kerins, Hardy, Livengood, Kokal NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-2. ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 02-04 TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 75-24 (OLD WORLD VILLAGE - SEPARATE OCCUPANCY): Applicant: Inge Mc Kellop Request: To amend Conditional Use Permit No. 75- 24 to allow separate occupancy of first floor.retail suites and second floor residential units in lieu of requiring the property owner or business owner to occupy both floors of each building. The request also includes no increase in additional parking based on a parking demand analysis. The proposed separate occupancy of second floor residential units requires 41 additional parking spaces pursuant to Chapter 231 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Location: 7561 Center Avenue (North side of Center Avenue, west of Huntington Village Way). Project Planner: Paul Da Veiga Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 02-04 request: - Amend previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. 75-24. - Separate occupancy of first floor retail suites and second floor residential units in lieu of requiring the property owner or business owner to occupy both floors of each unit. - Joint use parking based on a parking demand analysis prepared by a licensed traffic engineer. Staff's Recommendation: Approve Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 02-04 based upon the following: - Adequate parking exists for the proposed request for separate occupancy as identified by a parking demand analysis performed by LSA Associates, Inc. - Divergent parking needs currently exist between the uses in the Old - World Village and adjacent office developments. (02p=0827) PC Minutes August 27, 2002 Page 5 - Reciprocal parking to adjacent development is available to residents, employees, and patrons - The surplus of parking is adequate in supporting the additional parking need generated while still allowing additional parking for future increases in parking demand. Staff made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Hardy excused herself from action on the item due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner's Stanton, Kerins, Livengood and Kokal made disclosures that they spoke with the applicant, opposing and supporting parties, and visited the project site. Questions/comments included: • Overnight and overflow parking • Explanation of Jewel Project parking requirements • One Pacific Plaza employee parking • Reciprocal Parking Agreement • Separate occupancy • Visitor parking (22.5 guest parking space — 45 units on site) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Mike Adams, representing the Old World HOA, spoke in support of the item. He mentioned businesses that have permitted parking, and how the request will have little, if any, affect on parking with 42 existing spaces. Inge McKellop, applicant, spoke in support of the item. She discussed enforcement of Old World's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's), and results of 25 issues voted on by the Old World Board of Directors. She also mentioned the number of parking spaces that remain empty within the center. Mark Hopkins, no address provided, spoke in support of the item, stating that 44% of the center's parking spaces remain unused. David Rofer, Old World HOA member, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns about how the rental factor will affect property values, that the request will have a negative impact on parking, and inconsistent information provided in the parking analysis done by LSA. Yvonne Rofer, Old World HOA member, spoke in opposition to the item. An Old World business owner for 24 years, she stated that a new parking study needs to be done, and that the parking formula should be based on the number of bedrooms that exist. (02pcm0827) PC Minutes August 27, 2002 Page 6 Richard Lewis, Old World HOA member, offered no position on the item. He discussed the number of rental units on the first and second levels, noting discrepancies made by the applicant. He commented on incorrect figures in the LSA Parking Analysis, discussed how special events affect busy parking days, and overnight parking issues in One Pacific Plaza. Jack King, Center Avenue, spoke in support of the item. He stated that requiring business owners to live in the residential unit above their business does not make good business sense. He added that property ownership should not be limited to tenancy, and that parking problems within the center do not exist. Mel Hoeffleger, Seawind Village Apartments, spoke in opposition to the item. He stated that parking needs to be analyzed annually, and discussed how the center is divided between residential, restaurant and retail. He suggested the Commission consider all existing uses before taking action on the item. Rod Buckley, Center Avenue, voiced concerns about noise but did not offer a position on the item. As a commercial owner, he discussed Orange County real estate values, including rental numbers. Phil Larsham, Center Avenue, spoke in support of the item. He stated he has never witnessed a parking problem. He also stated that some of the center's businesses are never open, and that enforcement is necessary for problems that exist related to first and second floor issues. Kristina Hermanns, Geneva Avenue, spoke in support of the item. Erwin Hermanns, Sunstar Circle, spoke in support of the item. Mike Hermanns, Center Avenue, spoke in support of the item, stating that the decision will have no significant change to the minority of businesses, that the CCR's are outdated and make little sense, and that renters raise property values. He asked for a show of hands from the audience on who agreed that parking at Old World was not a problem on most days. Dee Eitleman, Center Avenue, spoke in support of the item. Rosemary Hashett, Center Avenue, spoke in support of the item. Dolores Bischof, Center Avenue, spoke in support of the item. Catherine Brisson, Center Avenue, spoke in support of the item, stating that she was hoping to rent out her unit upon retirement. Alice Elderkin, Center Avenue, spoke in support of the item. She stated that rentals work well when the property is maintained, and that parking problems do not exist. (02pcm0827) PC Minutes August 27, 2002 Page 7 Bernie Bischof, Center Avenue, spoke in support of the item, explaining the history behind the property. He discussed special events and shared parking. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion ensued regarding tenant reserved parking. Staff stated that the conditions of approval require a Parking Management Plan to ensure adequate parking is provided for tenants, customers and property owners. The Commission voiced concerns about the existing Church and how special events and catering may cause additional parking problems. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY STANTON, TO APPROVE ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 02-04 TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.75-24 (OLD WORLD VILLAGE - SEPARATE OCCUPANCY), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Stanton, Kerins, Livengood, Kokal NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker, Porter ABSTAIN: Hardy MOTION PASSED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 02-04 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO.02-04: 1. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 02-04 to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 75-24 to allow separate occupancy of first floor retail suites and second floor residential units in lieu of requiring the property owner or business owner to occupy both floors of each building will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The request for separate occupancy will result in the need for 41 additional parking spaces which can be accommodated by the existing parking surplus as identified by the parking demand analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. The separate occupancy of first floor retail and second floor residential units will not negatively impact the current parking within Old World Village because of the existing surplus of parking currently in existence on -site. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses which consist of commercial and office development based on a reciprocal parking agreement that exists between the subject site and adjacent property to the east which allows joint access of all parking areas. The proposed request is compatible with adjacent uses based on the divergent parking needs of (02p=0827) PC Minutes August 27, 2002 Page 8 office uses on the adjacent property and commercial, restaurant, and residential uses on the subject site. 3. The separate occupancy of the subject buildings will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located, with the exception of required parking for which the applicant has requested an entitlement plan amendment to allow reduced parking based on a parking demand analysis submitted by the applicant. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Land Use Element Policy LU 7.1.3: Allow for the continued occupancy, operation, and maintenance of legal uses and structures that exist at the time of adoption of the General Plan and become non -conforming due to use, density, and/or development requirements. Policy LU 11.1.1: Accommodate the development of structures and sites that integrate housing units with retail and office commercial uses in areas designated for "mixed use" on the Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy LU 7.1.1. Circulation Element Objective CE 5.1: Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. Policy CE 5.1.1: Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allows for the expected increase in private transportation use. The request for separate occupancy is consistent with the General Plan in that it allows for the continued operation and occupancy of existing residential units under a separate lease from the first floor business. Based on the findings of the parking demand analysis, the existing parking is adequate in supporting the additional parking need generated by the separate occupancy request while still allowing additional parking for future increases in parking demand. (02p=0827) PC Minutes August 27, 2002 Page 9 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 02-04: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated May 14, 2002 shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. The existing units shall comply with the following: a. A one -hour occupancy separation is required between the proposed apartment use and retail use below. (BD) b. The main electrical panel shall be accessible to occupants of both the first floor unit and second floor unit. (BD) c. The residential units on the second floor shall maintain a 70-degree temperature, three feet above the finished floor. The thermostat shall be located such that the control is within said unit. (BD) d. All automatic sprinkler control valves must be accessible from the exterior or other acceptable location as determined by the Fire Department. (FD) e. All fire alarm system devices, sprinkler heads, and communication systems must be tested and accepted by the Fire Department. (FD) f. All fire access must meet conditions as stated in the Huntington Beach Fire Code. (FD) g. All public assembly areas, shops, etc. must be properly posted and occupant load verified and accepted by the Fire Department. (FD) h. All fire suppression and alarm system devices that require labels shall be so labeled and inspected by the Fire Department. (FD) i. Address numbers shall be installed on structures to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification 428. (FD) 3. Submit a Parking Management Plan for review by the Planning Commission at a study session and prior to final approval by the Planning Department. Said plan shall depict the location and parking spaces of all available parking for Old World Village including all on -site parking and all off -site parking available through reciprocal parking agreements. The plan shall designate all the required residential parking including enclosed, open, and guest parking spaces and also include and designate all required parking for the motel. Included in the parking management plan shall be a directional signage plan assisting all patrons to available parking during all special events at the Old World Village. The signage plan shall indicate the location and type of signs used during such events. (02pcm0827) PC Minutes August 27, 2002 Page 10 4. A one-time building inspection of all existing units with separate occupancy of ground floor and second floor units shall be required within 90 days of approval, and shall be conducted by a third party certified building inspector, to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. All improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval shall be completed within 180 days of approval of Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 02-04. 5. Prior to renting out units for separate occupancy a one-time inspection of the subject building shall be conducted by a third -party, certified building inspector to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 6. Within 90 days of approval, revised CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall reflect the change to allow separate occupancy of mixed use units by the Homeowners' Association. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form. 7. The applicant shall submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes. (FD) 8. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 9. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 02-04 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 02-04 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval which is August 27, 2003, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. (02pcm0827) PC Minutes August 27, 2002 Page 11 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 02-04, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The request shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 6. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. C. CONSENT CALENDAR — None. D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — None. E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS Commission Kokal informed the Commission and viewing public that the Environmental Board will meet to discuss the proposed Blocks 104/105 "The Strand" project on Wednesday, August 29, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. in Room B-8, Lower Level, City Hall. E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES/COMMENTS Commissioner Stanton — None. Commissioner Kerins — suggested that the Mayor send appropriate correspondence to State officials, stressing the importance of funding for clean up of the Santa Ana River riverbed. Commissioner Kerins requested follow-up by staff on Inquiry #01-15 relating to outdoor sales activity at Main & Pacific Coast Highway. He suggested that (02p=0827) PC Minutes August 27, 2002 Page 12 Code Enforcement staff investigate activity during the upcoming Labor Day holiday weekend. Commissioner Hardy — requested that staff investigate Prop 12 funding for Linear Park. Commissioner Shomaker — Absent. Commissioner Liven -good — None. Commissioner Kokal — asked when the City Council would be reviewing the use of the parking in -lieu fees and the options recommended by staff. Staff replied that further analysis was necessary related to redevelopment issues, and that the item will be heard by the City Council sometime in October. Commissioner Porter — Absent. F. PLANNING ITEMS F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Scott Hess, Planning Manager — reported on the Planning Department items heard before the City Council on August 19, 2002. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner — reported on the Planning Department items to be heard before the City Council on September 3, 2002. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland. Principal Planner — reviewed items for the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 2002. G. ADJOURNMENT —Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 2002. Study Session to be held at 4:45 p.m. HZ:HF:d APP VED BY: and Zelefsky, Secretary (02pcm0827) an Shomaker, Chairperson