Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-24MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 5:15 P.M. - ROOM B-8 — CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER A P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, Dingwall, Livengood Thomas arrived of 5:55pm AGENDA APPROVAL The agenda was approved by acclamation, 6-0 (Thomas -Absent). A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.02-01 / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 02-20 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS (PACIFIC CITY) UPDATE — Scott Hess/Mary Beth Broeren Scott Hess, Planning Manager, distributed material received from Makar Properties on February 24, 2004 that provided an update to the project narrative, reduced site plans, floor plans, elevations and tract maps. _ Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner, was available for questions related to the EIR. 2. STREAMLINING ORDINANCE — Rosemary Medel Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner, outlined the proposed changes to Zoning Text Amendment No. 03-02 (Entitlement Permit Streamlining Phase 11). Discussion ensued on the following: • Attachment 1.101, Section 222.16 Variances/Appeals, C. Findings — Planning Commission approval to remain. • Attachment 1.103, Section 230.04 Front and Street Side Yards in Developed Areas — Planning Commission approval to remain. • Attachment 1.114, Section 230.24 Small Lot Development Standards, B. Design Standards — Language revision. • Attachment 1.123, Section 230.38 Game Centers, A. Strike certain language. • Attachment 1.141, Section 230.88 Fencing and Yards —Wall height/neighborhood notification. • Attachment 1.140, Section 230.88 Fencing and Yards, D. — No change. • Attachment 1.166, Section 231.08 Reduced Parking for Certain Uses, A. — Planning Commission approval to remain. • Attachment 1.166, Section 231.10 Parking In -Lieu Payments Within Downtown Specific Plan Area — Language revision. • Attachment 1.173, Section 231.18 Design Standards, 2. Parking Controls. — Commercial • Parking space sizes. • Attachment 1.175, Section 231.20 Compact Parking — Parking space sizes. • Attachment 1.180, Section 233.06 Permitted Signs — No change. (04p=0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 : Page 2 • Attachment 1.190, Section 233.12 Electronic Reader Boards — No change. • -Attachment 1.213, Section 244.02 Applicability - No change. • Attachment 1.219, Section 250.12 Responsibilities, C. Planning Commission. — Language to remain as is. - • Attachment 1.220, Section 250.12 Responsibilities, F. Director. - No change. • Attachment 1.232, Section 4.1.01 Administration/Approvals Required — Delete certain language. • Attachment 1.233, Section 4.1.02 Administration/Special Permits — Language to remain as is. • Attachment 1.234, Section 4.1.05 Administration/Appeals — Language to remain as is. • Attachment 1.248, Section 4.2.29 General Provisions/Outdoor Activity — Discussion on outdoor dining/alcohol sales. • Attachment 1.254, Section 4.3.01(b) and (c), District #1: Visitor -Serving Commercial/ - Permitted Uses — Reword confusing language. • Attachment 1.253, Section 4.3.01(a), District #1: Visitor -Serving Commercial/ Permitted Uses — Discussion regarding carts & kiosks on private property. • Attachment 1.262, Section 4.5.01 (b) and (c), District #3: Visitor -Serving Commercial/ Permitted Uses - Reword confusing language. • Attachment 1.266, Section 4.6.01 (a) and (b), District #4: Mixed -Use; Office/Residential/ Permitted Uses - Reword confusing language. • Attachment 1.271, Section 4.7.01 (b) and (c), District#5: Mixed -Use; Commercial/Office/ Residential/Permitted Uses — Reword confusing language. • Attachment 1.276, Section 4.8.01(b), (c), and (d), District #6: Mixed -Use; Commercial/Office/ Residential/Permitted Uses — Reword confusing language. Attachment 1.281, Section 4.9.01 (b) and (c), District #7: Visitor -Serving Commercial/ Permitted Uses — Discussion related to the Pacific City Project. • Attachment 1.284, Section 4.10.01 (b), District #8: High Density Residential —No change. • Attachment 1.296, Section 4.1410.01 Oil Overlay "A", Regulations —Discussion on. "new wells' language. 3. AGENDA REVIEW (UPDATE ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS) — Herb Fauland Paul Da Veiga, Associate Planner, identified late communication received on Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Inka Grill Dancing). Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, identified late communication received on Public Hearing Item No. B-3 (Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan Amendment). B. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS — None. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Reaardina Studv Session Dortion of Meetina Paul Cross, Huntington Beach, provided comments on Study Session Items A-1 (Pacific City EIR Update) and A-2 (Permit Streamlining). Dick Harlow, Huntington Beach, provided comments on Study Session Item No. A-2 (Permit Streamlining). 6:30 P.M. — RECESS FOR DINNER (04p=0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 3 7:00 P.M. — COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P A P ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, Dingwall, Livengood (Dingwall out of room) AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA DATED FEBRUARY'24, 2004, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Dingwall (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert Jason, Waterfall Circle, voiced concerns related to traffic and safety on Atlanta Avenue near the proposed Pacific City development. He passed out material on pedestrian and bicycle safety and urged the Commission to address issues related to street conditions and the lack of sidewalks present on the north side of Atlanta. He also discussed future traffic impacts associated with the proposed Strand development, surfing events and downtown activity. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. B-1. ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO.03-05 (AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.01-15 - INKA GRILL DANCING): Applicant: Kevin Ives Re uest: To amend a previously approved conditional use permit to permit dancing on a 123 square foot dance floor in conjunction with existing live entertainment located within an existing 4,910 square foot restaurant. Location: 301 Main Street, Ste. #101 (Plaza Almeria, west side of Main Street, between Olive and Orange Avenue) Proiect Planner: Paul Da Veiga STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 03-05 with findings." The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Shomaker excused herself from action on the item due to a possible conflict of interest; Commissioners Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis and Livengood visited the site and spoke with the applicant; Commissioner Livengood spoke with a Plaza Almeria resident and walked the site with Police Department personnel. (04p=0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 4 Paul Da Veiga, Associate Planner, identified late. communication and provided a PowerPoint presentation. Commission Questions/comments: Police Chief Ken Small informed the Commission of his opposition to the request and provided a brief history of police -related activity at the subject site since the applicant (Inka Grill) went into. business. in 2001,.including civil citations, alcohol violations, warning letters for patron dancing and overcrowding, and noise complaints. Chief Small complimented the business owner on his cooperative efforts to mitigate the problems previously mentioned, and also discussed similar. establishments in other cities that draw police enforcement. He informed the Commission that because of recent budget cuts reducing his staff by 11, he is .recommending denial of the -request: Commissioner Scandura asked how many additional officers would be required to enforce police -related activity if the request was approved. He also asked how police activity at the Inka Grill compares to similar downtown businesses, and if the citation activity mentioned occurred more than 15 months ago. Chief Small responded that it would be difficult to calculate manpower, referring to the question from a strategic point of view with 12,000 calls for service, annually, much of which are related to entertainment. Commissioner Livengood asked about staffs recommendation on extended hours. Staff replied that the applicant's hours were listed within the report, but that staff is recommending complete denial of the request. Commissioner Dingwall asked if disc jockeys are considered live entertainment and staff confirmed. Commissioner Thomas asked Chief Small to elaborate on problems associated _ with restaurant patrons dancing. Chief Small replied that although the Police Department wouldn't consider citing an individual who dances in an establishment that does not possess an entertainment permit, it is hard to control behavior by individuals or groups who are in an environment that serves alcohol. Commissioner Thomas also asked about noise complaints, and whether or not they were primarily associated with music. Chief Small stated that the mixed -use building experiences noise in the street that appears to come from the business. Staff also stated that outdoor dining which is regulated through code enforcement causes noise. Commissioner Thomas asked if the applicant would consider employing private security officers to control nuisance behavior. Chief Small stated that private security companies have no authority on public property. Commissioner Ray asked about safety issues related to dancing. Chief Small stated that safety concerns related to dancing were not relative. Commissioner Ray asked about noise studies and mitigation measures. Staff stated that no studies had been done on the area in question, and that the (04p=0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 5 subject building is designed to inhibit noise. Staff also explained the guidelines of an entertainment permit. Commissioner Thomas asked for the number of dancing establishments in the downtown area. Chief Small responded that there are 9, including the Hyatt Resort & Spa and Waterfront Hilton with no real problems. Commissioner Dingwall asked if the contributing factors to noise complaints could be mitigated through installation of special windows and doors. Chief Small stated that there is no direct connection. Staff also stated that mitigation measures would still require added police services. Commissioner Ray asked about a provision to encourage entertainment venues. Staff discussed compatibility issues with residences located within the mixed -use development. Commissioner Davis discussed problems associated with outside dining being located near residential, and asked about the warning and/or civil citation process related to Inka Grill's history. Commissioner Davis discussed downtown police enforcement, with budget reductions and concerns being a City Council issue. Chief Small explained the officer ratio downtown. Commissioner Thomas asked if the applicant is currently allowed to hold private events such as wedding receptions. Staff replied that if the event involved dancing, that an entertainment permit is required. Commissioner Ray asked if adding a dance floor changes the occupational capacity. Staff replied that the occupancy rate increases. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Kelly Radetich, Plaza Almeria Homeowners Association (PAHOA), spoke in opposition to the item. She discussed the hours that music is played, lining up of patrons in front of the restaurant, noise complaints, violations of the PAHOA's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's), type of liquor license, Alcohol Beverage Control's (ABC's) involvement and property destruction. Dave Goodrich, PAHOA, spoke in opposition to the item and thanked Chief Small. He stated that he received CC&R's and voiced concerns about limited police staff to respond to calls. He also discussed the intentions of the Inka Grill when first approved, stating that the PAHOA understood the request for use as a restaurant only. He informed the Commission that Plaza Almeria residents met with -Inka Grill reps and the City Attorney for a solution and provided a signed petition from the PAHOA in opposition to the item. Paul Makhail, 5th St., spoke in opposition to the item voicing concerns related to noise, doors opening and closing, smoking, crowds, fights, destruction of public property and thumping heard through walls until 2:30 a.m. He stated that he lives more that 100 feet from the establishment. (04pcm0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 6 Cary Hairabedian; PAHOA, spoke in opposition to the item, voicing concerns related to the dining areas (drinking and smoking), doors opening and closing constantly, loud thumping, etc. He stated that the use in not compatible, and discussed dancing as a marketing tool to outside communities, voicing concerns related to fights, noise, limousines, and beer bottles. He informed the Commission that he received a copy'of Plaza.Almeda's CC&R's- Suzanne Canino, Inka Grill, spoke in support of the item. She stated that if approved; the request would attract college educated individuals who enjoy good food in an upscale environment. She praised the establishment and complimented the owners. She also stated that people who want peace and quiet shouldn't buy residential property downtown. Dan Curran, La Luna, spoke in support of the item. He described dancing as a positive activity, and that all energy outside will be moved in. He also informed the Commission that full capacity is already reached on the weekends, even without dancing:. He stated that little will change if the request is -approved, and that dancing will attract a more sophisticated crowd. - . Lee Marzahl, Pearce Drive, spoke in support of the item and described Inka Grill as a nice establishment downtown. He called attention to the differences between the Inka Grill and other downtown establishments and discussed how Plaza Almeria residents were aware of noise issues when they purchased their property. He stated that Inka Grill promotes tourism with great food and upscale clientele.- He also stated that the addition of a.10x12 dance floor will not change the noise level and suggested that minor structural modifications be considered to mitigate noise. Charlie Bunten, PAHOA, spoke in opposition to the item. He discussed the applicant's integrity and informed the Commission that Plaza Almeria CCBR's are distributed to and signed by all property owners. He called for a test of reasonableness, stating that the request"was incompatible within a mixed -use building. He also stated that Inka Grill management does not enforce the conditional use permit's (CUP) conditions of approval to permit live entertainment, suggesting that their CUP be revoked. Alan Beneventi, Camron; spoke in support of the item, describing the establishment as upscale with a controlled entertainment environment. He stated that the Inka Grill attracts young professionals, is classy, and serves good food. He also stated that dancing is healthy; and that all businesses downtown with outdoor dining produce. noise. Matthew Berardini,.Inka Grill security, spoke in support of the item. He discussed Police -related issues and stated that most officers who visit the business work in Code- Enforcement. He stated that if the request were approved, that dancing citations would stop. He discussed decibel reader use nightly for noise mitigation, and mentioned that he has not witnessed any destruction of public property or loitering. : Stephen Clark, Main Street business owner, spoke in support of the request but stressed the importance of obeying the law. He stated that complaints have diminished over the past year, and that mitigation measures need to be agreed upon by all parties. He also stated that alcohol is the problem, not dancing. (04p=0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 7 Curt Radetich, PAHOA, spoke in opposition to the request, and has supported the restaurant, not the music. He stated that Plaza America residents can't sleep because of the extended hours, noise and music. He said that the CC&R's don't present accurate information and didn't disclose the type of music presently played when the project was originally proposed. He explained that the residents want the restaurant to succeed, but do not support dining after 1:00 a.m. He also voiced concerns about advertising entertainment to outside communities and provided written and DVD material to staff. Kevin Ives, Inka Grill/Applicant, spoke in support of the item and provided information on his property lease terms and commercial zoning. He described the Inka Grill as upscale and voiced concerns related to dancing citations and the ABC. He informed the Commission of his monetary investments, including legal fees and $7K on materials to mitigate.noise. He also informed the Commission of a meeting he arranged with Plaza Almeria residents to discuss noise issues, and his efforts to problem solve by eliminating exterior music. He spoke of his first amendment rights and hopes that with a dance permit he will stop being issued citations. He complimented the Police Chief and informed the Commission that his business has the greatest number of restrictions downtown, yet other downtown restaurants without permits are not being cited. He discussed the relationships he has developed here, his compliance with municipal codes and police activity downtown. He also stated that complaints on noise in the downtown typically come from the same people which he feels borders harassment. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Staff identified a correction to Attachment 1.1 -as: "Findings for Denial" instead of "Findings for Approval". Commissioner Dingwall asked about the number of complaints received by the Police Department for noise beyond the permitted hours of music. Police Chief Ken Small stated that all calls did not come from the same person, and that typically complaints were received between the hours from 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Commissioner Dingwall asked the applicant to identify the hours of operation, including entertainment and alcohol sales. Commissioner Livengood asked if strobe lights were used during the hours of entertainment, and if other area businesses use this type of entertainment. The applicant confirmed that their disc jockey uses lighting, and that other area businesses do not use such lighting because of limited square footage. Commissioner Ray asked about the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) License, and what it provides. The applicant explained the license conditions set by the Police Department and the City, including food service, advertising, and discounts/dancing/happy hour restrictions. Staff also informed the Commission that an ABC License could not be obtained without Planning Commission approval. (04pcmO224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 8 Commissioners Ray and Davis discussed difficulties in meeting with residents at the site due to building access restrictions. Commissioner Livengood stated that he visited one unit and walked the area with some Police Officers. He voiced concerns about compatibility with surrounding residents and businesses, enforcement of conditions, and door closures and cue lines. He read from the homeowners Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R's) and stated that when the Planning Commission originally approved the restaurant, the Commission never intended the use to evolve into a nightclub. Commissioner Davis stated that the intent is questionable, and that poor planning was present by mixing residential and commercial. Commissioner Thomas echoed sentiments on bad planning, and although she sympathized with Plaza Almeria residents, she reminded the Commission that the CC&R's clearly outlined nuisance factors. She also asked if increased security was needed because of dancing or alcohol service. Commissioner Dingwall asked about occupancy rates. Chief Small explained that dance clubs differ because occupancy changes, demanding extra resources from the Police Department. He also identified occupancy numbers. Commissioner Dingwall outlined the scenario, drawing attention to downtown tourism, the rights of business and residential property owners, disclosure of nuisance factors within PAHOA CC&R's that were accepted by residential buyers and nuisance factors and noise. He confirmed his support for the request without allowing extended hours of operation. Commissioner Livengood discussed the rights of the residential property owners, calling attention to the CC&R's that describe the associated business activity without including a provision for nightclub activity. He reminded the Commission that the Inka Grill had conditions established and considered compatible with the mixed -use project's residential element: Commissioner Scandura voiced concerns about the antagonistic relationship between the Plaza Almeria business and residential property owners, and the possible lack of Police enforcement due to City budget constraints. He discussed Huntington Beach and it's efforts to encourage upscale dining and entertainment, and that he considered many alternatives in order to mitigate the issues identified by all parties. He finally confirmed that he would not be supporting the request. Commissioner Ray described the request as similar to a policy decision. He discussed noise issues that are related to most of the businesses downtown. He echoed sentiments that the mixed -use project was poorly planned, but stated that the request for a dance permit is reasonable. He stated that he would support the request without the applicant's recommendation for extended hours of operation. Commissioner Thomas stated that any business should not be penalized for lack of Police enforcement due to the City's budget issues. She also stated that (04p=0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 9 although noise is an issue, it is a downtown issue and cannot be singled out as the applicant's problem. She stressed the importance of Huntington Beach being known as business -friendly. -A MOTION WAS MADE BY THOMAS, SECONDED BY RAY, TO APPROVE ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO.03-05 WITH FINDINGS AND ALLOW DANCING WITHOUT EXTENDING THE HOURS OF ENTERTAINMENT AND SUBJECT TO AN ANNUAL REVIEW. - Commissioner Davis discussed his sensitivity to the PAHOA. He complimented Chief Small and stated that he would not support the request due to limited police staffing downtown. . Commissioner Dingwall asked if it were possible to limit the life of the modified conditional use permit or establish review periods. He also requested a five- minute recess to review the conditions of approval recommended by staff. THE COMMISSION TOOK A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS . After review of the recommended conditions of approval, the applicant agreed to an annual review. Commissioner Scandura voiced concerns about 30 out of 42 residential units finding dancing incompatible, and that the ABC and Police Department are not able to monitor this type of activity. The Chair called for a vote on the original motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY THOMAS, SECONDED BY RAY, TO APPROVE ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO.03-05 WITH FINDINGS AND ALLOW DANCING WITHOUT EXTENDING THE HOURS OF ENTERTAINMENT AND SUBJECT TO AN ANNUAL REVIEW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Ray, Dingwall - NOES: Scandura, Davis, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO DENY ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO.03-05 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: Thomas, Ray ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker MOTION PASSED (04p=0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 10 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO.03-05 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that operation and minor alteration to existing structures involving negligible or no expansion are exempt from further environmental review. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.02-63: 1. Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 03-05 to amend a previously approved conditional use permit to permit dancing on a 123 square foot dance floor in conjunction with existing live entertainment and extend the daily hours of operation for entertainment activities will 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 proposed use cannot be adequately regulated based on a lack of Police resources available in enforcing the conditions of approval such as, but not limited to, noise, line formation, security, and type of entertainment. 2. The proposed dancing, in conjunction with existing live entertainment, will not be compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed live entertainment would result in noise impacts based on the proximity of residential uses in conjunction with the lack of adequate police services in regulating noise activities. Typical conditions of approval such as requiring that all doors and windows remain closed during live entertainment, and regulating the hours of operation, cannot be adequately monitored or regulated due to the lack of City resources and therefore the proposed dancing will be incompatible with surrounding businesses and residents. 3. The proposed restaurant will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it will be located based on the inability of the Police Department to adequately monitor and enforce the conditions of approval for the proposed use. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use on the subject property including the following policies and objectives identified in the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Obiective LU 11.1 Provide for the development of structures that integrate housing with commercial uses, and ensure the compatibility of these uses. Policy LU 11.1.2 Limit commercial uses in mixed -use development projects to those uses that are compatible with the residences. (04p=0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 11 Policy LU 11.1.5 Require that mixed -use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between the commercial and residential uses, considering such issues as noise, lighting, security, and truck and automobile access. B. Noise Element Objective N.1.1 Adopt and enforce appropriate noise ordinances, regulations and guidelines to effectively control both ambient and stationary noise conditions and impacts. Objective N.1.5 Minimize the potentially adverse noise impacts associated with the development of mixed --use structures where residential units are located above or adjacent to commercial. uses. Policy & 1.8.2 Discourage the development of new nightclubs, discotheques, and other high noise -generating entertainment uses that may impact residential neighborhoods, schools, health care facilities, or other "noise sensitive" land uses, unless it can be demonstrated that adequate noise measures can be installed and employed to adequately mitigate the potential impacts of on -site operations and/or off -site customer access and establishments -upon these areas. C. Public Facilities and Services Element Polic ry PF 1.3.1 Ensure that new development and land use proposals are analyzed to determine the impact their operators, occupants, visitors, or customers may have on the safety and welfare of the community. The proposed dancing in conjunction with existing live entertainment can not be adequately monitored by the Police Department and conditions of approval can not be regulated based on the lack of resources available, therefore, the proposed dancing use will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The Police Department is the primary resource responsible for enforcing noise limitations identified on the entertainment permit. They have indicated that based on the number of entertainment venues in the Downtown with dancing and the resources available to the Downtown, adequate monitoring of the proposed entertainment use.will not be possible. B-2. APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF COASTAL JANUARY 13, 2004): Applicant/Appellant: Michael Mehalick Request: CDP: To construct a second and third floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling totaling approximately 4,311 sq. ft., including a 121 sq. ft. third story deck; CUP: To (a) construct 1,414 sq. ft. of habitable floor area and 121 sq. ft. of deck area above the second -story top plate line, and (b) construct the addition at a height greater than 30'-0"; VAR: To construct a portion of third floor habitable space not designed within the confines of.the roof.volume. Location: 16472 Malden Circle (north side of Malden, west of Gilbert Drive): Project Planner: Rami Talleh STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 02-22 and Conditional Use Permit No. 02-42 with findings.' (04pan0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 12 Commission Disclosures: Commissioner Ray visited the site and spoke with Mike Adams, Michael Mehalick, applicant, and Richard Lewis, property owner. Rami Talleh, Assistant Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation. Commissioner questions/comments: Commissioner Livengood pointed out a date discrepancy within the findings, indicating that the date referenced for the approved site plan should be February 11, 2004. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Richard Lewis, property owner, spoke in support of the item, stating that all staff - recommended criteria on the project had been met. Michael Mehalick, applicant, spoke in support of the item, echoing Mr. Lewis' statement that all staff -recommended criteria on the project had been met. He urged the Commission to vote in favor of the request. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Ray voiced concerns about 3rd floor windows and asked about the new proposal depicting three (3), 2-window dormers and whether or not they meet code requirements. Staff confirmed that the windows are within the roof volume. Commissioner Ray voiced concerns about privacy issues related to curving on the. north side. Staff stated that the windows are six feet above the finished floor area and are used for light, similar to sky lights. Therefore, a privacy issue does not exist. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-22 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.02-42 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE -FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Shomaker, Livengood NOES: Dingwall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-22 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.02-42 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California (04p=0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 13 Environmental Quality Act,(CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of an addition resulting in an increase in floor area of more than 50 percent to an existing single-family dwelling. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-22: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-22 for the construction of a 2,897 sq. ft. second story addition and a-1-414 sq. ft. third story addition to an existing single-family dwelling including a 121 sq. ft. third -story deck, as proposed, conforms with the General Plakincluding the Local Coastal Program Land Use designation of Residential Low -Density. The proposed project is consistent with Coastal Element Land Use Policy C 1.1.1 to encourage new development to locate within, contiguous to or in close proximity to existing developed areas able to accommodate it. The proposed dwelling will be located on a previously developed site, contiguous to existing residential development. 2. The project is consistent with. the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project complies with all applicable development regulations, including maximum building height, minimum yard setbacks, maximum site coverage and minimum on -site parking. 3. The project is,consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other, applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The project complies with all applicable development regulations, including maximum building height, minimum yard setbacks, maximum site coverage and minimum on -site parking. 4. At the time. -of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. 5. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed dwelling will be constructed on a previously developed site in an urbanized area with all necessary services and infrastructure available,. including water, sewer and roads. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.02-42: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-42 for the construction of a single family home with a .1,414 sq. ft. third story and a 121 sq, ft. deck above the second -story top plate -line including constructionof an addition greater than 30 ft. in height 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 proposed dwelling will be constructed in a single- family residential neighborhood predominantly developed with two and three story homes of comparable height and design quality. The third story addition.is concealed within the second story roof volume and setback 5 ft. from the first and second story fargade to minimize building mass and bulk. In addition, the third story windows are oriented away from the adjacent residences to preserve their privacy. (04pcmO224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 14 2. The conditional use permit to construct a second and third story addition to a single family home will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed three story home is designed to appear as a two-story home with dormer windows. Furthermore, the second and third story addition is similar in design, materials, height, size and massing as other dwellings existing in the surrounding neighborhood. In addition several other single-family homes with similar third story designs and comparable heights have been constructed within the neighborhood. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 02-40 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, including parking requirements, maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, minimum yard setbacks, and third -story design criteria. 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 RL-7 (Residential Low -Density — 7 units per acre maximum) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: LU 9.2.1: Require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the: LU 9.2.1 b: Use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with surrounding development; LU 9.2.1 c: Maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. The proposed dwelling will comply with maximum building height permitted in the RL zone with a conditional use permit. The proposed third -story and third -story deck will be setback from the first and second -story fagade as required by the HBZSO, thus minimizing the building massing, and is designed in compliance with the City's third -story design standards. No third - story windows or deck areas are oriented toward adjoining properties. CONDITION OF APPROVAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-22/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.02-42: The plans and elevations received and dated February 11, 2004 shall be the conceptually approved layout. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. (04p=0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 15 B-3. Applicant: Mike Adams Request: MND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. LCPA: To amend the City's Local Coastal Program in accordance with the proposed ZTA and forward to the California Coastal Commission for final certification. ZTA: To amend Specific Plan No. 4 (Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan) by: 1) Allowing residential use in Planning Area B; 2) Adding development standards for the future residential development in Planning Area B; 3) Reconfiguring Planning Areas A through D; and 4) Updating the overall format of the Specific Plan. Location: 4121-4281 Warner (North side of Warner, east of PCH) Proiect Planner: Ricky Ramos The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Thomas visited the site and spoke with Mike Adams, applicant; Commissioner Scandura visited the site, spoke with the applicant and staff; Commissioner Ray visited the site, spoke with the applicant, Richard Harlow, Ferydoun Ahadpour and family members Doris and Ben (property owners); Commissioner Davis spoke with Richard Harlow; Commissioner Shomaker visited the site and spoke with the applicant, Richard Harlow; Commissioner Dingwall spoke with a representative for the applicant; Commissioner Livengood met with the property owner and two of the applicants representatives. Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, identified late communication and provided a PowerPoint presentation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Scott Seaton, Woodboro Drive, spoke in opposition to request. He urged the Commission to deny a zone change because it would stop future generations from accessing this location in the harbor. He also discussed commercial development diminishing and stated that if the Commission were to deny a zone change, it would force the property owner to clean up the property. John Damm, Vice President, Huntington Harbour Bay Club Homeowners Association (HHBCHOA), spoke in opposition to the item. He discussed parking problems associated with the marina's expansion since its initial development. He stated that the HHBCHOA being in accordance with the proposal is false, that resident's ocean views will be obstructed, and that the property owner has an overdeveloped lot without permits. Mike -Adams, applicant, spoke in support of the item. He addressed banquet facility issues and explained that compatibility drove the owner to find a new use for the property. He discussed small lot development standards and how the project may. require a reduced street width. He stated that the site really needs its own standards and urged the Commission to adopt the alternative action. Marte Klarim, Edgewater Lane, spoke in opposition to the item and discussed poor water quality and the property owner's negligence in maintaining the property. (04P=0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 16 Dick Harlow, Main Street, spoke in support of the item and discussed upgrading the property. He discussed the property's remoteness and easy access. He stated that Club membership has dwindled and the banquet facility is not being used. He stated that another use is needed for the property that will be attractive and will eliminate potential future conflicts from restaurant uses. He also discussed better access to parking through a 24 to 25 foot wide street. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Livengood discussed the zoning conformance matrix on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report, and how the information compares to the development regulations provided on Attachment 5.45 and 5.46. Staff stated that the development standards recommended by staff affect the site plan. Commissioner Davis asked if the Planning Department would consider developing a conceptual plan for approval and staff confirmed. Scott Hess indicated that Planning staff spent time developing small lot standards for quality of life purposes, and that the proposed project does not meet small lot development standards. Commissioner Livengood asked if the corner lot homes depicted on Attachment 5.19 would be eliminated if the request were approved. The applicant drew attention to the development regulations on Attachment 5.45 and 5.46, indicating that they want the proposed project to be consistent with developments to the east and west. Commissioner Thomas asked about the applicant's acceptance of side yard setbacks at 3 to 5 feet. The applicant confirmed acceptance. Commissioner Scandura voiced concerns about corner lots and Fire Department access because of a 24-foot wide street. Fire Division Chief Eric Engberg stated that City specs must be checked to ensure that emergency vehicles can access the area in question. He also discussed the conceptual plan with the incorporation of small lot development standards. Commissioner Ray discussed the condition of the Bay Club and reminded the Commission that the purpose of the request is to approve a zone change by taking away commercial zoning in the coastal area, and that the proposed housing project is secondary. He stated that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) wants the entire project before them before decisions are made, and that the applicant should have presented a conceptual site plan. Commissioner Davis asked if by approving the project, are they approving standards by which a project could be built? (04pcm0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 17 Staff confirmed and explained that they are acting on a Specific Plan revision, and that the request is presented in parts to get a determination on the feasibility of residential use prior to the applicant applying for a ,conditional use permit and tentative tract map and preparing development plans. Commissioner Shomaker stated that she was familiar with the property, and that mandatory club membership is critical to keep the facility solvent. She said that commercial viability is difficult, and that past requests for banquet facilities were not wanted. She discussed the idea of developing a small community without sidewalks. Commissioner Livengood stated that the Planning Commission is setting standards that will be brought forth to the CCC. Commissioner Davis stated that he would like to see commercial remain, but with compatibility issues present such as noise, he supports residential zoning. Commissioner Thomas stated that she'supports residential zoning but would like to address traffic issues and offsite parking. She asked the Fire Department if a 24-foot wide street allows enough room for emergency access vehicles. Eric Engberg stated that the minimum, code -required street width is 24 feet. Commissioner Scandura stated that he supports a zone change, and that the development standards need to be sorted out. He also called attention to Area A and requested that maintenance be a condition of approval. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL ZONE USE IN PLANNING AREA B, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: THOMAS, SCANDURA, DAVIS, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: RAY MOTION PASSED Discussion ensued regarding street width and emergency vehicle access. Commissioner Thomas asked if a 28-foot.wide street would affect garage sizes and the applicant responded no. Commissioner Scandura asked the Fire Department if a 2&foot street width was adequate for emergency vehicle access. Staff answered that a development supervisor must review the radius measurements at the entrance and exit of the project. Dick Harlow stated that the applicant is comfortable that they will meet fire department codes with two (2), 12-foot traffic lanes. He also explained why the beach in Area A is in bad condition, including the property's liability issues. Commissioner Thomas asked if on -street parking would be allowed. (04pcm0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 18 Dick Harlow answered no, adding that the project calls for perpendicular off- street guest parking only. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO ADOPT THE APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROVIDED ON ATTACHMENT 5.43 AND 6.44, WITH A MODIFICATON TO INCLUDE A STREET WIDTH OF 28 FEET IN PLANNING AREA B, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: THOMAS, SCANDURA, DAVIS, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: RAY MOTION PASSED A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO RELOCATE THE BAREFOOT BAR FROM PLANNING AREA "B" TO PLANNING AREA "A". Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of substituting a residential dwelling for commercial at the Barefoot Bar location. Staff identified lot size restrictions could prohibit residential development. Commissioner Dingwall asked the applicant if they considered eliminating the single lot where the Barefoot Bar is currently located. Mike Adams answered yes, but added that they would prefer an open -space element within the private property area, which places responsibility of property maintenance with the HHBCHOA. THE VOTE CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: AYES: NONE NOES: THOMAS, SCANDURA, DAVIS, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, LIVENGOOD ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: RAY MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO APPROVE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.01-06, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.01-05, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO.01-01 WITH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED STANDARDS AND A REQUIREMENT FOR A MINIMUM 28 FOOT STREET WIDTH WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1). No vote was taken. (04Pcm0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 19 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO AMEND LIVENGOOD'S MOTION BY REQUIRING MAINTENANCE OF THE BEACH BY A HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OR THE PROPERTY OWNER UNTIL THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO DEDICATE THE BEACH IS ACCEPTED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: THOMAS, SCANDURA, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, LIVENGOOD NOES: DAVIS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: RAY MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO AMEND LIVENGOOD'S MOTION BY REQUIRING THAT THE FORMER BAREFOOT BAR NOT BE DEVELOPED AS A RESIDENTIAL UNIT BUT BE MAINTAINED AS AN AMENITY ONLY. No vote was taken and the recommendation was incorporated into the main motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO APPROVE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.01-06, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.01-05, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO.01-01 WITH FINDINGS, AND WITH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINIMUM 28 FOOT STREET WIDTH, MAINTENANCE OF THE BEACH BY A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION OR THE PROPERTY.OWNER UNTIL THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO DEDICATE IS ACCEPTED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY, AND THAT THE FORMER BAREFOOT BAR NOT BE DEVELOPED AS A RESIDENTIAL UNIT BUT MAINTAINED AS AN AMENITY ONLY, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: THOMAS, SCANDURA, DAVIS, SHOMAKER, DINGWALL, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE _ ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: RAY MOTION PASSED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.01-061ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.01-051LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 01-01 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 01-06: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 01-06 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by (04pan0224) the Planning Commission prior to action on the Mitigated Negative PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 20 Declaration, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the recommended mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval for any future entitlements, will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.01-05: Zoning Text Amendment No. 01-05 to amend Specific Plan No. 4 (Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan) by: 1) reconfiguring Planning Areas A through D; 2) allowing residential use in Planning Area B; 3) adding development standards for the future residential development in Planning Area B; and 4) updating the overall format of the Specific Plan is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. It will continue to allow a combination of commercial, public recreation, and residential uses that are consistent with the subject site's General Plan land use designation of M-sp (Mixed Use — Specific Plan Overlay). 2. In the case of a.general land use provision, the zoning text amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The amended Specific Plan will allow the new Planning Area B to be recycled into a residential use that is compatible with the uses prescribed for in the Specific as well as the surrounding area. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The existing banquet facility and tennis club is a less than compatible use. The demand for the facility has declined and the facility has fallen into disrepair. The Specific Plan amendment to allow single family residential development in place of the banquet facilities and tennis club will result in a more productive use of the property and will add to the housing stock. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The amended Specific Plan will allow the replacement of an underutilized commercial facility, which represents a nominal source of sales tax and jobs, with a more compatible residential use that will provide new housing opportunities for the community. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO.01-01: 1. The Huntington Harbour Bay Club Specific Plan area has a General Plan Land Use designation of M-sp (Mixed Use — Specific Plan Overlay) which permits single and mixed -use areas that may include residential and commercial uses. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 01-01 to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program in accordance with Zoning Text (04pom0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 21 Amendment No. 01-05 is consistent with the General Plan designation because the amended Specific Plan will continue to permit a variety of uses such as commercial, public recreation, and residential.. . 2. The proposed change to the Local Coastal Program is in accordance with the policies, standards and provisions of the California Coastal Act that encourage coastal dependent uses and protect public access and public recreation. The amended Specific Plan will continue to allow for the existing public marina, Additionally,. public access toF the shoreline and public_ recreational opportunities will continue to'be,provided while allowing for new residential development more compatible with the area. The proposed residential development will be located in an existing developed area where adequate public services are provided.and where it will not have significant adverse effects on coastal resources. 3. The amended Specific Plan conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act because it will continue to require property owners in the Specific Plan area to irrevocably offer to dedicate an easement for public access and passive recreation along the shoreline and the beach and provide ten public beach access parking spaces. C. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS — None. D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - None. E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS — None. E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas — reminded the Commission she would not be present at the March 9, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Scandura — None. Commissioner Ray — informed the Commission he would not be present at the March 9, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Davis — None. Commissioner Shomaker — None. Commissioner Dingwall — inquired about the status of Conditional Use Permit 96-45 (Hiro's Nursery) and requested that the item be agendized for March 9, 2004 and inquired when "allocation of speakers time" will be agendized. Commissioner Livengood — requested that Code Enforcement staff investigate oil operation activity at the northeast comer of Ellis Avenue and Edwards Street; requested that "allocation of speakers time" be agendized for study session review on April 13, 2004. (04pcm0224) PC Minutes February 24, 2004 Page 22 F. PLANNING ITEMS F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner — reported on the Planning Department items heard before the City Council on February 17, 2004'. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner — reported on the Planning Department items scheduled before the City Council on March 1, 2004. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner — reviewed items for the regularly scheduled meeting of March 9, 2004. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 11:40 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of March 9, 2004, Huntington Beach Civic Center. APPR VED BY: HdWard Zelefsky, Secretary Ron Davis, Chair (04p=0224)