Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-31r� u • • MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004 -1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Mary Beth Broeren STAFF MEMBER: Paul Da Veiga, Ron Santos, Ramona Kohlmann (recording secretary) MINUTES: NONE ORAL COMMUNICATION: NONE Item 2 was moved to the front of the Agenda. Please note the Minutes will reflect actions taken in their original order. ITEM 1: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 03-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35 (TARGET DEMOLITION AND REBUILD) APPLICANT: John Warren, 2151 Salvio Street, Suite 250, Concord, CA 94520 PROPERTY OWNER: Target Corporation, 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 5540 REQUEST: MND: to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project; CUP. to permit the demolition of a 103,458 sq. ft. retail building and construction of a new 123,800 sq. ft. Target department store with an 8,100 sq. ft. attached garden center. The request includes a complete redesign of the parking area layout with installation of new perimeter and interior landscaping and pedestrian walkways throughout the parking area. LOCATION: 9882 Adams Avenue (southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Paul Da Veiga Paul Da Veiga, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. Staff stated that a mitigated negative declaration was processed by staff, and it was determined that impacts associated with the development would be less than significant with the recommended mitigation measures identified in a traffic and noise study submitted by the applicant. Staff stated that the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project plans and 40 recommended the following: • Redesign the entrance in order to provide a more enhanced entry. • Articulate all four facades consistent with the north and east elevation. • Return to the DRB after the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission has taken action. Staff stated that based upon the suggested findings for denial in the executive summary, staff does not support the proposed building orientation or architecture. Staff stated that a late communication was received from a property owner to the east of the proposed project questioning the fact that there is no signalization at the southerly most access to the site along Brookhurst Street. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, confirmed with staff that no comments were received concerning the mitigated negative declaration, except those provided by the Environmental Board. Discussion ensued concerning the noise study and the number of truck deliveries. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. John Warren, 2151 Salvio Street, Suite 250, Concord, CA, applicant, displayed exhibits of the proposed project. Mr. Warren presented photographs of similar garden centers stating that they exceed the City's design guidelines and are inconsistent with the City's general plan. He introduced those persons present to speak on behalf of the proposed project. Chris Long, 2151 Salvio Street, Suite 250, Concord, CA, applicant, stated reasons for opposition to staff's suggested findings for denial. Mr. Long stated that the proposed project is in compliance with the City's design guidelines; that the existing site presents constraints; and that the proposed project is in keeping with similar existing sites within the community. Chris Coonan, Target Corporation, 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN, stated that the proposed architecture is in compliance with the architectural guidelines. Girard Manke, 9802 Olympic Drive, neighboring property owner to the rear of the subject site, voiced objection to the proposed project based upon noise at the loading dock, delivery trucks idling and causing pollution, location of the trash bins, and parking along the back side of the building. Mr. Manke stated that an increase in the height of the block wall would block the sunlight onto his property. Tom Rybolt, 9861 Kings Canyon Drive, neighboring property owner, presented a letter to the Zoning Administrator addressing concerns related to noise from the receiving dock, nighttime activity such as lighting from the garden shop, encroachment onto bordering properties from landscaping such as overhanging trees, and noise associated with the use of the driveway behind the store. C7 ZA Minutes 03/31/04 2 (04zm0331) Bob Copeland, 9812 Rainier Circle, neighboring property owner, stated that he supports the comments provided by Mr. Rybolt. Mr. Copeland voiced opposition to further traffic at the rear of the building. Mark Sork, 9801 Adams Avenue, neighboring property owner, stated that he supports the proposed project. Mr. Sork asked if there would be installation of signalization at the entrance to the subject site on Adams Avenue (facing opposite the Mervyn's Department store), and, if so, would the installation be at the expense of the Target store. Francis Arciaga, Jr., 9881 Kings Canyon Drive, neighboring property owner, voiced concerns related to nighttime lights and noise. Mr. Arciaga expressed a desire that the garden shop remain where it is currently located. Jeanette Arciaga, 9881 Kings Canyon Drive, neighboring property owner, voiced concern related to noise. Ms. Arciaga also expressed a desire that the garden shop remain where it is currently located. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren addressed the concerns voiced by the members in the audience and general discussions ensued. Ms. Broeren confirmed with staff that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Ms. Broeren stated that she was going to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Ms. Broeren addressed the Conditional Use Permit and stated that she visited the subject site. Considerable discussions ensued with the applicant concerning the following: • Enclosure of the loading area and associated operational constraints. • Noise associated with truck unloading at the garden center. • Number of truck deliveries and time restrictions. • Proposed parking layout and the fact that the proposed compact parking does not meet code requirements. • Relocating the store away from residential. • Water quality issues, storm water interceptors and responsibility for drainage. • Poorly designed Craftsman architecture, which is not in keeping with newer developments in the City. • Cross ventilation constraints in opening the roof in the garden center. • Noise study and neighborhood compatibility issues. • Spillage of lighting onto residential at nighttime. • Upgrading noise attenuation materials at the loading dock to better contain the noise. Ms. Broeren stated that alternatives for action today are to deny or continue the request. She stated that she could not consider an action for approval today due to a lack of suggested ® conditions for approval. Ms. Broeren acknowledged that although the noise study does meet the City's noise standards, the noise is a day-to-day annoyance to the neighboring residents. ZA Minutes 03/31/04 3 (04zm0331) She stated that primary concerns are based upon compatibility issues within the community, and, in particular, would like the following to be addressed should the applicant choose to continue the item: • Enclosure of the loading dock. • Better integration of the garden center into the building, and enclosure to the extent that is feasible. • Redistribution of the compact parking to meet code. • A more contemporary architectural style that meets the urban design guidelines. Ms. Broeren continued the request at the applicant's request. She advised that the continuance is not a representation that the request would be approved. She stated that the continuance would give the Zoning Administrator and neighboring property owners an opportunity to review suggested conditions of approval that would make the project more amenable to the community. Ms. Broeren stated that the request would not be re -advertised or re -noticed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-35 WAS CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 14, 2004 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 03-02 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 03 02: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 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 the Zoning Administrator prior to action on Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-02 and Conditional Use Permit No. 03-35. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, 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 Zoning Administrator that the project, with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment. 1�1 ZA Minutes 03/31/04 4 (04=0331) • ITEM 2: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-02 (TOGHIA COURTYARD FENCE): APPLICANT: Peter Toghia, 21291 Antigua Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 PROPERTY OWNER: Cheryl Toghia, 21291 Antigua Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 REQUEST: To permit seven -foot tall courtyard fencing (constructed without permits) at a six-foot five -inch front yard setback, in lieu of a maximum height of 42-inches within the required 15-foot front yard setback. LOCATION: 21291 Antigua Lane (west side of Antigua Lane, south of Augustine Drive) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos Ron Santos, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary, and, in particular, the suggested modifications to the proposed plans. Staff stated that six letters in support of the proposed project were received from neighboring property owners. No unique conditions were recommended by other City departments, and no other written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. • Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, confirmed that calculations were performed by staff to verify that the minimum 40% landscaping can be met as set forth in suggested Condition No. 1.b. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Cheryl Toghia, 21291 Antigua Lane, property owner, urged the Zoning Administrator's approval. Ms. Toghia stated her regret for her lack of knowledge that a building permit was required, and stated that there was no intent to violate City code. She stated that a financial hardship would be incurred if required to move the existing fence, as well as having to change the existing irrigation, drainage and slope. She questioned the City Code Enforcement's action stating that the action is arbitrary. Peter Toghia, 21291 Antigua Lane, applicant, presented photographs of other properties in violation of City codes. Mr. Toghia voiced frustration at the City's Code Enforcement action at the subject property. He expressed appreciation for consideration by the Zoning Administrator to allow the subject project to remain as is. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren reviewed the proposed plans. A general discussion ensued with staff concerning the depth of the rear yard. Ms. Broeren addressed the comments and concerns related to • Code Enforcement actions and advised that most citations are a result of incoming complaints. ZA Minutes 03/31/04 5 (04=0331) Ms. Broeren stated that a code amendment is pending that would allow walls closer to the sidewalk. She stated that the amendment has been approved by the Planning Commission and is yet to be adopted by the City Council. Ms. Broeren stated that aesthetics, uniformity and visual effect are the City's intent in having the same standard throughout the City. Ms. Broeren stated that it is unfortunate that the property owner did not seek a City permit. A general discussion ensued and the property owner advised that sand and gravel were used to elevate the fence. Ms. Broeren stated that given the fact that the rear yard is 20 feet deep and the front courtyard is approximately 35 feet, the property owner is enjoying a substantially larger yard than most. She stated that the suggested conditions of approval are consistent with the proposed code amendment, and findings to support the existing fence cannot be met. Ms. Broeren stated that she was going to approve the request, and that the fence would have to be moved back. At the applicant's request, Ms. Broeren asked staff to modify suggested Condition of Approval No. 1.c as follows: c. The existing/subject fence and front yard setback shall be made to comply with the requirements of conditions of approval 1(a) and 1(b); and required building permits shall be obtained and finaled for the fence, within 6090 days of the date of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 04-02. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-02 WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. 0 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Zoning Administrator 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 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of construction of a small accessory structure on a previously developed site. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-02: Conditional Use Permit No. 04-02 to permit seven -foot tall courtyard fencing (constructed without permits) at a ten -foot front yard setback, in lieu of a maximum height of 42-inches within the required 15-foot front yard setback, 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. Based upon the conditions imposed, the proposed fence will maintain a minimum setback from the front property line consistent with the setback permitted in the zone for a side -entry garage. Accordingly, the proposed project will be consistent with the standards applicable to a permitted structure in the zone and will have no greater impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses since the proposed courtyard fence will be constructed of quality, decorative building materials and will be substantially integrated into the design and architecture of the dwelling. The 10 foot ZA Minutes 03/31/04 6 (04zm0331) setback area between the proposed fence and the front property line will be entirely landscaped. The conditional use permit, as conditioned, is consistent with numerous previously approved entitlements for fencing within the required front yard setback in the RL zoning district. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 04-02 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. The HBZSO permits fences exceeding 42-inches in height within the required front setback, with approval of a conditional use permit. In addition, the proposed fence, as conditioned, is consistent with provisions of a code amendment recommended by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission and staff, which is pending approval by the City Council. 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 on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: L.U. 7.1.2: Require that development be designed to account for the unique characteristics of project sites and objectives for community character as appropriate. L.U. 9.2.1: Require that all new residential developments within existing residential neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the maintenance of the predominant or median existing front yard setbacks. jft The proposed fence will meet the City's objectives for community character by incorporating quality design and materials (masonry, stucco, pilasters, stone) and by maintaining a predominantly (with the exception of the decorative paving applied to the driveway) landscaped setback with a minimum dimension of ten feet between the proposed fence and the public sidewalk. The proposed fence will maintain a minimum setback matching the minimum setback required for a side entry garage on the subject property. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 04-02: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated March 5, 2004, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. The minimum front yard setback for the proposed fence shall be ten feet. b. A minimum of 40 percent of the required front yard setback shall be landscaped. c. The existing/subject fence and front yard setback shall be made to comply with the requirements of conditions of approval 1(a) and 1(b); and required building permits shall be obtained and finaled for the fence, within 90 days of the date of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 04-02. 2. 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. ZA Minutes 03/31/04 7 (04=0331) 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. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:20 PM BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2004 AT 1:30 PM. AMa 4tB:r�:: oeren Zoning Administrator rmk • • ZA Minutes 03/31/04 8 (04zm0331)