Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-12MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET. HUNTINGTON BEACH. CAUFORNIA 92648 5:45 P.M. - ROOM B-8 (CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL) CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P P A ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall Commissioner Dingwall submitted notice to the Planning Department regarding his absence. AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY THOMAS, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF OCTOBER 12, 2004, BY THE. FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Dingwall ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS 1. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS — Chuck Davis, City Landscape Architect Chuck Davis, City Landscape Architect, provided a booklet produced by Tom Ash and sponsored by the Municipal Water District (MWD) of Orange County entitled "Landscape Management for Water Saving," and a compact disc presented by The Family of Southern California Water Agencies entitled "Southern California Heritage Gardening Guide." He also discussed the following points of information related to landscaping standards: • Circulation Element/General Plan policies (roadways/scenic highways, landscape -corridors; medians) • Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) landscape requirements (Chapter 232) • Differences between energy efficient, drought tolerant and native landscaping • Landscape element of entitlement processing _ • Landscape requirements within the Municipal Code • Water District conservation/efficiency efforts . _ . - - • Arboricultural landscape standards and specifications • New development landscaping and water requirements • Compliance with citywide Urban Design Guidelines PC Minutes October 12, 2004 Page 2 Commissioner Thomas asked if the City collects "gray water" similar to surrounding cities for conservation purposes. Staff stated that the question should be directed to the Water Department. Commissioner Stilton asked about zero scope/drought tolerant planting. Staff confirmed that the City uses materials that meet requirements of landscape architects. Vice Chair Ray asked about dollar savings in water conservation. Staff responded that the dollar figures are identified in the Ash booklet. Vice Chair Ray and Commissioner Stilton asked who monitors the landscape activity on new or redeveloped property. Staff replied the City Landscape Architect. Commissioner Stilton asked if the City had discussed Tom Ashes program on "How to Profit from a Water Efficient Future" with other municipalities. Staff answered no. Staff also reminded the Commission that the study session was scheduled as a result of past inquiries related to native versus drought tolerant landscaping. Commissioner Thomas asked if Public Works and Code Enforcement staff were familiar with drought -tolerant plant types. Staff answered yes. Chair Davis informed the Commission that the City Landscape Architect also serves as a member of the Design Review Board. Vice Chair Ray asked staff to explain the Landscape Architects role in the entitlement process. Staff described a 10-step process. Staff also stated that entitlements require preliminary landscape plans. Vice Chair Ray asked if landscape documents require a signature of approval. Staff replied yes and explained that landscape, planting and irrigation plans are archived documents and are saved as compact disc media files. Commissioner Thomas asked about enforcing conditions on plant material subject to change over the years. Staff replied that action is only taken if Code Enforcement spots non -compliant plant material. Commissioner Scandura reiterated that landscape standards are consistent throughout the City's General Plan, ZSO, Urban Design Guidelines and Specific Plans. Commissioner Stilton asked if the City offers new businesses landscaping incentives. Staff answered none in fruition. B. AGENDA REVIEW (UPDATE ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS) — Herb Fauland Staff provided an update on the remaining agenda items. C. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS — None. D. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting — None. 6:30 P.M. — RECESS FOR DINNER (04p=1012) PC Minutes October 12, 2004 Page 3 7:00 P.M. - COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P P A ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Sfilfon, Livengood, Dingwall Commissioner Dingwall submitted notice to the Planning Department regarding his absence. AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2004, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: . AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT:- None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.04-021CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-09/SPECIAL PERMIT NO.04-02 (ADDITION TO COMMERCIAL BUILDING): Applicant: Jeff Bergsma Property Owner: LGB Investments, L.P. Request: CUPICDP: To permit a ground -floor addition of approximately 1,189 square feet of retail floor area to an existing 6,270 square foot two story mixed use building. Special Permit: To allow the ground floor addition at a zero build - to -line (setback) along Main Street in lieu of the required five foot build -to -line. Location: 526 Main Street (East side of Main Street, south of Acacia Avenue). Proiect Planner: Paul Da Veiga STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 04-02/Conditional Use Permit No. 04-09/Special Permit No. 04-02 with recommended modifications, findings, and suggested conditions of approval." Paul DaVeiga, Associate Planner, gave a staff report and PowerPoint presentation. The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Thomas visited the site -and spoke with staff; Commissioner Scandura visited the site, spoke with a resident and staff; Vice Chair Ray visited the site and spoke with a resident; Commissioner Stilton visited the site; Commissioner Livengood visited the site; and, Chair Davis visited the site. (04p=1012) PC Minutes October 12, 2004 Page 4 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Jeff Bergsma, applicant with Team Design, spoke in support of the item and discussed exterior improvements, adding square footage to the building frontage, and providing 3 additional parking spaces. He stated that the request complies with the Downtown Parking Master Plan and that changes recommended by the Design Review Board have been incorporated. He also stated that he is agreeable to staffs recommendations and conditions of approval, and was available for questions. Gil Aouizerat, LGB Investments, property owner, spoke in support of the item. He discussed property enhancements at 438 Main Street and how the request adds architectural fabric to Main Street. He was also available for questions. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Thomas indicted her support of the request and complimented the project renderings provided for Commission review. Commissioner Scandura provided similar sentiments and questioned whether to consider striking certain findings that referred to general office uses that were not being proposed as part of the project and included architectural elements that were not being proposed by the applicant. Vice Chair Ray asked about the rationale behind not requiring a 5-foot setback. Staff explained that open air, outdoor dining requirements differ along storefronts to encourage pedestrian activity, and that having facades aligned provides consistency and rhythm with adjoining business. Staff also described why the 5- foot setback requirement is implemented in high volume areas, and that pedestrian activity decreases as you travel north on Main Street from Pacific Coast Highway. Vice Chair Ray asked if upstairs residents would remain during reconstruction. Staff asked the applicant to provide a response. The applicant stated that upstairs residents are not being asked to move because the project poses no significant impacts, and that all municipal code requirements will be met. Vice Chair Ray asked about the opening between the existing store and the addition, and if the applicant's intent is to imply that the structure is all one. Staff referenced the floor plan and stated that the commercial unit openings provide access between the two units. Vice Chair Ray asked if future tenants request a change, could the openings be closed. Staff answered yes, but also explained that such a change would require a tenant improvement plan and address assignment. Vice Chair Ray asked if exterior access to the addition could be reached from the street. Staff responded that the current plan does allow it, but that the plan could be revised. Vice Chair Ray provided support for the request and complimented the project's design, architectural features and additional parking spaces. (04p ►,1012) PC Minutes October 12, 2004 Page 5 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.04-021CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-091SPECIAL PERMIT NO.04-02 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Livengood, NOES: None ABSENT: Dingwall ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.04-02: Coastal Development Permit No. 04-02 to permit the construction of a 1,189 square foot addition to an existing 6,270 square foot mixed use building conforms with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed -Use. The project will comply with the Downtown Specific Plan — District 6 (Commercial/Office/Residential) because the proposed use on the first floor will add to the variety neighborhood commercial uses and will further the pedestrian oriented objective for the downtown. 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 will conform to all development standards with the exception of the special permit for development at a zero build -to -line (setback) along the front property line. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. All infrastructure currently exist on the subject site and will be modified as needed to conform to the City's current standards 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of -the California Coastal Act. The development will not impact any public access and recreation opportunities. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-09: Conditional Use Permit No. 04-09 to permit the construction of a 1,189 square foot addition to an existing 6,270 square foot mixed use 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 project will improve a visually degraded site and will enhance the appearance of the general area. The project is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and Design Guidelines and will add to the pedestrian character and "Village Concept" of the Downtown Specific Plan. 2. The mixed use building will be compatible with surrounding uses because the proposed construction of commercial uses are an extension of the existing character in District No. 6, (Commercial/Office/Residential) which is comprised of several (04p=1012) PC Minutes October 12, 2004 Page 6 neighborhood commercial and residential uses. It will include commercial and residential uses that will add to the vitality and pedestrian orientation specifically envisioned for this district and the downtown. 3. The commercial development 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 project complies with all minimum development standards including lot size, building height, floor area,, and floor area ratio. A special permit has been requested to allow development at a zero setback along the front property line. 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 and is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the City's General Plan: Land Use Element Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Policy LU 7.1.1: Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules. Goal LU 8. Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policy LU 10.1.4: Require that commercial buildings and sites be designed to achieve a high level of architectural and site layout quality. Policy 11.1.7: Require that mixed -use development projects be designed to achieve a consistent and high quality character, including the consideration of architectural treatment of building elevations to convey the visual character of multiple building volumes and individual storefronts. Policy LU 15.2.2: Require that structures located in the pedestrian overlay zone be sited and designed to enhance pedestrian activity along the sidewalks, in consideration of the following guidelines: a. Siting of the linear frontage of the building along the front yard property line to maintain a "building wall" character, except for areas contiguous with the structure use for outdoor dining or courtyards; b. Assurance that areas between building storefronts and public sidewalks are visually and physically accessible to pedestrians, except as may be required for landscape and security; c. Extensive articulation of the building facade and use of multiple building volumes and planes; d. Incorporation of landscape and other elements such as planter beds, planters, and window boxes that visually distinguish the site and structure; e. Use of roofline and height variation to break up the massing and provide visual interest; f. Visual differentiation of upper. and lower floors; and g. Distinct treatment of building entrances. (04p=1012) PC Minutes October 12, 2004 Page 7 The project incorporates a consistent building setback with existing buildings located along Main Street. The proposed design incorporates roofline variation and articulation along with decorative architectural details and elements. The project also provides visual interest while enhancing the -pedestrian experience in the downtown. The subject property is located within Community Subarea I (Main Street, North of Orange) and complies with its standards including a maximum of three (3) stories for buildings occupying less than a full block. The project also complies with design guidelines by providing an articulated facade and a pedestrian -oriented design. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 04-02: 1. The granting of a Special Permit (pursuant to Section 4.1.02 of the DTSP) in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 04-09 represents a request to permit the -proposed ground floor addition at a zero setback along Main Street in lieu of the required five-foot build -to setback. The Special Permit will result in a greater benefit to the project and will promote a better living environment since the existing building is already at a one -foot setback and the other buildings along the same block frontage are also at a zero setback. The consistency of front setbacks creates a familiar rhythm and pattern of development that visually ties the streetscape together and creates a more pedestrian -friendly commercial environment. - 2. The granting of a Special Permit will provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design. The General Plan encourages the building siting along the front yard property line to maintain a building wall° character. The proposed addition will continue along the same setback as the existing building as well as other buildings along Main Street within the same block. District No. 6 of the Downtown Specific Plan identifies the area as a mixed -use node consisting of neighborhood commercial uses. The special permit will allow for the expansion of an existing neighborhood commercial use, consistent with the existing market and other buildings within the same block. 3. The granting of a Special Permit will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general: The project complies with the parking requirements of the Downtown Parking Master Plan, the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan, and the proposed addition and faced improvements will enhance the appearance of a visually blighted building consistent.with the Urban Design Guidelines. 4. The granting of Special Permits will be consistent with objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. Enhanced architecture and entry design will be provided in lieu of maintaining required setbacks for along the front property line. The granting of a special permit will be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act by allowing the expansion of a neighborhood commercial use; thereby promoting pedestrian - oriented development. The development complies with State and Federal Law and (04p=1012) PC Minutes October 12, 2NA Page 8 is subject to all standard construction and permitting procedures under the Uniform Building Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.04-021 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.04-091 SPECIAL PERMIT NO.04-02: 1. The site plan, floor plan, and elevations dated October 4, 2004, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a) The fagade design shall include prominent use of stone veneer and variation in the stucco color in order to distinguish the first floor from the second floor. b) Cornice shall wrap around all returns and span the entire length of all parapet walls. c) All parapet returns shall extend into the building a minimum of ten feet in length. d) A landscape planter shall be provided in front of the handicap ramp at the front of the building. e) The trash enclosure shall be located outside of the visibility triangle, adjacent to the driveway at the rear of the property. f) Parking spaces shall meet the minimum code -required dimensions for a standard space (9ft. width X 19 ft. depth). 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a) Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval, and inclusion in the entitlement file. 3. The mural located on the northerly fagade of the subject building shall not be altered in any way and shall be protected during construction activities. Modifications to the existing mural shall be prohibited. In the event the mural is damaged or altered during construction activities at the site, the applicant/property owner shall be responsible for restoring the mural to its original condition and shall be responsible for all associated costs. 4. 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 Zoning Administrator's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 5. 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. 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 (04p=1012) PC Minutes October 12, 2004 Page 9 concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action -- or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 10, 2004 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: "Approve:the August 10, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted." A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 10, 2004, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Dingwall ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — None. E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST ITEMS — None. E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas — asked about Overlook Park, and who is responsible for Park security. Staff replied that the City owns the Park and is responsible for Park security. She also encouraged the viewing public to watch the City Council Candidate Forum to be broadcast on Thursday, October 14, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Scandura — None. Commissioner Ray — asked staff to follow-up on sandbagging and screening efforts during construction on the Pacific City site. He also offered wedding anniversary wishes to Shan, his wife of 21 years. Commissioner Davis — None. Commissioner Stilton — None. Commissioner Livengood — None. Commissioner Dingwall — Absent. (04p=1012) PC Minutes October 12, 2004 Page 10 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 October 4 and 18, 2004. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Planning Manager — reported on the Planning Department items scheduled before the City Council on October 18, 2004. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner — reviewed items for the next regularly scheduled meeting of November 9, 2004. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned to the November 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, Huntington Beach Civic Center. The Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 2004 has been canceled. Zelefsky,`Secretary Ron Davis, Chair (04p=1012)