Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-12MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1983 - 7:00 PM - ADJOURNED MEETING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Winchell REGULAR AGENDA ITEM: DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 (EIR 82-2 approved earlier) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach The Specific Plan constitutes the zoning for that portion of the coastal zone between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard in the City. The Plan is bounded on the inland side of Walnut, Hartford, Lake and Atlanta. The secretary began by a recap of straw voting and action taken to date. Mr. Palin also called attention to the handouts from Larry McKamish, the Huntington Beach Company and the Surfing Association. Commissioner Erskine requested staff to bring up these points when they reach each section in the discussion. Discussion began by overall comments. Commissioner Higgins stated his philosophy on the specific plan. He said he did not agree with the amount of area that can be developed commercially, because it exceeds anything the market would support. That because of that and restrictions being imposed on residential, it is possible that nothing would happen in these areas. His policy would be to delete the restrictions on resi- dential and let the market dictate what happens. Commissioner Livengood stated that the concensus from the downtown com- mittee was to let City Council know who favors the Plan, whether or not the Plan will be implemented. He said it is too much commercial; that the high-rise "could come in and be successful, but other property owners trying to develop anything - they couldn't develop their property". Commissioner Erskine stated that he sees a phasing problem at issue. He said, "I hope we can separate marketability from environmental impacts." Commissioner Schumacher stated that the downtown and coastal area is the last resource left in the City, that "as it is presently, we are H.B. Planning Commission July 12, 1983 Page 2 getting nothing,in return for a very prime stretch of beach". She felt that only residential -is being -built afi& sold -and that as far as com- mercial is concerned she would like to see free enterprise given a chance.. She said she favors some commercial but not at such a high density Commissioner Mirjahangir said that "you have an'existing area you are trying to develop"; that the impacts deal with traffic and existing residential and how -we should go about mitigating it. He said that areas adjacent to the central core and areas which may -be commercial in the future are not going to get exposure and therefore, the business community will see no amenities'and,other cities in Orange County will give them a better location. In'his opinion, "other than the central core, the rest should emphasize residential". Chairman Porter said his ideas follow along the same lines, that the proposed commercial at the foot of the pier and the lower end of Main Street, high-rise in concept, has a tendency to detract from a mall or village'atmosphere. He felt that an increase in heights should occur conceptually, at the end of District 3 as opposed to uniformly in that district, this would be where property has allowable setbacks to accom- modate the heights. He said that the plan should reflect something more realistic, and -"not what we have seen in -the market studies". Discussion resumed on page 55, Section 4.0.03 and .04, Organization and Definitions. Jeanine Frank recommended dropping the paragraph dealing with affordable housing,as-',it-,-is no longer necessary.' She also recommended a phrase be Added•to the definition -of heights,- "vertical distance above the highest adjacent street level grade", -etc. Also remove No. 1 and No.- 2 from the height definition. Commissioner Schumacher also suggested removing the first paragraph in Section 4.2.09 dealing with definition of heights. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ABOVE MENTIONED CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT, BY THE -FOLLOWING -STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins,-Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT:--: Winchell ABSTAIN:. None Ms. Frank suggested.,adding a statement under 4.1.01 on page 59 that "projects shall,be in conformance -with the adopted Design -Guidelines for the area". ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SENTENCEAS STATED ABOVE WAS ADDED TO SECTION 4.1.01, BY THE -FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell 0 i N H.B. Planning Commission July 12, 1983 Page 3 ABSTAIN: None Discussion took place regarding energy conservation implementation. Commission Schumacher asked if there was a blanket statement covering solar energy in regards to granting special permits. Commissioner Erskine stated there was a bill to be signed by the Governor (AB 163) which addresses energy requirements. Chairman Porter requested that if the BIA has a summary of that bill, the Commissioners would be in- terested in seeing it. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4.1.02, .03 AND .04 ON PAGE 60 WERE APPROVED AS DRAFTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Schumacher -asked if gating and stacking should be addressed when talking about full block consolidation. Mike Adams suggested that, rather than address it in the Plan, to deal with that on the project level. There was some discussion about Fire Department regu- lations. Mr. Palin stated that if there is alternative treatments within a development such as stand pipes, sprinkler systems, etc., they will alleviate developers from required drives and turn-arounds. Commissioner Livengood said he supported some wording to adhere to City restrictions with regard to the possibility of Warner Avenue opening onto PCH. Mr. Palin stated that the intent is to encourage minimizing access into developments, that if you have block consolidation the only type of access is from the alleys, which can be reviewed under the conditional use permit. Commissioner Higgins suggested restricting access from PCH in Dis- tricts 1, 2 and 3 to alleys or numbered streets. He said that in the larger Districts (7 and 8) it would not be necessary. He also said that the applicant would still have the right of review if he had a plan with "terrific" ingress and egress plans. Chairman Porter agreed "if we say it is not excluded by special permit". Mike Adams recom- mended removing the first sentence in Section "a", so that the applicant could have use of the former right-of-way as an accesspoint. Commis- sioner Schumacher disagreed with including District 1. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY HIGGINS TO EXEMPT DIS- TRICTS 2 AND 3 FROM CURB CUT RESTRICTIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None H.B. Planning Commission July 12, 1983 Page 4 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SUBSECTIONS b AND c WERE APPROVED AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING.STRAW.VOTE,: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None In Subsection d and f the following changes on page 62 were recomnended by staff: In "d" add: "guest parking"; in "f" add: "and landscaped on top". ON MOTION'BY LIVENGOOD'AND SECOND ­BY ERSKINE PAGE 62 WAS APPROVED WITH RECOMMENDED CHANGES'BY STAFF, -BY THE -_FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES:: _ None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN:- None ON MOTION•BY_HIGGINS AND SECOND-BY-MIRJAHANGIR-LAST.SENTENCE REGARDING SURFACE -AREA- PARKINGWAS• ELIMINATED FROM 4.2'. 05 BY THE FOLLOWING=STRAW VOTE: AYES.-- Higgins,-Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: . .-Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None _ Staf f recommended-: that the last , sentence in Section 4 •. 2.06 . regarding landscaped planters,--be,eliminated. ON MOTION.BY LIVENGOOD-AND SECOND, -BY HIGGINS LAST SENTENCE IN 4.2.06 WAS ELIMINATED, -BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES:- Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell. ABSTAIN:, None_. Staff recommended adding "automatic electric"- to irrigation sentence (b) and a phrase "in conformance with Design Guidelines" to (d),in Section 4.2.07. ON MOTION,BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND,,-.BY.HIGGINS STAFF'S SUGGESTED CHANGE WAS -ADDED TO .SECTION•.4.2.07 d BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:- . AYES: Higgins-, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None - ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None, Commissioner Schumacher recommended deleting the first paragraph in Section 4.2.09, Heights, and adding, "Height limits -shall be established within each district". ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THIS CORRECTION WAS APPROVED H.B. Planning Commission July 12, 1983 Page 5 IN SECTION 4.2.09, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Discussion took place regarding the screening of satellite dishes on roofs. The thrust of the discussion was a question if it was covered somewhere in the code. Mr. Palin stated it was not exempted in Divi- sion 9. Chairman Porter pointed out that although the actual dish may be a certain number of feet high, it is always at an angle that would bring the height down. He recommended that a new section (4.2.31) be added to address that issue. The following sentence was added, "All utility lines shall be undergrounded where possible." ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CHAIRMAN -PORTER'S SUGGESTION WAS APPROVED -BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None The Chairman called for a 5-minute recess. Commission resumed at 9 PM. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE BALANCE OF PAGE 64 WAS APPROVED (4.2.10 and 4.2.11) BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Discussion took place regarding standard plan of street signs as cited by Paul Cook's letter of -concern. Chairman Porter suggested including a statement "consistent with design theme" in Sections 4.2.17 and 4.2.19. Discussion followed regarding -billboards. The Chairman requested the City Attorney's office to report back if there was any current ordinance dealing with that. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS PAGE 65 WAS APPROVED WITH THE -ABOVE CHANGES, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Higgins, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Schumacher suggested that common open space be designed to give relief from building.bulk._ Staff suggested inserting this state- ment into Section 4.2.11, Open Space on page 64 as follows, "Common open space shall be designed so that it enhances the appearance of the project to passers-by, providing visual relief from building bulk". H.B. Planning Commission July 12, 1983 Page 6 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THIS SENTENCE WAS ADDED TO SECTION 4.2.11 UNDER OPEN SPACE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: ' Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4.2.21 THROUGH 4.2.24 WERE APPROVED.AS PRESENTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAAN: None Discussion took place regarding a letter submitted by the Huntington Beach Company regarding parking lost from street vacation. Chairman Porter suggested under Subsection "g-iii" that any parking lost must be replaced "either on or off site or through in -lieu fees". Ms. Frank also suggested striking the first "permitted use" in Section .27a and also adding under "g", the words, "and determined that the vacation will not be detrimental". Chairman Porter -also commented that with street vacations, up til this time they were to be consistent with the General Plan and now they will have to relate to the Specific Plan. Commissione Mirjahangir asked what was the reasoning for excluding District 3. Ms. Frank stated it was to encourage better developments in that district. Mr. Mirjahangir felt that should be uniformly applied. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE SEC- TIONS 4.2.251, 4.2.26'AND 4.2.27 WITH THE ABOVE CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS AND TO DELETE SENTENCE REGARDING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE F.A.R.'s IN SUBSEC- TION "b" IN SECTION 4.2.27. Commissioner Schumacher suggested removing "b" from the motion because other districts may be dealt with. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY MIRJAHANGIR TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION EXCLUDING SUBSECTION "b" FROM THE MOTION. THIS MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None STRAW VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None H.B. Planning Commission July 12, 1983 Page 7 Chairman Porter called attention to the added sections (.28, .29 and .30) distributed by staff since the first meeting on the subject of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Schumacher did not favor adding subsec- tion .29 "Limitations on Residential Densities". She stated that a lot of people would be coming in for exemptions. Mr. Palin also com- mented that in .30, "Oil Suffix Zoning", the only exception would be for areas zoned MH (Mobile Home). ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, .28 AND .30 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter stated he agreed with Commissioner Schumacher to not include the limitation on residential densities so that the Director would "deal with each one". ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SUGGESTED ADDITION, .29 WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLAN DOCUMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Under District #1, Commissioner Higgins asked if you change the limita- tion on residential in that eight block visitor -serving area is that something that would conflict with the Coastal Commission. Staff re- sponded that it would not, other than the number of units per square footage of the site. And further, that the Coastal Commission wanted all ground floor to be visitor -serving commercial. Commissioner Higgins wanted some of the Area 1 node to be deleted. Commissioner Livengood questioned the following permitted uses in District 1: barber and beauty shops, video 'stores, museum and health and reducing salons. Commissioner Erskine felt that District 1 was ideal for health clubs. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE PAGES 69 AND 70 WERE AP- PROVED AS IS - PAGE 71, DELETE PERMITTED USES OF BARBER AND BEAUTY SHOPS AND MUSEUMS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Under Section 4.3.02, Jeanine Frank recommended deleting the following phrases from "a", "but less than one full block", "(including not less than 50% of the street level)", and "for projects one full block or greater, either the entire street level, or at least one-third of the H.B. Planning ,Commission July 12,, _ 19 8.3 Page 8 floor area must be devoted to visitor serving commercial uses". Brief discussion took place regarding bus turnouts. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS -ACCEPTED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter_, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None There was' brief discussion about expanding subsection'"b" to include service ' station_ but' this discussion was dropped- as- it would be covered by an entitlement:_ Lengthy discussion took place-regarding�a reduction in Area 1 as earlier-proposed.'"Comm*-ssioner Mirjahangir felt that with the density figured in net vs. gross, you end,up with,more density on half block as„'opposed-to full block. _ Staff stated_ it -was more diffi- cult to figure -as you -get to smaller lots. Commissioner Schumacher said that when you use gross, you have to go to the centerline of the street. She said, it was like giving a, "bonus' on- top. of a bonus" -.- A show of hands revealed that only Chairman Porter and Commissioner Higgins were''in-favor of the reduction in size of Area 1. Jeanine Frank recommended deleting the column entitled, Minimum Visitor Serving Re- quired and deleting.the rest of "c",, page 72 after -"Retail sales, outdoor". ON MOTION BY ERSKINE-_AND SECOND -BY. LIVENGOOD THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW'VOTE:­, AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: Schumacher,'-Mirjahangir" ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO CHANGE FIGURE IN SECTION 4 .3. 04b- FROM _ 50� TO 35 FEET- AND APPROVE SECTIONS--. 05 AND .06 AS PRESENTED._ Jeana.ne, Frank recommended' changintg�'the,"second_ "50 - feet_O' to- 45' feet to correspond to renderings. THIS MOTION,FAILED -BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:., AYES': Livengood',' Porter,- Mirj'ahangg1r NOES: Higgins, Erskine, Schumacher ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY-MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS - WERE APPROVED,BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE:_ AYES:- -Higgins.; Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, .05 AND .06 Mirjahangir �1 H.B. Planning Commission July 12, 1983 Page 9 NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE SEC- TION 4.3.04 AS STATED WITH 35 FOOT HEIGHT AND 45 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE. THIS MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None On the previous vote, Commissioner Erskine stated that although he favored the motion, he agreed with Commissioner Livengood that he did not want to see tall buildings without massive amounts of landscaping. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4.3.07, .08, .09 AND INSERTION OF REFERENCE TO BUS TURNOUTS WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter asked if the spread sheet would be included in the Specific Plan. Mr. Palin said that it would appear in the final docu- ment. Commissioner Livengood stated that he agreed with Grace Winchell in concept that -Districts 1 and 2 were "windows of.the City". He favors 3 stories in'that_area with standards similar to the Townlot. He said he was not opposed to heights in other areas. Commissioner Schumacher stated that by going up to 4 stories you can get better quality housing. Mr. Palin suggested identifying the two nodes on the left of the diagram as 1-A's and the one on the right as 1-B. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE TWO AREAS DESIGNATED "1-A" WILL HAVE A 50 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND THE AREA DESIGNATED 1'2-B11• WILL HAVE A 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, IN DISTRICT 1, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Schumacher asked staff what determines the size of the units. Ms, _Frank responded that -there was no requirement for size. Commissioner Schumacher favored a size criteria. Chairman Porter pointed out that, if there was no size criteria; Uniform Building Code standards would be used: Secretary Palin asked the Commission to.clarify if they were". H.B. Planning Commission July 12, 1983 Page 10 talking about the entire Specific Plan area or just from 6th to 23rd Street. Commissioner Erskine stated he did not favor such restriction in an area of high priced land. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PORTION FROM SECTION 936 REGARDING MINIMUM FLOOR AREA WAS INSERTED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT'UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS (4.3.33), BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: < AYES: Higgins, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood, Erskine ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Livengood gave a summary of his opinion on a district -by - district basis. In District 2 he favored a 35 foot height limit; District 3 he said he had concerns on the density of commercial; in District 4 he would recommend 3 stories; in District 5, 4 stories; in District 6, 3 story. He wanted staff to analyze the other districts and establish height limits. Commissioner Mirjahangir made a motion to continue the Downtown Spe- cific Plan to the meeting of August 2, 1983. This motion failed for lack of a second. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-2 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 WERE CONTINUED TO AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF JULY 26, 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEM: Secretary Palin briefly summarized the actions taken at the July 11, 1983 City Council meeting. He said that the City Council discussed the Main -Pier redevelopment plan and continued that to their meeting of July 18, 1983. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:20 PM to the next regular meeting of July 19th. That meeting will adjourn to July 26, 1983. Marcus M. Porter, C man, 1