Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-26APPROVED ON 1//1/83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JULY 26, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach 4.4 DISTRICT #2: RESIDENTIAL 4.4.01 Minimum Parcel Size Staff is recommending that an amendment to this section be made, beginning with waiver of this requirement may be granted by the Director so the last phrase reads . between Walnut and the alley one unit may be allowed on residual parcels where adjacent parcels are already developed," explaining that this wording would allow equitable treatment of certain 25 foot lots which could not be combined with another lot due to prior building construction. A resident owning a 50 foot lot on 17th Street north of the alley- way between Walnut and Pacific Coast Highway addressed to Commis- sion to protest what he perceived as the downzoning of this property (presently zoned R4), pointing out that it is surrounded by developed lots and cannot be consolidated. Staff explained that the Specific Plan would allow a -triplex to be built on this location. ON MOTION BY. LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, S. 4.4.01 WAS APPROVED WITH STAFF'S SUGGESTED AMENDMENT BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.4.03 Density Staff is recommending that on a 50 foot lot one dwelling unit per 1700 square feet be permitted; this density corresponds closely to the allowed density in the Townlot. Commissioner Erskine asked if there would be something in this section to allow waiver of this requirement under certain condi- tions, such as those mentioned by the resident who just spoke. The Commission discussed how such a provision could be established without applying the upward limit to consolidated lots and with- out encouraging the filing of many applications for waivers. Secre- tary Palin explained staff's direction to place medium density on Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26; 1983 Page 2 this area, but that if it is the Commission's desire to allow four- plexes on 50 foot lots staff can work with the Attorney's office to design provisions to effect that end; such an action, he cautioned, might undermine the goal for consolidation of lots under which high density could be achieved. Commissioner Livengood questioned the importance of consolidation in District 2, where most lots are under individual ownership now and are likely to develop on their own. Staff responded that development by 50 foot lot will necessitate the retention of all the existing alleys in the area and the majority of street sections, thereby reducing the ability to discourage in- trusion into the area by beach goers. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO REQUEST THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS A VARIANCE PROCEDURE FOR THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY ON 50 FOOT LOTS WHERE THERE ARE LOGICAL OR PHYSICAL.IMPEDIMENTS TO CONSOLIDATION. The Commission discussed the areas where this problem might occur and Chairman Porter suggested that any language the staff may come up with whould be as specific as possible in terms of its applica- tion to certain street frontages only. Also, discussed was the possibility that any variances which might be allowed should be acted on by the Board of Zoning Adjustments at minimum or even perhaps by the Planning Commission. Mr. Palin suggested that it might be advisable to create subsections 2-a and 2-b, separating the half blocks fronting onto arterials so that fourplexes could be allowed on 50 foot lots adjacent to commercial. Specific standards could then be developed for those special areas and still leave the rest of the District as proposed on the Plan. Commissioners Erskine and Winchell then withdrew their prior motion. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD S. 4.4.03 WAS APPROVED WITH SUB -SECTIONS 2-a and 2-b, WITH WORDING TO ACCOMPLISH THE ABOVE DISCUSSION TO BE WORKED OUT BY STAFF FOR REVIEW AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.4.04 Lot Size Frontage Jeanine Frank said that, since the Plan no longer allows by right a building on a 25 foot lot, staff is recommending striking the first line, the section then beginning with "Up to one full block 35 feet and no more than 3 stories." Also suggested is a substitution of 45 feet for the 50 foot fourth story setback; however, the setback for a fourth story off Walnut Avenue would remain at 75 feet. She noted that "Maximum Allowable Height" should be the title of the section instead of "Lot Size Frontage." Commissioner Winchell discussed this section, saying that the intent of the section is good but in her mind the whole point of obtaining better development, more open space, and better vistas was lost when 35 units per acre with consolidation was allowed. The open space in this Plan will not give us the view corridors or preclude solid rows 1 11 -2- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 3 of buildings as intended, nor will it accomplish its stated goal of providing public open space. She said that consolidation seems to provide only more units, height, and population but not any substantial public benefits and that is why she is skep- tical of increasing the density. Ms. Winchell, noting that three stories can be put in a 30 foot height and that the 3 foot allowance for subterranean parking and the extra allowance for roof architectural features further increase the heights of build- ings, questioned the 35 foot height in the plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL TO DELETE THE FIRST LINE IN S. 4.4.04 AND HAVE THE SECOND LINE READ "26 FEET UP TO FULL BLOCK 30 FOOT HEIGHT AND NO MORE THAN THREE STORIES; FULL BLOCK 40 FEET AND NO MORE THAN FOUR STORIES, ETC., AND THAT WITHIN 45 FEET OF ANY OTHER RIGHT-OF-WAY NO STRUCTURE SHALL EXCEED 30 FEET. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE S. 4.4.04 WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter NOES: Erskine, Livengood ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir In further discussion of height the Commission reviewed the meas- urement from grade instead of the top of the subterranean park- ing and roof feature allowance. Commissioner Erskine indicated that he is not in favor of the four stories at 45 foot setback as included in Winchell's original motion, and explained his "no" vote as reflecting his feeling that the full Commission should be present for discussion of this question. S. 4.4.04 WAS DEFFERED-TO A SUBSEQUENT MEETING BY CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION. A property owner at 421 7th Street addressed the Commission to inquire if he could build a three story dwelling on his present 25 foot lot (which is occupied by an existing residence). when it was pointed out to him that he could, under the new wording in S. 4.4.01, apply for a waiver in this instance, he inquired if approval of such a waiver was strictly at the discretion of the Director or if it would be an appealable decision. After dis- cussion on the height limit on any such reconstruction, a review by legal counsel of the effect of deleting the entire first line of S. 4.4.01 and a consideration of the number of parcels in the District which could be affected, Commission determined that 4.4.01 should be reanalyzed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE IN S. 4.4.01 AND ADD THAT THE DENIAL OF A WAIVER APPLICATION BY THE DIRECTOR SHALL BE APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir -3- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 4 4.4.05 Front Yard Ground Floor Setbacks Jeanine Frank recommended that the paragraph on fencing greater than 42 inches in height and the diagram at the bottof of the page be deleted from the text, as Commission has indicated that it does not want fencing of that nature on Pacific Coast Highway. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S. 4.4.05.WAS APPROVED WITH THE STAFFS -SUGGESTED DELETIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter.-Winchell NOES: None ABSENT Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir S. 4.4.06 Side Yard Setbacks, Ground Floor S. 4.4.07 Rear Yard -Setbacks S.-4-.4.08- Upper Story Setbacks In the last line of paragraph staff is recommending that "required front yard, ground -floor setback" be changed to read "second story facade." Sentence would then read: -"The covered portion,of all stories above"the second must be -set back an average'of an additional 10 feet from the second story facade."' Commissioner Erskine dir- ected that somewhere in the text there.be.a definition of "facade." ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE,SECTIONS 4.4.06, 4.4.07, AND 4.4.08 WERE APPROVED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO S. .08, BY THE FOLLOIWNG VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins,'Schumacher, Mirjahangir S. 4.4.09 Maximum Lot Coverage Staff pointed out that the maximum lot -coverages are reckoned on 50 percent of the net site area after dedication. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S. 4.4.09_.WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None - ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir, 4.5 DISTRICT #-3: VISITOR -SERVING COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND -BY ERSKINE-ITEM 4.5 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:- Erskine, Livengood, Porter-,'Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir -4- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 5 4.5.01 Minimum Parcel Size ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S. 4.5.01 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.5.02 Permitted Uses The Commission discussed the possibility of omitting "museums" from the list of permitted uses and the concept of allowing laundromats in the district. Also discussed was the Commission's prior action in re -doing the allowable floor area in the commer- cial nodes, and staff suggested that the wording for this dis- trict could be "either the entire street level of one-third of the development" to be devoted to visitor -serving uses. Commis- sioner Porter, noting that in his opinion part of the problem with the entire Specific Plan is that there is residential allowed in every district at 35 units per acre, said that he was not in favor of any residential in District 3, even in upper stories of buildings. The hotels and motels will provide short- term residential uses, but he said that otherwise this district should be strictly office/commercial uses. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY RESKINE S. 4.5.02 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AMENDMENTS: 1. Strike reference to "residential" in (c)R 2. Strike "time-sharing residential: in (c)T 3. Permit laundromats in hotels/motels only 4. Include staff's recommended wording for areas devoted to visitor -serving uses AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.5.03 Density Staff is suggesting deletion of this item. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL S. 4.5.03 WAS DELETED FROM THE TEXT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.5.04 Intensity Jeanine Frank pointed out that there had been some confusion as to whether lot coverage applied to just the taller portion of a development or whether it applied to the whole development. She clarified this by saying that if you have an eight -story build- -5- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 6 ing you can only have 40 percent lot coverage on any part of it, not just on the eight story portion. She suggested adding a note to this section as follows: "NOTE: Lot coverage for the entire project shall be governed by the maximum building height." Chairman Porter asked for discussion on the possibility of moving the height of development toward the 2nd/Lake/Pacific Coast Highway intersection rather than as it is presented now with a large concen- tration at the Main/Pier area tapering to the sides. It was his feeling that the higher structures are really more acceptable on the downcoast side than either at the pier area or upcoast towards 6th street, and this change would help maintain a certain amount of the coastal atmosphere at'the pier area. He also noted that at present one can build over 12 stories as long as a 3.5 FAR is maintained, asking if that could allow 15 stories. Commissioner Livengood said that he would perfer to have the entire area from 6th Street to Lake with the same height requirement, what- ever that may turn out to be, adding that he is not in favor of un- limited heights being allowed. Mr. Livengood also expressed the opinion that the plan is designed for too much commercial space, and one way to scale this back would be to limit heights; he concluded by saying that a more realistic cap must be put on what can be built in the Specific Plan. Secretary Palin said that the residential use, which has been stricken, was felt to be an incentive to consolidation and that now that it has been deleted it is possible that the FAR could be reduced slightly and still accommodate the desires of the City Council. He pointed out, however, that the real question is whether the City wants lower structures with more lot coverage of higher structures with less lot coverage under multi -block consolidation. Commissioner Winchell noted that reducing the residential as has been done is compounding what Commissioner Livengood sees as a problem with too much commercial space, and staff will need to readjust be- cause of that. If, as many of us believe, this Plan is a bit too am- bitious and large for the'City, it can be scaled by re-establishing the proportions, lowering the ultimate built -out square footage of commercial, and reducing the lot coverage. She -expressed her belief that a 1.75 FAR with 70 percent lot coverage is both starting and ending too high and'will result in a tremendous amount of building bulk, asking if coverage could be brought down to a maximum of 60 per- cent. Jeanine Frank replied that you could probably do this if you knew where the intense development would go, but reducing the FAR for the whole area would make it difficult, for instance, to allow a reasonably sized hotel to go in. She reminded the Commission that this district is a Redevelopment Area in which the City can specify where it desires to site improvements. Other items discussed by Commission in this section included the pos- sibility of siting a resort hotel in District 7 rather than crowding it into District 3, the relationship of construction permitted in this district and what is permitted in the surrounding districts, the 1 -6- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 7 possibility of establishing a maximum FAR of 3.0 in the area, the question of adjustments in other districts to make up for the residential being lost in this district, and the possibility of structuring District 3 block by block. Mr. Palin informed the Commission that Chairman Porter's sug- gestion of breaking the district down into areas can be accom- plished by providing some general "envelopes" for the specific parts, but flexibility is still needed to allow review of dev- elopment as it is proposed. Staff can re -analyze the area and come back to the Commission with suggestions on limitations in height, adjustment of the FAR, and a breakdown of the area north of Main and south of Main, using a concept of 3-a and 3-b in- stead of designing by streets. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S. 4.5.04 (IN- TENSITY) WAS APPROVED WITH THE NOTED AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS TO STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: DIRECTIONS: 1. Review the need for residential 2. Analyze possibility of a maximum FAR of 3.0 3. Review breaking the district down into sep- arate areas 3-a and 3-b as discussed AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.5.05 Front Yard, Ground Floor Setbacks ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, S. 4.5.05 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.5.06 Ground Floor Side Yard Setbacks 4.5.07 Rear Yard Setbacks 4.5.08 Upper Story Setbacks Chairman Porter asked that the reference to "no height limit" be deleted from the diagram or that reference be made to the height table. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, SECTIONS 4.5.06, 4.5.07, and 4.5.08 WERE APPROVED WITH THE REFERENCE TO NO HEIGHT LIMIT STRICKEN FROM THE DIAGRAM IN 4.5.08, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir -7- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 8 4.5.09 Maximum Lot Coverage_ The reference to the'Intensity section was changed to reflect the proper section, 4.5.04. This section.was deferred to a subsequent meeting by consensus of the Commission. 4.5.10 Minimum Public Open Space Requirements 4.5.11 Public Plazas on Main Street 4.5.12 Special Permit The Commission directed that reference to residential uses be de- leted from .10, as.well as striking the second sentence of the first paragraph in .10'referring to mixed use development. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4.5.10, 4.5.11, and 4.5.12 WERE APPROVED WITH THE ABOVE CORRECTIONS TO .10, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.5.13 Pedestrian Overpass A MOTION WAS MADE BY_WINCHELL AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO ADD "/UNDER- PASS TO THE TITLE OF THIS -SECTION, MAKING THE TITLE READ: "PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS/UNDERPASS. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Erskine NOES: Livengood, Porter ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND -BY ERSKINE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO RETURN SECTION 4.5.13 FOR DISCUSSION.AT THE NEXT MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT:- Higgins, -Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.6 DISTRICT #4: MIXED USE, OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL/LIMITED COMMERCIAL The Commission discussed the suitability of the mixed uses on 6th Street and on portions of the southerly part of District 4 north of 2nd Street; staff explained that this use had been planned as a buffer between the commercial and residential areas. Chairman Porter agreed with this concept in the -northern section of the district but did not agree with the necessity for transitional zoning in the southern portion of the district. He again expressed concern with the aggre- gate total of development in the entire Specific Plan, and suggested deleting the two half -blocks north of Lake Street from this district, as this location seems more conducive to commercial than to resi- dential. _ ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND -SECOND BY LIVENGOOD SECTION 4.6 WAS APPROVED WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO STOP THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AT THE SECOND LINE.OF THE BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -8- 1-26-83 - P.C. 1 r Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 9 AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.6.01 Minimum Parcel Size 4.6.02 Permitted Uses ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4.6.01 AND 4.6.02 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.6.03 Density Ms. Frank recommended that this section by amended to allow one dwelling unit per 1700 square feet on 50 foot lots, as was done previously in District 2. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE S. 4.6.03 WAS APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT RECOMMENDED ABOVE BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.6.04 Intensity Staff is recommending in this section that the requirements for lots of 100 feet or less be changed to read: Height limited to 3 stories and no more than 35 feet, lot coverage limited to 50 percent, and the Maximum FAR column deleted. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SECTION 4.6.04 WAS APPROVED WITH THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS AS STATED BY STAFF ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.6.05 Front Yard, Ground Floor Setback 4.6.06 Side Yard Setbacks 4.6.07 Rear Yard Setbacks ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4.6.05, 4.6.06, and 4.6.07 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell Schumacher, Mirjahangir -9- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26,. 1983 Page 10 4.6.08 Upper Story Setbacks Jeanine Frank reported that the wording should be changed here to correspond with the wording for setback restrictions for upper stories as applied in District 2. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTION 4.6.08 WAS APPROVED WITH THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir A.7 DISTRICT # 5: MIXED•USE: COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL Chairman Porter suggested that'the area previously deleted from District 4 now be included in District 5. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTION 4.7 WAS APPROVED, WITH A DIRECTION TO STAFF THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT BE AMENDED TO ENCOMPASS THE AREA PREVIOUSLY DELETED FROM DISTRICT 4, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.7.01 Minimum Parcel Size 4.7.02 Permitted Uses ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4.7.01 and 4.7.02 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.7.03 Densities Jeanine Frank asked that the first line of this section be elimin- ated and the second line changed to read: "frontage of 100 feet or less shall be allowed one unit per 2000 square feet net lot area; 101 feet up to one-half block shall be allowed one unit per 1700 square feet of net lot area; one-half block to a full block shall be al- lowed one unit for 1350 square feet of net lot area; and a full block shall be allowed 30 units per gross acre." She explained -that these ratios scale down the former intensity of District 5. Commissioner Winchell asked whether or not it would be theoretically possible for a developer to get the maximum residential units and still be'allowed some commercial space under the restrictions imposed by lot coverage and building. Staff replied that this would be possible, but the residential units would have to be very small effi- ciency units in such an instance. �1 -10- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 11 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER SECTION 4.7.03 WAS APPROVED WITH THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Winchell 4.7.04 Standards .7.05 Front Yard Ground Floor Setbacks 4.7.06 Side Yard Setbacks 4.7.07 Rear Yard Setbacks Secretary Palin explained that these have been changed to bring them into line with the change in District 2, to scale down to 30 units per acre. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE 4.7.04, 4.7.05, 4.7.06, and 4.7.08. Commissioner Winchell raised the question of the FAR and the six story height, and Commissioner Porter stated that it might be appropriate to split this district, showing office -professional/ residential uses to the east and south and leaving the full mix of uses in the main body of the area. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY PORTER THE MAIN MOTION WAS AMENDED TO OMIT SECTION 4.7.04, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Porter, Winchell NOES: Livengood ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir Section 4.7.04 was deferred to subsequent meeting. 4.7.08 Upper Story Setbacks Jeanine Frank stated that this section should be corrected to read the same as before in District 2: "Covered portion of all stories above the second shall be set back an average of an addi- tional 10 feet from the second story facade." She also inquired if the same open space standards should be applied to the area transferred from District 4 to District 5 as those placed on the rest of District 5., Consensus on the latter change was to go with staff's''suggestion and apply the same open space standards. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER SECTION 4.7.08 WAS APPROVED WITH THE TWO AMENDMENTS ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.7.09 Maximum Lot Coverage 4.7.10 Minimum Public Open Space Requirements .7.11 Plaza Requirements -11- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 12 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4.7.09, 4.7.10, and 4.7.11 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir At the conclusion of discussion on this particular district, the Commission asked that staff check carefully to make sure that no im- portant item has been overlooked in this review and point out any omissions at the next meeting. Chairman Porter also requested that if staff finds any changes or improvements necessary in the area trans- ferred from District 4 east to District 5 those changes be brought back to the Commission for review. 4.8 DISTRICT #6: MIXED USE, GENERAL COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL Chairman Porter directed that the "Purpose" section be amended to add that the district encompasses the area north of the downtown core and the public library. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD SECTION 4.8 WAS APPROVED WITH THE ABOVE AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.8.01 Minimum Parcel Size 4.8.02 Permitted Uses The Commission discussed existing uses in this district and the loca- tions of the Coastal Zone and Oldtown boundaries as they pertain to this area. Chairman Porter expressed the feeling that much of the undeveloped property abutting this district but not included in the Specific Plan (particularly below Frankfort Street) should be dealt with in some other fashion than just leaving it as a residential area, sug- gesting that any such treatment should be compatible with what is being planned here for Lake Street. Staff responded that it would be possible to continue District 5 up to Frankfort and over the Pacific Electric railroad right-of-way (abandoned), possibly by creating a 5-a and 5-b designation. He also discussed the possibility of a transportation terminal within this area. Commissioner Porter added that any such treatment should make a good transition between Districts 5 and 6. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE, SECTIONS 4.8.01 AND 4.8.02 WERE APPROVED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE AREA OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT AND THE P.E. RIGHT OF WAY AS DISCUSSED ABOVE FOR COMMISSION REVIEW AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir -12- 7-26-83 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 13 4.8.03 Density In response to a question from Commission, staff explained that the density of 35 units per acre proposed here had been arrived at through an effort to obtain viable mixed -use development in the area. Commissioner Winchell said that because the residen- tial density is being permitted in addition to the allowed com- mercial she would prefer to see that density more in keeping with the residential densities surrounding it. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD SECTION 4.8.03 WAS APPROVED WITH RESIDENTIAL DENSITY REDUCED TO A MAXIMUM OF 25 UNITS PER ACRE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.8.04 Intensity 4.8.05 Front Yard Ground Floor Setbacks 4.8.06 Side Yard Setbacks 4.8.07 Rear Yard Setbacks . _4.8.08 Upper Story Setbacks Staff explained that the proposed wording in .08 would set the whole building back 25 feet from the right-of-way, and Commis- sion determined that correction should not be made. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTION 4.8.04 WAS DEFERRED AND SECTIONS 4.8.05, 4.8.06, 4.8.07, AND 4.8.08 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.9 DISTRICT #7: VISITOR -SERVING COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL 4.9.01 Minimum Parcel Size Staff reported that a letter had been received from the property owner requesting deletion of the requirement for full block consolidation. Since the area is in one parcel, staff and the Commission concurred. Also, under "permitted Uses" Ueanine Frank requested that the same treatment as previously applied to visitor -serving be applied here - that the entire street level or one-third of the floor area be devoted to visitor -serving uses. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTIONS 4.9 AND 4.9.01 WERE APPROVED AS AMENDED ABOVE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjhangir -13- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 14 4.9.02 Permitted Uses Staff reported that this area allows residential as a conditional use in this primarily commercial area. They are recommending here the same wording as in .01 above governing the area required for visitor -serving footage. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE SECTION 4.9.02. Chairman Porter stated that he would be voting against the motion because, other than the existing residential, he does not believe that this district should allow additional development of residen- tial units. He also noted that elimination of the residential would make the existing mobile home parks non -conforming. Discussion en- sued as to methods of retaining the mobile home parks presently in existence without allowing any further permits for residential. The list of permitted uses was also reviewed, and the consensus was to leave Item (a) off this list, so that only visitor -serving commercial would be allowed. AS MAKER OF THE MOTION LIVENGOOD AMENDED THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL TO: 1) CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE DISTRICT TO DELETE REFERENCE TO RESIDEN- TIAL; 2) STRIKE ITEM 4.9.02(a); AND TO DELETE "RESIDENTIAL USES" IN (c). THE SECOND CONCURRED, AND THE AMENDED MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.9.03 Density This section was eliminated from the text by consensus. 4.9.04 Intensity 4.9.05 Setbacks 4.9.06 Maximum Lot Coverage 4.9.07 Corridor Dedication Jeanine Frank informed the Commission the property owner has also sub- mitted a letter finding the proposed potential requirement to dedi- cate a portion of the abandoned Pacific Electric railroad right-of-way between Atlanta and Pacific Coast Highway totally unacceptable. She added that such a corridor is identified in the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan as one of the policies to preserve the right-of-way for future transit use. It is the staff's proposal that the wording be changed to read: "In any development in District 7 dedication of a 40 foot corridor in close proximity to one of the former Pacific Electric rights -of -way which extended across Atlanta Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway . . . etc., etc." A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD'AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO DEFER SECTION,4.9.04, APPROVE SECTIONS 4.9.05 AND 4.9.06, AND DEFER 4.9.07 TO ALLOW STAFF TO ANALYZE WORDING ON THE CORRIDOR AND CONSIDER RE- QUIRING EQUIVALENT ACREAGE NOT NECESSARILY PARALLELING THE RIGHT OF WAY. 1 ril -14- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 15 Chairman Porter then discussed the proposed setbsck in this dis- trict, saying that for a parcel of this size a 25 foot setback is too shallow compared to setbacks on other major highways in the City. Staff and the Commission discussed use of setbacks for parking and the code -permitted one -for one tradeoff in land- scaping for intrusion into the 50 foot setback on arterials. In response to a question from Commissioner Livengood, Secretary Palin responded that multi -story would be handled here in the same way as upper story setbacks have been handled tonight in the other districts. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL TO AMEND THE PRIOR MOTION TO REQUIRE A 50 FOOT SETBACK ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THIS DISTRICT. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Porter, Winchell NOES: Livengood ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED, DEFERRING .04, APPROVING .05, APPROV- ING .06 WITH AN AMENDMENT TO LIMIT LOT COVERAGE TO 50 PERCENT, AND DEFERRING .07, PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir 4.9.08 Mobile Home Zoning The Commission requested that the wording in this section be carefully structured to assure the legality of the existing mobile home parks without encouraging or allowing new ones to be developed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE SECTION 4.9.08 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Livengood, Porter, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir At this point in the meeting, the Commission ended discussion of the Specific Plan and went on to the regular agenda. Commis- sioner Livengood asked that staff make sure that the absent commissioners get copies of the July 26 revised draft and that they are given an opportunity to listen to the tape of this meeting. NOTE: All votes set forth above are straw votes only, pending final Commission action on the entire Specific Plan. -15- 7-26-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission July 26, 1983 Page 16 ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Regarding Mola's Development at Beach & Warner A resolution from the Planning Commission to the City Council recommending that the entire area surrounding Mola's development be integrated into the Oakview Redevelopment Project area. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER RESOLUTION NO. 1311 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Schumacher, Mirjahangir ABSTAIN: None Ouestion and Answer Session Staff suggested the possibility of beginning the practice of a half-hour study session to be conducted before each Planning Commission meeting as the City Council now conducts. Art De La Loza from the City Attorney's office had some concern that it might interfere with Brown Act implementation. The Chairman directed the City Attorney staff to prepare a memo for the August 2, 1983 meeting for discussion on this matter. ITEMS DISTRIBUTED: Commissioner Livengood's Comments on Downtown Specific Plan Commissioner Livengood had requested that his comments be distributed to the Commission for their information. The report was received and filed. Comment On Downtown Specific Plan A written comment on the Specific Plan dealing with off street parking on 7th Street was received from Mr. James Osterman and was distributed for the Commission's information. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:20 P.M. to a 6 P.M. study session on August 2, 1983. -16- 7-26-83 - P.C.