Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-02Approved 10-18-83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Schumacher ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Jim Barnes opened the floor for nominations for Chairman. COMMISSIONER HIGGINS NOMINATED MARC PORTER FOR CHAIRMAN WHICH WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ERSKINE. THE NOMINATIONS WERE CLOSED. MARC PORTER WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Porter Mr. Barnes accepted nominations for Vice -Chairman. COMMISSIONER MIRJAHANGIR NOMINATED TOM LIVENGOOD FOR VICE-CHAIRMAN WHICH WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WINCHELL. THE NOMINATIONS WERE CLOSED. TOM LIVENGOOD WAS ELECTED VICE-CHAIRMAN BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Livengood CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Winchell noted a correction on page 4 of the minutes to - change 35 feet in height to 35 dwelling units in the fourth paragraph. Correction was so noted. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTING OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 6, 1983, AS CORRECTED, AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 83-4 WAS -APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING -VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-14 Applicant: Don Hartfelder (Continued from 7-19=83)., A request to permit the construction of an,8-unit condominium develop- ment located on the west side of Newland, approximately 575' feet south of Slater Avenue. Carol Inge gave a brief presentation of the project pointing out some revisions which were made since the application was submitted. The public hearing was reopened. Don Hartfelder, the applicant stated his reasons for special permit on some deficiencies. He cited the fact that the City has no small condominium ordinance addressing special concerns typical to a small development. However, as a general statement he said he felt that he meets the intent of the code and has come up with a better design which is more livable and more condusive to privacy. The public hearing-was.closed. Commissioner Mirjahangir abstained from the discussion and voting because he is the property owner.., He, thanked the staff for their hours of work on his project. Commissioner_Livengood asked for clarification on the location of the spa. Ms. Inge stated it was'not deficient. The following areas required a special permit: a. Noise attenuation b. Garage setbacks C. Building bulk d. Height e. Length of accessways ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-14 WAS APPROVED WITH A SPECIAL PERMIT WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. The proposed project will promote better living environments and better land -planning techniques with -maximum use ofI, aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design -because the layout -will minimize building bulk as viewed from Newland Street and will provide private open space in excess -of code requirements. 1 -2- - -- 8-2-83 - P.C. 2. The proposed project 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 because the code deviations are mitigated by the project's design features such as private open space, lofts for roofline variation and orientation perpendicular to Newland Street. 3. The proposed project will be consistent with objectives of planned unit development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment by utilizing design features to mitigate adverse impacts from the code deviations. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 0.55 gooss acre parcel of land zoned R2, is proposed,to be constructed having 14.6 units per gross acre which is within the maximum permitted density of 15 units per acre under the R2 zoning. 2. The general plan has set forth provisions for this type of .land use as well as setting forth objectives for implemen- tation -for this type,of housing. The proposed project complies with the land use element and all other elements of the general plan for medium density residential. 3.'' The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for medium density residential was placed on the property. 4. The lot size, -depth, frontage, street width and through the use of a special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed project are proposed to be con- structed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on.file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated July 27, 1983, shall be the approved plans. 2. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. 3. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at -the locations of cooking facilities, water -heaters and central heating units. This requirement may be waived provided that the applicant will install a more'energy efficient alternative subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. -3- 8-2-83 - P.C. 4. Low volume heads shall be used in all showers. 5. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe and other surplus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of -at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 6. Energy efficient lighting such as high pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in parking lots.to prevent spillage onto adjacent-areas'and for -energy conservation" 7. All structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed ''in' compliance with'the-State acoustical standards set forth for' units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property.''Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field o"f acoustical engineering, with the application for a building permit. 8. A fire sprinkler-systew shall be designed and'installed in those structures deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. An onsite'fire hydrant shall be provided as deemed necessary by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. 9. The covenants, conditions and restrictions shall contain a provision that will prohibit storage of boats', trailers and recreational vehicles on site,- unless an area that.is specifi- cally designated for_ such-storage"and which` s in compliance with the- provisions of - Article- '936' is provided for 'in the project. =. 10. If at: any "time an' entry 'gate `is `proposed at 'the --main entrance, the location and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Department'of'Development Services and the Fire Department. 11. A detached soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engirieer.' This analysis shall include onsite sampling and laboratory testing of materials - to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading;`ch mical-and fill proper- ties, foundations,_ retaining__ wwal_1's^, streets ;-and- utilities. 12. The design and materials of all perimeter walls shall be subject- to the approval of the Department`of-'Development Services - prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. -A detailed"landscape and sprinkler plan shall be subject -to the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. The sewer -,-drainage and street improvements--shall'be in' 'accordance with Public Works'standards': 15. The development shall include a retaining wall at the rear of the site to accommodate the proposed fill. 1 -4- 8-2-83 - P.C. 16. No parking shall be permitted on Newland Street for the length of the site frontage. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-24 (Continued from 7-19-83) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach This amendment will add Article 964 to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and establish an SP-2 Special Zone (Pet Cemetery) that sets forth standards for development of pet cemeteries. Jim Barnes explained that the purpose of the continuance was to allow staff time to follow the Commissioner's direction to specify minimum lot sizes. The proposed code amendment was initiated in a response to a letter received by Bennett Dorsey, a resident who has a pet who is interred at the Seabreeze Pet Cemetery. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked staff if a cost ratio study was con- ducted to determine what revenue would be captured by the City. Mr. Barnes said no such study was done. The Chairman reopened the public hearing. Seeing no one wished to address the Commission on this item, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood asked for clarification on the amendment. Mr. Barnes explained that it was not a request for a change of zone but rather, an establishment of a new suffix for pet cemeteries. Commissioner Winchell asked if this was common to other cities. Staff responded that it was not. There was some discussion on how the staff arrived at the 2.5 acre minimum lot size. Mr. Barnes said this was based on the size of the existing cemetery. ON'MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PORTER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-24 WAS APPROVED AS ADEQUATE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Livengood stated that because it is not designed for any certain parcel, it would be difficult for someone to come up with and he was, therefore, against approval of the code amendment. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that he could not see allocating this parcel of.land because there was no revenue for the City and he was also against the amendment. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PORTER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-18 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE -5- 8-2-83 - P.C. FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins; Winchell, Porter`, Erskine_ ,.. NOES: L;i.vengood, . Mir jahangir . ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None, CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 83-1/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-1 I - Initiated by City of -Huntington Beach _. Includes the following items: 1. Realignment of Ellis Avenue to connect with Talbert Avenue between Goldenwest., and- Edwards Street. 2. Re-evaluation of,the alignment of Gothard Street with Crystal Street to_connect.with Main.Street in the vicinity of -Clay Avenue. 3. Redesignation of, -Palm Avenue between Seaview and Goldenwest Streets, and Seaview between Garfield Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway from primary to secondary.arterials. Deletion of the primary stub between Palm Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway:_ 4. Deletion.of_Indianapolis Aveziu-e,between_Lake'Street and Beach Boulevard. 5. Redesignation.of Pacific,Coast_Highway_between Goldenwest Street and the Santa Ana.River from primary to major. _ A study session was conducted this date before the regular meeting. Hal Simmons made.a_brief presentation and review,of the.staff's recommendations. The public hearing was_opened..,B'i1l..Holman representing the Huntington Beach Company,.voiced.his concern..regarding,Gothard Street. He said that the ultimate_ realignment using Crystal -,has been part.of the City for years -and is'condusive to other projects south of Garfield. He mentioned impact of the Holly properties. He said he was 'concerned about -the -intersection' -of Gothard, Main and Garfield. He said the Company does not disagree with staff on-2.3, Palm and.Seaview desig- nations. There was -some discussion--regarding.a_remnant piece that could be created west of the intersection of Clay and Main as a result of the proposed alignment. Mr. Holman stated that they have not done too much planning on Seacliff.at_the.present time. He said any impacts on the Seacliff,property would be -minor... Clare Hemsley_addressed the realignment of Ellis Avenue, she did not agree with -connecting it with -Talbert. She stated that the present situation is.poor concerning,access;of fire apparatus._ Clint Lawson addressed his concern ,to�Section�2.4 regarding -the retention of Indianapolis. He felt there was not enough traffic to warrant the widening"of the.street_and further, that it is too costly for the"City to buy land for dedication. -6- 8-2-83 - P.C. Chairman Porter asked staff what the time frame was on approving the circulation plan. Secretary Palin said there was no time frame, however, he felt it was necessary to keep this designation at this time in order to work out the circulation for the Downtown. Rich Moore also addressed Area 2.4. He said the City "will never put Indianapolis in, the landowners are not going to do any developing with the heavy dedication required". Dave Eadie addressed his concerns to Area 2.2. He said, "we looked at the possibility of Crystal coming down straight and that did not generate enough interest. I suggested looking at any kind of alignment that might square off that corner. It appears to me that the plan for the Ranch would be adaptable to intersect at Clay and Main or Gothard". Bill Longly stated that Indianapolis has not changed in the last 40 years. Chairman Porter disagreed with that statement. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood asked staff about procedure on advertising. Mr. Simmons stated that because of the volume normal policy requires a quarter page ad to two newspapers. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD EIR 83-1 AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 83-1 WERE CONTINUED TO THE SEPTEMBER 7, 1983 MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO COME BACK WITH DISCUSSION ON THE ELLIS-TALBERT CONNECTION AND TO PLACE QUARTER PAGE AD IN THE NEWSPAPERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-21/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417 (REVISED) Applicant: 'Mansion.Properties/Urban West Communities A request to permit 8 additional units for a previously approved 554 unit planned residential development and a request to permit a one log subdivision for.condominium purposes on property located on the south side of Clay Avenue between Main and Huntington Streets. Jim Barnes gave the staff presentation stating staff recommends approval subject to the suggested conditions. The public hearing was opened. Dave Eadie spoke on behalf of the applicant in favor of granting the applications. The public hearing was closed. Brief discussion took place regarding the possibility of a precise plan of street alignment involving Crystal Street. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-21 AND TENTATIVE TRACT -NO. 11417 REVISED WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -7- 8-2-83 - P.C. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417 REVISED: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 46.89 acre parcel of land zoned R2-0-PD is proposed to be constructed having,12.9 units per gross acre. 2. The general plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use, as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of housing. 3. The property was previously studied for. this intensity of land use-at'the time the land -use -designation for medium density residential'was placed on the property. 4. The proposed project under Tentative Tract-No.''11417 Revised is consistent with all elements of the City's General -Plan.' 5. The Iot,size, depth, frontage, street widths, andithrough the use of a special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be con- structed in compliance with-standard'plans and specifications on file with the City as well as - in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and supplementary -City subdivision ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative tract received and dated'June 30' 1983, shall be the approved -tentative tract. 2. All'conditions adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract 11417 on April 5, 19834, shall remain -in -effect for the revised tentative tract approval: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.NO. 83-21: FINDINGS OF'APPROVAL: The proposed subdivision of this 46.89 acre parcel of land zoned .1. R2-0-PD is proposed to be constructed having 12.9 units per gross acre. 2. The general plan has set forth provisions,for.this type of land use, as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of'housing. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time'the land use designation for medium density residential was placed on the property._ 4. ' The proposed project under Tentative ITract No: 11417 Revised is consistent with all elements of the City's General Plan. -8- 8-2-83 - P.C. 5. The lot size, depth, frontage, street widths, and through the use of a special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be con- structed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated June 30,"1983, shall be the approved layout. 2. The special permit granted under Conditional Use Permit No.-81-8 allowing variation from Sections 9362.7j and 9362.10c of the ordinance code shall apply to the revised site plan proposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 83-21. 3. Access to the additional eight (8) units shall be provided in accordance with Fire Department standards. 4. All conditions of approval approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 81-8 shall remain in effect for the revised plan. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher - ABSTAIN: None PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 83-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-26 Applicant: Seacliff Estates A request to establish an 84 foot right-of-way on the extension of Palm Avenue, west of Goldenwest Street. Staff presentation was made by Jim Barnes who said the purpose was in order to provide screening and setbacks in the portion of the project that abuts Aminoil oil wells. The public. hearing was opened. Dave Eadie spoke on behalf of Seacliff Estates. He said the project was internally oriented and there was no opportunity for vehicle access from Product Area B. He said he would prefer to work with Public Works Department to solve the issue of the widening of the westerly driveway and closing of easterly driveway, rather than have that be an imposed condition. He said that the reason for this request was because it involves property that Seacliff does not own. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Porter recommended the following change to the resolution in the second paragraph, "Whereas, said Precise Plan will reduce the width of Palm Avenue from 100 feet to 84 feet west of Goldenwest as depicted on the attached cross-section;" etc. Commissioner Higgins said he saw no problem with eliminating the condition. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-26 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -9- 8-2-83 - P.C. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Mirjahangir ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS-PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 83-1 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO -THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. RESOLUTIONcNO.--1312 WAS ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENTS AS STATED ABOVE AND STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO INCLUDE THE DIAGRAM IN THEIR REQUEST FOR CITY. COUNCIL .ACTION, BY THE' FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins-, Winchell,.Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: - , . - None ABSENT:- :Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE.PERMIT NO. 83-19/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO: 83-03 Applicant:-Daniel-L. Felix A request to establish a temporary -commercial horse facility at the southwest corner of.Goldenwest Street,and Ellis_�Avenue: Carol Inge gave a -brief presentation explaining that the applicant is the new owner of the facility. The publc hearing was opened. Daniel Felix,asked'.for'approval of the operation.', H"e requested a -3 year ;permit -citing amortization of - improvements -required by•,the conditions -.-:He disagreed,with-the condition'asking that street improvements be made to the corner of Ellis and Goldenwest, he said that this was premature and would prohibit any temporary use,of.the land =because of --the exhorbitant cost. Commissioner Livengood said he agreed with the deletion of that condition. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell asked Les Evans of Public Works what the es- timated cost of 100 feet of frontage for just. the pavement and not the curb. 'Mr. Evans said it would be.approximately-$12,000. Chairman Porter favored -approving the operation for five years and requiring full street improvements. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-03 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING"FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS -FOR APPROVAL:' 1. 'The granting of Conditional Exception No. 83-03 will not be materially -detrimental to the public health; safety and welfare because the adjacent land uses are either vacant or developed with -horse stables similar to the -proposed -use. 2. The requested exception will allow the continuation of a previously City -approved stable and -therefore, -insure the preservation and use -of substantial property rights. -10- 8-2-83 - P.C. 3. Because the subject facility is existing, exceptional circum- stances exist that do not generally apply to the property or class of uses in the same district. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-19 DELETING CONDITION #8 REGARDING FULL IMPROVEMENTS BUT ADDING WIDENING OF ELLIS AVENUE EXCLUDING CURBS AND GUTTERS WITH A THREE YEAR TIME LIMIT ON PERMIT. Commissioner Livengood suggested adding another year to the permit because of the costs imposed. The maker of the motion disagreed. Chairman Porter stated that the wording of Condition #2 was not clear regarding the CUP becoming null and void if conditions are not complied with. He said this should require a public hearing first. He stated his position again that he would be against approval without full street improvements. Commissioner Erskine asked staff what the difference in cost would be with this request.' Mr. Evans stated that full improvements (curb and gutter) would be between $40,000 and $50,000 compared to between $10,000 and $15,000 for just the widening. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed use is compatible with existing land use of the surrounding area because adjacent properties are either vacant or developed with"horse stables. 2. The City does not anticipate -extensive residential development in close proximity to the proposed use within the immediate future. 3. The proposed use is substantially in conformance wiht the intent - and objectives of Article 939, "Temporary Commercial Horse Standards". CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:- 1. The site plan dated. -June 22, 1983' shall be the approved layout with the maximum horse density not to exceed 100 horses. 2. Within four (4) months of the approval of this conditional exception and conditional use permit, these items will be rescheduled for review by the Planning Commission to determine compliance with the stated conditions of approval and requirements of the City code. Should the Planning Commission -11- 8-2-83 - P.C. find that the applicant has not complied with all requirements, including conditions of approval, a public hearing shall be scheduled to determine whether the conditional exception and conditional use permit shall become null and void, and the applicant shall be required to cease and desist the commercial stable operations. Should the Planning Commission find that the use is in substantial compliance with all City requirements, the conditional exception and conditional use permit shall remain in effect for two years, eight months from that review date. 3. Fire Department access roads shall be maintained clear at all times and surfaced to support fire apparatus. 4. Corrals, racks and stalls shall be noncombustible construction, or structures with combustible walls and noncombustible roofs shall be limited to no more than six stalls. Structures having six stalls, as above, shall be separated from each other or any other combustible materials or structures by at least thirty (30) feet. Structures with combustible walls and combustible roofs shall be limited to three (3) stalls each and shall be separated from other combustible materials or structures by at least thirty (30) feet. 5. No hay storage shall be permitted within any of the tack rooms or stall facilities.' Bulk hay storage shall be kept at a minimum of thirty (30) feet from all corrals or stables. Storage of flammable or combustible liquids shall be prohibited within thirty (30) feet of any tack room or staff facility. 6. The present facility shall be provided with City address and numbers located in front to comply with City code. 7. The applicant shall improve (excluding curb and gutter) that portion of Ellis Avenue fronting the subject property as required by the City's Public Works Department to create a right-hand turn lane onto Goldenwest Street. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None The Chairman declared a five minute recess. Commission resumed at 9:15 P.M. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-20 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach An amendment adding Article 949 which commercial zoning district within the Firestone gave a summary of the code opened. Seeing no one was present to hearing was closed. creates a visitor serving zoning code of the City. Marc amendment. The public hearing was address the issue, the public -12- 8=2-83 - P.C. 1 Commissioner Mirjahangir asked staff how they arrived at the percentage figures for office and residential. Mr. Firestone stated that if the mix dropped below 25% you would not have the intent'of the amendment. He asked if it was based on density. Mr. Firestone said it was based on permitted floor area ratios. Commissioners wanted to know if there were actual requests for further development. Secretary Palin explained that originally the City Council requested the Commission to review an amendment to the Main -Pier Redevelopment Plan. He said that at the time redevelopment got started staff began work on this ordi- nance to implement a type of development compatible to the surrounding area, to create a buffer between the Plan area and adjacent resi- dential. He said -while there is no proposal at this -time to place this designation on the property, it is envisioned on the north or west side of 5th Street.- He further stated that it is another effort to regain permit power from the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Higgins asked if it could occur on 6th Street. Mr. Palin said perhaps over a 20-30 year period. Commissioner Higgins stated he did not see any advantage to this. Some discussion took place.about various senarios in the City using the proposed amendment as -compared to the Townlot-area: Jeanine Frank stated that the lot coverage under -the -proposed amendment would be very compatible with,.the-Townlot.' Commissioner Livengood-suggested defer- ring this item until -action was taken on the Downtown Specific Plan. Commission consensus called for some-locational criteria. Marc Firestone repeated the two revisions from Commission discussion, 1) changing each zone-.t:o a floating zone, i.e., a -district that is - described in the.zoning ordinance, but not given a specific location until a developer applies, and/or 2) adding additional wording to the purpose of each-code.amendment that focuses its application to par- ticular locations. Chairman Porter stated that Old World was the "tip of the ice -berg"- with this type of development. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOODAND SECOND BY ERSKINE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-20 WAS CONTINUED TO AUGUST 16, 1983, WITH A STUDY SESSION ON THIS ITEM TO PRECEDE THE REGULAR AGENDA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-19, VISITOR SERVING COMMERCIAL Initiated by City of Huntington Beach: An amendment adding Article 949.5 which creates a mixed use office residential district within the zoning code of the City. Mr. Firestone gave his presentation. He said that although the majority of planned visitor -serving commercial uses lie within -the Downtown Specific Plan limits there is a small area adjacent to Huntington Harbour that bears that designation. The public hearing was opened. Seeing no one was present to address the issue, the public hearing was closed. -13- 8-2-83 - P.C. Commissioner -Higgins -stated that he could not think.of any other places where this might -apply. Jeanine Frank -stated that although they have not been approved by the Coastal Commission there were two sections, one at the corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway and one along the Santa Ana,River. She further, stated,that Coastal Act policy is to encourage visitor -serving commercial. ON MOTION BY LIVENG06D AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-19 WAS CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 16, 1983 MEETING WITH A STUDY SESSION AT 6:30 PM,TO PRECEDE REGULAR AGENDA, BY THE FOLLOWING.VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood,'Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - ZONE CHANGE.NO'. 83-2/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach (Continued -from 7-26-83) The Specific Plan constitutes the,zone,for that -port , ion 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. District #8 Commissioners began discussion on page 105, at the beginning of District 8. A letter.from the Huntington Beach Company dated July 12, 1983, was discussed.regarding their concerns with District 8 under Corridor. Dedication and Conservation Overlay.. They suggest that "Section 4.10.8 should be corrected to,read "d portion of this district has been designated with a conservation overlay$ as described in Section 4.15 (not 4.12)". Their concern with the Corridor Dedication was "the -proposed potential requirement on Pages 104 and 106 to dedicate a portion -of the abandoned Pacific Electric Railroad right- of-way between -Atlanta and Pacific Coast is'totally unacceptable to the Huntington Beach Company. There is no justification for such a dedication and the reference to alternative corridors is meaningless unless such alternative corridors and the..purpose'of.dedication are identified in -the General Plan or Specific Plan". Regarding mobilehome zoning the Huntington Beach Company stated that "such zoning would perpetuate a nonconforming use and will result in the gross under - utilization of --this valuable coastal site". They requested removal of Section 4.9.08 from the Specific Plan. -Commissioner-Livengood stated he agreed with staff.on that issue.. ON MOTION BY.LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER ALL ITEMS ON -PAGES 105 AND 106 WERE,APPROVED..DEFERRING SECTION 4.10.7 FOR LATER ACTION. SECTION 4.10.9 REMAINS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir -14- 8-2-83 - P.C. 1 NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None District #9 Commissioner Livengood asked staff what was the difference between the minimum parcel size in this district and District 7?, Jeanine Frank stated that -one was the parcel size and one was conceptual. Secretary Palin said that, it is under one ownership and the City -has control. He recommended changing the language in Section 4.11.01 to read "No minimum parcel size shall be required for this district. However, prior to approval of -any development, a -conceptual plan for the entire parcel shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Development which is in conformance with the conceptual plan may then be permitted". In Section-4.11.04-Commissioners suggested making the setback on public streets consistent with the other districts"and show that as 50 feet from the ultimate right -of -way. -"Commissioners also agreed to defer discussion -on intensity, Section 4.11.03. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PAGES 107 AND 108 WERE APPROVED DEFERRING SECTION 4.11.03 WITH OTHER CHANGES AS NOTED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING "STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None-.-. District #10 Staff recommended that the boundard of District 10 be moved north to 7th Street where the -co-op apartments begin,extending along the beach. Considerable discussion took place on height limitations on the pier. Commissioner Livengood asked if,observation decks on top of structures on the pier would be allowed. Commissioner Erskine stated he did not like the idea of 2-story restaurants on the pier; he said you would wind up having separate facilities. Staff stated that the Coastal Commission agreed on that height limit. Chairman Porter said he agreed with Commissioner Erskine with the exception of.structures such as lifeguard towers necessary for public safety. -Commissioner, Erskine stated he did not even see why those had to.be there. Staff said the intent for higher limits was for vaulted ceilings and roof treatment. Commission concensus was to specify heights on.the pier separate from heights in the rest o"f the district. Commissioner Livengood recommended a.1-story limit for structures on the pier.. Commission consensus was that -maximum height in the district shall be 25 feet and no more than 1 story above the pier level. Brief discussion took place regarding parking structures related to the possibility of interferring with the view. -15- 8-2-83 - P.C. Commissioner-Livengood said that the previous draft specified widths of public walkways as 6 feet and not less than 4 feet along the outside of any new development, while the present draft says, "sufficient clear width". Staff said they did not want to put in an actual limit. Chairman Porter stated the Commission ought to be specific about what we see as being added or developed on the pier. Secretary Palin said that the drawings the ArroyoGroupsubmitted showed restaurants back to the waterline. Commissioner Erskine was concerned about impacting the surfing spot on the beach. He said he supports keeping all structures back toward the bluff area with none projecting into the water to protect the shoreline. Chairman Porter discussed control of types of restaurants on the pier. MOTION -WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD WITH SECOND BY HIGGINS TO APPROVE PAGE 109 WITH THE BOUNDARY FOR THE BASE DISTRICT STOPPING AT SIXTH STREET (THIS BASE DISTRICT SHALL BE DESIGNATED 10-a) AND AN AREA DESIGNATED AS 10-b TO EXTEND FROM_SIXTH STREET TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH. 10-b SHALL BE RESTRICTED FOR PARKING ONLY. FURTHER INCLUDED IN THE MOTION IS -THE APPROVAL OF SECTION 4.12.01, PERMITTED USES, WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO INCLUDE WORDING TO CONTROL THE OPERATION OF THE FAST FOOD TAKEOUT.WINDOWS AND PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA FOR CON- STRUCTION ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; DEFER SECTION 4.12.02, MAXIMUM HEIGHTS; AND APPROVE SECTIONS 4.12.03, 4.12.04 AND 4.12.05 ON PAGE 110.- MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES:. _Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None, District #11 Discussion took -place -regarding drawing the boundary of District 11 around the co-op development because District 11 does not inlcude the Rind of uses that that development represents. Staff said they are legally nonconforming. Commissioner Livengood-suggested-that the boundary on this district should reflect -the action taken on the boundary -of District 10. Chairman Porter asked staff for a definition of "small-scale" beach concession.stands. Ms. Frank said it was similar to the types -that presently exist. Commission requested staff to determine their actual size and -state "not to exceed a certain amount of square footage". Commissioner-Winchell questioned the height of the -stands. Staff said this.was also determined by the height of the present concession stands. There was some discussion by Commissioner-Livengood to -specify height of the stands -as opposed to the height in the rest -of the district but he amended that suggestion to leave it as is for reasons of simplicity.- Secretary Palin suggested that it read,__ "the concessions -and comfort stations". Commissioner Winchell referred back to Section 4.2.09 which states an additional 10-feet in height will be allowed for roof line treatment. She said we do not want that here so something should reflect that the statement made under heights in the general provisions section does not apply in District 11. Further discussion took place regarding the -16- 8-2-83 - P.C. separation between the concession stands and the number of stands. Ms. Frank stated that much of the area north of the pier is State beach and that they have their own criteria. Commissioner Livengood thought that under Section 4.13.01, Permitted Uses, that "design review by the City" was too vague. Secretary Palin said he preferred to leave that as is because a determination had not yet been made by the City Council whether or not to reconstitute the design review board. Commissioner Erskine said he would abstain on the following straw vote. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL PAGE 111 AND 112 WERE APPROVED WITH REVISION TO THE BOUNDARY TO REFLECT ACTION TAKEN IN DISTRICT 10. IN SECTION 4.13.01, PERMITTED USES, THAT BEACH CONCESSION STANDS BE LIMITED IN SQUARE FOOTAGE AND NUMBER WITH THE INTENT TO PROTECT THAT AREA (NO COMMERCIAL) DIRECTING STAFF TO COME UP WITH "TIGHTER" WORDING. ALSO INCLUDE STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER WINCHELL REGARDING EXEMPTION OF ADDED HEIGHT FOR ROOFLINE TREATMENT. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ' ABSTAIN: Erskine Oil Production Overlay Staff recommended adding a sentence to the last paragraph on page 113 to read, "The entire block will not bear the zoning suffix -01". This would follow the first sentence and would rezone that block for drilling. The July 5th letter from Chevron was also discussed. Staff said they had a.concern about submitting a schedule of abandonment of wells, however, the end of that sentence on page 115 states that this may be amended at the discretion of the Director upon the showing of good cause by the oil operator. Chairman Porter questioned staff on Condition #4 listed in the -middle of page 116 which says "the company" but does not refer to a particular company. This was resolved by striking the words "by the company" which deals with the performance of screening and landscaping. Commission Erskine brought up the point that by doing this the responsibility could be construed to be the City's and not the operator so the phrase "by the operator" was inserted after "shall be screened and landscaped" to clarify the operator's responsbility to provide this screening and landscaping. Ms. Frank also noted a typing error of section markings on page 116 to change the second "b" to "ii". Also, staff noted a sentence was inadvertantly omitted from the end of Condition #1 which reads, "the. redrilled well will be produced by other new technology with fewer visual and environmental impacts than a conventional ball and plunger pump.. . ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR PAGES 113, 114, 115, 116 AND 117-WERE APPROVED WITH REVISIONS AS PROPOSED BY STAFF AND CORRECTION TO CONDITION #4 AS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER ERSKINE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: -17- 8-2-83 - P.C. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Conservation -overlay Staff stated that they want_to narrow the area dowri.so that the overlay would only cover. the wetland and not. -the entire area which includes a mobile home - park.` ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND.BY-MIRJAHANGIR PAGES-119.AND'120 WERE APPROVED WITH REVISED DRAWING -OF THE MAP OF_THE;WETLANDS BASED ON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SUGGESTION WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO' ADJUST THE SPECIFIC -PLAN DOCUMENT SO THERE ARE NO BLANK PAGES, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter,_ Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN :.. None - Discussion took place,regarding a special meeting on August 9 to continue working on the Specific Plan. Secretary Palin requested continuing to the_August 16th meeting due,to the fact that the con- sultants at Greer and Associates will need at least that time to readjust their.figures for the traffic circulation report to include more arterial and road systems and allow staff time to incorporate the changes to date. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 AND ZONE CHANGE -NO. 83-2 (DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN), -WERE CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 16, .1983. MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -- AYES:. AYES:. Higgins, Winchell, Livengood,, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None , _ _,- ` . , -- ABSENT: Schumacher` ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS': , Proposed Question and Answer Session Mr. Godfrey'stated that a written staff'report would appear on the agenda at the next meeting. Survey of Stipends of Other Planning Commissions A MOTION WAS MADE BY-LIVENGOOD.AND SECONDED -BY PORTER TO PREPARE A MEMO TO THE CITY COUNCIL.REQUESTING-_THE STIPEND FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS BE INCREASED TO $30'A MEETING WITH A MAXIMUM OF THREE MEETINGS A MONTH. Discussion followed regarding the wording on the memo to the City -18- 8-2-83 - P.C. Council. Commissioner Erskine suggested that the City -Council be informed that a survey was conducted of surrounding Orange County (developing) cities and that it was discovered as a result of that survey that the City of Huntington Beach receives substantially less. Also that land use issues in this City are much more complex. Commissioner Winchell- added that the last time the stipend amount was reviewed -was in 1972.' Both the maker and second withdrew their motion. A hand count was totalled to determine if the Commissioners agreed on $50 a meeting which resulted -in all ayes ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO WRITE A MEMO TO'THE CITY COUNCIL*(WITH WORDING BY COMMISSIONER ERSKINE) REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN STIPEND FOR MEETINGS TO $50 A MEETING NOT TO EXCEED t100 A MONTH, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None --- Central Park Equestrian Stables Chairman Porter recommended further revisions to the two letters directed to the City Council and the.Director of Community Services regarding the stable facilities in Central Park. He revised the last paragraph to read --the Planning Commission strongly recommends that the necessary action be taken to bring the project into conformance._ Geothermal Resources Report Jeanine Frank indicated to the Planning Commission that the planner who wrote this report was leaving the City,to,return to school. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND -BY -PORTER -REPORT WAS NOTED AND FILED AND COMMENDATION GIVEN TO DIANE BORDER TO -WISH HER WELL IN HER ENDEAVORS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins,,_Winchell, Livengood; Porter, Erskine,-Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, ABSTAIN: None Oil Committee Commissioner Mir.jahangir volunteered as an alternat d. on the Oil Committee. City Council.Meeting- Secretary Palin reviewed the actions -taken at the August 1, 1983 City Council meeting. He said that on the project on 17th and Orange, they sustained the Commission's action in removing the "Q" from the property. -19-- 8-2-83 - P.C. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood requested that aside from the Downtown Specific Plan and applications from the public, that all other City -initiated items be held from the agenda temporarily. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 1-1:30 PM to.a 6 PM study session on the.two continued code amendments on August 16, 1983. Marcus M. Porter, Chai n -20- 8-2-83 - P.C.