Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-16APPROVED ON 11/1/83 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, AUGUST-16, 1983 - 6:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Porter, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher CIRCULATION FOR DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach Planner Mike Adams presented the base map of the existing arterials and described a partial history of those streets. He outlined the three alternatives presented by staff as follows: Alternative 1: This alternative shows Lake Street meeting Orange Avenue via 3rd Street, with through traffic required to continue down 6th Street or turn to the left and continue down Lake Street. This layout is construed as a means to empty the beaches and move the traffic out as quickly as possible rather than taking the traffic back into residential neighborhoods along Lake and Main Streets. Indianapolis is planned to tie into this overall system. Alternative 2: This alternative represents pretty closely the adopted alignment of the Lake/Orange/Atlanta interchange as precise planned. The decision of a motorist here will be to go on to the east or down to the coast; it actually represents just the squaring off of the existing intersection. This alternative also shows Main coming in and taking 6th Street to the ocean, and brings Main into the "super - block" area and stopping in that location. Mr. Adams noted that the staff has received a letter from the Southern Pacific Land Company indicating that they realize that the adopted precise plan presents certain constraints to the develop- ment of their property but they feel they can work within those constraints. Their concern is that they need to know the parameters in which the City will expect them to design as early as possible. Alternative 3: This alternative ties Indianapolis into the overall circulation and shows how it can also become a way of getting from Beach Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway. It would also go over to 6th Street, but the primary emphasis is from from Beach Boulevard to the ocean and back to Beach, with a choice of going downtown if desired. Lake Street as it is existing now would be diverted to become an extension of Indianapolis. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 16, 1983 Page 2 All alternatives show Delaware as another major means of getting back and forth to the ocean, and all alignments involve existing residential areas to a greater or lesser degree. Also in all the alternatives the primary consideration is the use of Pacific Coast Highway, Orange, 6th Street, and Lake as the backbone system for whatever circulation pattern is developed. Staff is proposing to take the designation presently on 5th Street and transfer it over to 6th Street. All alternatives also show the extension of Wal- nut Avenue as a means of getting traffic from the downtown corri- dor to Beach Boulevard. The Commission discussed the various proposals. Indianapolis Avenue: Commissioner Higgins indicated that he was not sure about the con- figuration of Indianapolis coming down and tying into 6th Street; however, since Main Street north of Indianapolis really doesn't go anywhere (or has the potential not to go anywhere because of what may happen in the Gothard Corridor) feeding a lot of traffic up the Main Street route would not seem wise, so perhaps Indianapolis may be the best choice. He asked staff to consider the merits of trying to use 17th Street instead. Commissioner Winchell asked ghat would happen at the top of 6th Street if Indianapolis ties in there. Staff responded that land would have to be acquired and some streets could be abandoned; there are also some vacant parcels and some commercial properties in- - volved. Sixth Street would actually travel on Main for the part of the block necessary to make the transition. There are no cost estimates on acquiring the needed right-of-way for this alternative. Mike Adams pointed out that the Indianapolis alternative looks at a longer -range treatment of the traffic problems and staff has placed emphasis on it even though it would go through residential neigh- borhoods. Secretary Palin said that even if some traffic would filter onto Lake that street has for years been a primary developed out at 90 feet and could carry the additional load. Commissioner Higgins inquired if there could be any advantage to extending Indianapolis over -to Main to accomplish the objective in Alternative 3. Les Evans replied that it could be done but it would involve a combining of the two alternatives and would still become 6th Street further down. However, it would require the tak- ing of homes on already developed property, while the alignment being proposed would require no taking of any developed property. Main Street: Les Evans reported that the Department of Public Works wishes to re- tain Main as an option, noting that Main and Lake are both very wide and could carry 15,000 vehicles per day without the residents there -2- 8-16-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 16, 1983 Page 3 perceiving heavy traffic, and the option needs to be preserved to use both streets. In response to questioning from Commission, he said that the Department is advocating that Main preserve its present configuration to Five Points. Orange/Lake/Atlanta Commissioner Livengood indicated that the problem he sees with this interconnection is that it will result in traffic impacts on the Townlot area, while more use of Pacific Coast Highway should not result in a problem on that street. Frank Higgins noted that Lake Street as in Alternative 1 does seem to be doing some of the things being advocated as far as keeping the traffic out of residential areas. Commissioner Porter in his discussion said that he sees the downtown circulation as two loops, one that provides traffic circulation from the east and another one coming from the west side, which could be as a result of an Orange/Walnut couplet over to Goldenwest. The ideal circulation pattern would be to allow those two loops to interconnect; however that would create prob- lems in the Townlot area. He said that it really seems that if Pacific Coast Highway at six lanes has the capacity to handle the outbound traffic you could get inbound by using the capacity of Orange Avenue one-way from Goldenwest. He touched on the possiblility that the circulation could be left pretty much as it is with the exception of the Walnut Avenue extension, as it seems inadvisable to depart from it without being sure that an alternative would be better. Secretary'Palin informed the Commission that it is the consensus in City departments that the City move ahead with adoption of one of the alternatives and amend later if necessary. Given the existing backbone network in the area and the proposed backage road and even with modifications to one or the other of the alt- ernatives, the resulting street system should be more than adequate to accommodate what is being proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan. Mike Adams identified the following concepts with which the Commission should deal: 1) Designate Atlanta Avenue as an east/ west route into the Downtown area; 2) The Commission may wish to state that Orange Avenue will not be a primary west of 6th Street; 3) Identify which streets should remain arterials; and although Indianapolis west of 6th Street is outside the Specific Plan, it should be mentioned if it is going to be incorporated in the circulation. Commissioner Winchell emphasized that she would not wish to see Indianapolis become an inland alternative to Pacific Coast Highway and suggested wording that would take it only as far as 6th Street and discourage primary use from there on. She also asked that the Specific Plan state the intent -3- 8-16-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 16, 1983 Page 4 the Commission to maintain the Townlot residential areas by not encouraging Walnut or Orange Avenues to penetrate the area beyond 6th Street. Public Works Director Paul Cook addressed the Commission to present his approach to the downtown circulation. He finds acceptable the con- cept of de-emphasizing Orange west of 6th Street as it is not par- ticularly important to the success of the Specific Plan; however, east of 6th it is very important. The Atlanta/Orange connection should be made as well as interconnection with Lake Street. The north/south streets in existence should be left as a backbone system until another, better alternative comes in through the devel- opment process. The four-way intersection at Lake/Atlanta/Orange is needed, with the stipulation that Lake be no more than one lane in each direction and that Orange west of 6th be no more than one lanes in each direction. Seventeenth should be kept to Main Street and both streets retained as a connection; it is his opinion that the projected traffic volumes can be handled with striping. Indianap- olis and Atlanta should remain as they are, stopping at Lake. Indianapolis should be put in a holding pattern, as the Specific Plan does not justify connecting it to Main or 6th Streets. He closed by saying that these alternatives should be considered for a future date when development may take place. The study session was adjourned at 7;05 p.m. to the regular session of the Commission. James W. Palin, Secretary Marcus M. Porter, r an -4- 8-16-83 - P.C. 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Porter pulled Item A-2 for separate consideration. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF JULY 12, 1983, GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 83-6 AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 83-7 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter had some question on the zoning on the property. Secretary Palin explained that the "CFR" was a suffix or overlay zoning and the actual zoning on that piece of property was R1. Chairman Porter suggested that for future staff reports the General Plan designation be indicated clearly. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 83-5 WAS FOUND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE UNDER -LYING ZONE IS R-1 ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir Schumacher REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-22 Applicant: Farrell's Ice Cream A request to add 16 video game machines in an existing ice cream parlour at 16301 Beach Boulevard. The applicant requested a continuance. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-22 WAS CONTINUED TO THE SEPTEMBER 7, 1983 MEETING, AT REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-9/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-28 Applicant: Gerald Sy Golob, AIA A request for a change in zone from (Q)C4 to C4 on property generally located south of Warner Avenue, west of "A" Street. The applicant requested a continuance. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-9 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-28 WERE CONTINUED TO THE SEPTEMBER 7, 1983 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-6 in conjunction with "Notice of Intention to File Notice of Violation on Tract No. 9580" (C.U.P. 83-6 continued from 6-21-83) Applicant: W & B Builders and Seaside Village Townhome Association A revision to a previously approved CUP to permit the addition of security gates and wrought iron fencing on property located at the southwest corner of Atlanta Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Michael Strange made the staff presentation. Commissioner Higgins asked staff for the current status on Lot 9. Mr. Strange stated that it is incorporated into the overall association for market rate units. Brief discussion took place regarding a suggestion to include Lot 10 in the CC&R's. The public hearing was reopened. Frank Thompson, representing W & B Builders and as general partner of Surfside Villas, spoke in favor of granting the request on the CUP. He said that the CC&R's left Lot 10 -2- 8-16-83 - P.C. out. He said that at the time it was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission that nothing was detailed regarding the status of Lot 10. He said that our HUD "person" (Steve Kohler) was aware of that. He said we do not either as general partner in Surfside Villas nor as W & B Builders, object to the proposed recommendation on including Lot 10'into the CC&R's of the condominium development, however, the homeowners do object. He said a zone change request was filed for parking purposes. Regarding the notice of intent to file, he said that he believed he was doing everything possible to work out a system of conformity and further stated he would file a condominium map if that was the wish of the Commission. Commissioner Higgins directed a question to the applicant, asking him to explain the separation between Lot 9 and Lot 10. Mr. Thompson stated that in the field there was no separation that the lot line is the ownership line to satisfy rentals. He said separation would not follow that lot line, that would follow the curb line of Main Mast and Admiral. Nancy Schlacter, representing the Seaside Village Townhome Association, stated that the reason for the objection was that when people purchased their condos the maximum was 286 units, that in order to bring in Lot 10 and share the recreation facilities each person would have to go to his lender. She said that a meeting was held on May 4th to go over all this and that the bottom line was to request a zone change and amend the map. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Higgins stated that he felt Lot 10, regardless of the length of time it remains apartments, should stand on its own as a separate project. He said he did not see how Lot 9 could work with either project. Commissioner Livengood said that he supported staff's recommendation with location of the gate and he agreed with Mr. Higgins to delete Conditions #1 and #2. Commissioner Winchell said she was not in favor of allowing increased density, that it was an R2 project. She clarified the density of the entire project with the applicant. Commissioner Livengood suggested making a motion to approve the conditional use permit with the deletion of Conditions #1 and #2 with resolution of Lot 9 situation. Commissioner Winchell suggested that a condition be added that Lot 10 must meet the ordinance code for R2-PD standards prior to issuance of a permit on the fence. Chairman Porter stated that it was not so simple, that maybe it would be if it were just Lot 10. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE CUP 83-6 DELETING CONDITIONS #1 AND #2, #3 BECOMES #1, #4 BECOMES #2, #3 STATES LOT 10 MUST CONFORM TO R2-PD, AND ADD #4, IN ONE YEAR THE CUP MUST BE REVIEWED BY STAFF WITH REPORT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Livengood stated that the gates should not be the clout the Commission uses. Commissioner Higgins stated he was not satisfied, that units in Lot 9 are hanging in limbo - they will become part of Lot 10. He felt the two are not going to work to- gether. However, he stated that Commission should go ahead with the gates to get a temporary separation and make every effort to get a solution to Lots 9 and 10. Commissioner Winchell asked for legal -3- 8-16-83 - P.C. counsel opinion on the bounds of the Planning Commission with regards to their authority to approve anything other than the gates. Art De La Losa stated that the Commission could deny the applicant on the grounds that insufficient basis exists to find that the separated project conforms to the code. However, he said that the other matter should be dealt with first on the possible violation. He suggested that Condition #3 could be amended to address the issue of Lot 9 and that on Condition #4 the one-year review should specifically state what it is that is going to be rejected for compliance or whatever. Chairman Porter asked the applicant to go over a description of the map. Frank Thompson stated that the City did not want additional access on Delaware between Main Mast and Atlanta because it was intended to be a main artery so access was taken at Main Mast and one of the streets had to be dead ended; the final map has the whole street shown as originally approved. Commissioner Livengood asked if Condition #1 as stated would take care of the violation. Secretary Palin said that the PD ordinance requires the CC&R's at the end of the project to include everyone in common open space. Commissioner Higgins said that in that case, it appeared that W & B was in default and the CUP should be denied. Commissioner Livengood withdrew his motion to approve the CUP. Commissioner Winchell asked for clarification that they could make the 75 rental units a separate project if they conformed to PD standards. Secretary Palin stated that staff had additional direction to discuss alternatives and would attempt to work out a resolution to removing the notice of violation that was recorded with Orange County. Commissioner Higgins stated that he did not want Lot 10 as PD unless it was planned as a rental project recognizing its current use. Commissioner Mirjahangir suggested a continuance. Secretary Palin noted for the Commissioner's information that a temporary fence around Lot 9 is presently in place. Commissioner Livengood repeated for clarification that Lot 10 would stand alone and buffers built into Lot 9. A motion was made by Livengood and seconded by Mirjahangir to continue the CUP to the October 4, 1983 meeting, however, the maker and second withdrew their motion. Commissioner Higgins made a motion to find W & B Builders in default, however, the Chairman stated that a motion was out of order. Mr. Thompson stated that until the project was completed he did not think that a determination of violation could be made. He suggested a continuance. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ACTION ON NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1983, FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO MITIGATE VIOLATION OR TO ADDRESS RECOGNITION THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-6 WAS CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 4, 1983 MEETING WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF AS STATED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -4- 8-16-83 - P.C. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir None Erskine, Schumacher None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-18/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83-563/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-26/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-21 Applicant: M. Westland Company, Lee Miller, Partner A request to create an 11-lot industrial subdivision to enable development of a mixed use industrial/commercial/office project with an exception for compact parking at property located at the northwest corner of Gothard Street and Heil Avenue. Jim Barnes gave the staff presentation. He suggested a revision to the staff report on Condition #4 to allow for three driveways onto Gothard and one onto Heil, and recommended deleting Condition #5, relating to noise, as it had no bearing on this case. There was brief discussion on Lot 11. It was discovered that the negative declaration was omitted from the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Lee Miller, the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He said he intends to put additional buildings on Lot 11 in conformance with City standards. He further agreed with the revisions to conditions suggested by staff. A gentleman from the audience asked the question, "Why do you let us face a heavy industrial zone?" He favored a greenbelt area. He said with the rain, we had a lake in the vacant lot; where does the run off go? Idez Neuenfeldt wanted the condition dealing with noise left in. She said that she did not believe that a setback alone would mitigate the noise. She also was opposed to the application because of the water runoff problem. Edward Garakian, a resident on Magellan, stated his opposition also citing the water runoff as a problem. Forges Georgaiso stated his opposition again repeating the water problem and also complaining about air pollution from future tenants. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked the applicant if he was going to grade at one time or in phases. The applicant replied that the rough grading would be done all at once; that the soils report advises him doing as little grading as possible. He said further that the grading plan was not completed yet. Commissioner Winchell stated that it appeared from the public testimony that drainage was a real concern and asked if Public Works Department was involved. Jim Barnes said that they were involved in the review of the application but found no comments from them on the subject of drainage. Chairman Porter requested a calculation as far as the runoff, what kind of safety margin exists plus data on the pump -5- 8-16-83 - P.C. station. Commissioner Livengood suggested an added condition on the tentative parcel map of a landscape buffer with plan to be submitted to the Commission for review and approval. Some members of the audience asked questions but the Chairman stated that the hearing had been closed. Commissioner Livengood also suggested leaving Condition #5 in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Higgins believed that the buildings could be oriented to mitigate any noise problems. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL NEGATIVE DECLARATION 83-21, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-18, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 83-563 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 83-26 WERE CONTINUED TO THE SEPTEMBER 7, 1983 MEETING AND STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO COME BACK WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND A COPY OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: (Commissioner Livengood suggested that a copy of the negative declaration be mailed to all the persons who addressed the Commissioners tonight.) AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None C-2. DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach Mike Adams began the discussion of the 10 deferred items as outlined in the staff report. 1. Maximum Building Height - District 2 Staff is suggesting that heights in District 2 be restricted to 35 feet and no more than 3 stories for less than a full block and to 45 feet and no more than 4 stories for a full block. Commissioner Winchell inquired how the height would be measured and was assured that it would be from grade of street level, as a new means of calculating the subterranean parking allowance had been used. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4.4.04 AND 4.4.08 WERE APPROVED AS SUGGESTED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher 2. Intensities within District 3 Mike Adams reported that maximum FAR for one-half block would be 2; for one-half block to a full block, 2.5; for a full block, 3.25; and for multi -block development, 3.5. Staff has made a change in the calculation for FAR; it will now be calcu- lated on gross acreage except that the resultant floor area may not exceed by more than 15 percent of what would be allowed if -6- 8-16-83 - P.C. the net site area were used for calculation. The FAR's will apply to the entire project area. In conjunction with that, staff has re -drafted the height restrictions for District3. In the old text heights, FAR, and coverage were all handled as one; now coverage is handled in 4.5.08 and the maximum for the entire District 3 will be 50 percent and to offset that structures taller than 4 stories will have an additional 2.5 percent of the net lot area in public open space for each story over 4. The discussion of the intensity of District 3 covers the intensity but also heights, upper story setbacks, maximum lot coverage, and min- imum open space requirements. Staff is also asking the Commission to reconsider its previous deletion of the "residential" designation from this district. Mr. in Adams also informed the Commission that heights now proposed this district are as follows: Less than one-half block One-half to full block Full block n/o Main . . . Full block s/o Main . . . Multi-block-n/o Main . . Multi -block s/o Main . . . 3 stories . 4 stories 6 stories . 8 stories . 8 stories 12 stories In the discussion on heights, Commissioner Livengood expressed the desire to reduce the full block north of Main to 4 stories, the full block south of Main to 6 stories, the multi -block north of Main to 6, and the multi -block south of Main to 8 stories. Commissioner Winchell concurred with this approach. Commissioner Mirjahangir also agreed with the reduction in heights, saying he would like to see Areas 3 and 5 tied together. He noted that if added heights induce new development in Area 3 it will reduce the chance of development in Area 5. Mike Adams conceded that the Plan does provide greater incentive for District 3 because it is hoped that higher intensite developments in District 3 will halp in getting public improvements in conjunc- tion with the pierhead area. Another node where these incentives are needed is in District 6, where the "super -block" is located. Commissioner Porter indicated that he also would be amenable to Livengood's suggestion, noting that he would have personally been even more restrictive in terms of how the heights are stepped down from north to south. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SECTION 4.5.04 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: Less than one-half block - 3 stories One-half to full block - 4 stories Full block n/o Main - 4 stories Full block s/1 Main - 6 stories Multi -block n/o Main - 6 stories Multi -block s/o Main - 8 stories AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher -7- 8-16-83 - P In a brief discussion staff indicated that they are still comfort- able with the FAR's for this district even with the reduced heights. Secretary Palin informed the Commission that S. 4.5.07, relating to setbacks from 6th Street, is no longer necessary given the above action. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER SECTION 4.5.07 WAS DELETED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher S. 4.5.08 - Maximum lot coverage. S. 4.5.09 - Minimum public open space requirements. Mike Adams clarified site coverage by saying that the FAR for a full block will be reduced to 3.0. Staff will recalculate all the others to assure that they are still workable. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SECTIONS 4.5.08 AND 4.5.09 WERE APPROVED WITH THE AMENDED 3.0 FAR BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher S. 4.5.12 Pedestrian Overpass This was an item deferred for failure to agree at the last meeting on the inclusion of "underpass" in the title of the section. Brief discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SECTION 4.5.12 WAS APPROVED AS TITLED IN THE TEXT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood, Porter ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher nTSTRTCT 5 S.4.7.04 Mike Adams reported that staff is recommending the following: Less than half -block - 3 stories, 1.5 FAR Half -block to full - 3 stories, 2.0 FAR Full block - 6 stories, 2.5 FAR The Commission discussed treatment of the portion of District 4 that had previously been included in District 5, and staff recommended that this action be reconsidered and the area re- inserted in 4. After reviewing the nature of the uses allowed in each district, Commissioner Livengood requested that a decision be made on the maximum number of stories to be permitted in the district and then the matter of reassigning the half blocks in question could be decided. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL S.4.7.04 WAS APPROVED WITH THE STORIES FOR A FULL BLOCK REDUCED TO 4 AND THE -8- 8-16-83 - P.C. MAXIMUM FAR TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher Commissioner Livengood discussed the four-story height limit which has now been placed on District 5 and indicated that staff's recommendation seems to provide a buffer zone; he con- cluded that perhaps the area in question might provide a better cushion if replaced in District 4. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE RECONFIGURATION OF DISTRICTS 4 AND 5 WERE APPROVED AS OUTLINED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher Commissioner Livengood asked that the Commission take a straw vote on the reconsideration of the maximum FAR to be allowed in District 3 based on the Commission's action in lowering the allowable building heights. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO RE -ASSESS THE MAXIMUM FAR BASED ON THE ADJUSTED HEIGHTS IN DISTRICT 3, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher Item 5 - Intensities for District 6 Mike Adams reported that the following is being recommended by staff: 100 feet or less 2 stories, 1.25 FAR 101 feet up to half block 3 stories, 1.5 FAR One-half to full block 3 stories, 2.0 FAR Full Block 4 stories, 2.25 FAR He informed the Commission that there is a good potential for con- solidation and that major developments could occur with the City working in conjunction with property owners. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE DENSITIES FOR DISTRICT 6 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher Item 6 - Intensities for District 7 Staff is recommending here a maximum FAR of 3.0; there is no height limit being proposed, but there is a maximum lot coverage of 50 percent. The Commission was reminded that it had removed the resi- dential designation from this district. After extensive discussion, -9- 8-16-83 - P.C. it was the consensus of the Commission that a height limitation should be placed on this district and that such limit should reason- ably relate to what is being applied to abutting districts. ON MOTION BY LIEVNGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE COMMISSION IM- POSED A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 8 STORIES IN DISTRICT 7 AND DIR- ECTED STAFF TO RETITLE S. 4.9.03 TO READ "MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND INTEN- SITY," BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher S. 4.9.07 Mike Adams offered wording for the dedication of right-of-way which had been contested by the Huntington Beach Company, owner of the subject property, as follows: "The dedication of a 20 foot corri- dor between Atlanta Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway may be required for public access between the southern end of the Pacific Electric right-of-way and Pacific Coast Highway. This requirement may be waived if an alternative public amenity is provided or if the corridor is deemed unnecessary by the City. A proposal for an alt- ernative public amenity must be approved by the Planning Commission." Mr. Adams said one of the reasons the corridor is important is that be- cause of the traffic volume on Lake Street the bike lane is going to have to be removed.and a logical place for that bike lane would be on the old right-of-way abandoned by the railroad. Brief discus- sion took place. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE WORDING CONCERNING THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AS SUGGESTED ABOVE BY STAFF WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher Item 8 Mike Adams asked that the same wording as applied above be applied to District 8 , directly to the north of District 7. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ACTION WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher Item 9 Intensity in District 9 Mike Adams said that a maximum FAR of 4 is being proposed here, and staff can incorporate upper story setbacks off Beach and Pacific Coast Highway or the backage road if the Commission de- sire. -10- 8-16-83 - P.C. Tom Livengood expressed the feeling that some height limita- tion should be imposed on this district, as it should not result in taking the primary focus of the Specific Plan away from Area 3. Since an 8 story limit was placed on Area 7, he felt that some logical step-down in heights should be considered. Mr. Adams explained that staff feels that this area could prob- ably handle the highest structures since is is a large area and could provide substantial setbacks. Staff and the Commission reviewed the elevation differential between this district, District 3, and other nearby districts. It was concluded that because of this differential a higher structure could be placed within this district than those in 3 and still not visually appear to be higher. Commissioner Porter said that he agreed with staff that this parcel has the greatest potential for highrise buildings and would be the most appropriate place in the Plan for a large hotel facility, both because of the size of the site and the available traffic circulation. He suggested that 12 stories might be an appropriate height allowance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD TO PUT A HEIGHT LIMITATION ON DISTRICT 9 OF 10 STORIES. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Further discussion of the area took place, including the pos- sibility of reducing both FAR and the building footprint; however, no conclusion was arrived at and the item deferred by consensus of the Commission. y yItem 10 4.12.02 in District 10 Staff informed the Commission that the Plan reads "Maximum height shall be 25 feet and 2 stories above the pier level. Heights on the pier shall be limited to one story, with exceptions for life- guard towers and other facilities necessary for public safety." Several of the commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with the 2 story provision and discussion took place on separating the area north and south of the pier by placing different regulations on each. Staff explained that if an overpass is to be provided it will be necessary to have a second story on the beach side of the highway. Commissioner Winchell noted that this would block off views of the ocean and was assured that the construction would not be a continu- ous line of buildings. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS S. 4.12.02 WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED TO REFLECT THAT 2 STORIES WOULD BE ALLOWED ABOVE PIER LEVEL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PIER, 1 STORY ON THE PIER, AND 1 STORY ABOVE PIER LEVEI: ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PIER, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher -11- 8-16-83 - P.C. At this point in the meeting the Commission decided to return to the regular agenda. Staff will update and re -do the FAR's as directed and Commissioner Higgins requested that staff prepare some graphic depiction of what the Commission has done on heights on Pacific Coast Highway in Districts 3, 7, and 9. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE COMMISSION CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO A SPECIAL ADJOURNED MEETING ON AUGUST 23, 1983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Wi nchell, M irjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher NOTE: ALL MOTIONS SET FORTH IN THESE MINUTES ARE STRAW VOTES ONLY, PENDING FINAL APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF THE.SPECIFIC PLAN. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-24 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A request to amend Sections 9940, "Expiration of Tentative Tract and Tentative Parcel Maps", 9941(a), "Extension", 9941(b), "Time Limit on Extensions" of the ordinance code from a maximum of two years to a maximum of three years for extensions of time on tentative tract maps and parcel maps. The proposed code amendment will also revise and clarify wording contained in the above described code sections. The public hearing was opened. Seeing no one wished to address the Commission on this matter, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-24 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Brief discussion took place on the progress of letter to the City Council from the Planning Commission on an increase in stipend. Commissioner Livengood requested that the Lee Miller application be placed first on the September 7, 1983 agenda. -12- 8-16-83 - P.C. Chairman Porter requested staff to investigate possible violations at Cambro Industries with complaints on early morning noise. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Jim Barnes suggested a study session for August 30, 1983 to discuss several City -initiated code amendments. Commissioner Livengood said he would favor that only if action was taken, but not just a study session. There was no Commission consensus on the suggestion. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Porter adjourned the meeting at 11:30 P.M. to an August 23, 1983 Adjourned Meeting to begin at 7:00 P.M. "MarcusM., Chai -13- 8-16-83 - P.C.