Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-18APPROVED ON 11/l/83 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir Winchell The minutes of July 26, 1983 were deferred to the next meeting for lack of sufficient members present who were eligible to vote. Commissioner Schumacher requested that the minutes of October 4, 1983 be pulled from the consent agenda for separate considera- tion. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 1983, AND AUGUST 23, 1983, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTES: MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 1983: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: Schumacher MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 1983: Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: Porter Commissioner Schumacher requested that the minutes of October 4, 1983 be corrected to show that she had cast a negative vote on Administrative Review 83-30 (appeal) and to elaborate upon her comments in regard to Area 3.4 of Land Use Element Amend- ment No. 83-3. Commissioner Porter also requested that his com- ment on that same area be amended to state that high density in this area would not be consistent with City goals. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 2 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 1983 WERE APPROVED AS CORRECTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-30 (Appeal) (Cont. from 9-20-83) Applicant: The Huntington Partnership To permit installation of controlled parking systems for an existing retail/marina complex and development of a new marina restroom facility on property located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway approximately 10 feet north of Anderson Street. Chairman Porter informed the Commission that action taken at its October 4, 1983 meeting had been taken in error and it will be nec- essary for the Planning Commission to review the appeal again. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE COMMISSION DETER- MINED TO RECONSIDER THE APPEAL TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-30 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Porter, Erskine, Schumacher Howard Zelefsky drew to the Commission's attention a letter which has been received from the Broadmoor Homeowners Association in support of the applicant's proposal, and discussed the display show- ing the two proposed parking control arms and their locations. The public hearing was opened. John Cope, representing the applicants, addressed the Commission to urge that the Board of Zoning Adjustments' approval be upheld. He informed the Commission that he has conducted comprehensive review of his plan with all concerned City departments and has successfully completed a revised concept that meets all of their technical re- quirements. Mx. Cope added that the tenants of Peter's Landing have also reviewed the plan and given it virtually unanimous support. I 1 -2- 10-18-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 3 Lorraine Shannon, President of Broodmoor Community Association, spoke to the Commission to ask approval of the proposal. Ralph B. Saltsman, appellant, representing the Red Onion rest- aurant, addressed the Commission. He explained that his client is a party litigant to a lawsuit brought by the adjacent home- owners several years ago; circumstances have changed consider- ably now, mainly due to a very intricate and well thought out valet parking plan that took a great deal of time and effort. It was Mr. Saltsman's belief that the problems that initiated the original litigation were taken care of by that plan. He said that, while the Red Onion has no objections per se to a park- ing control plan, the condition in the Board of Zoning Adjust- ents' action requiring that the parking management plan be submitted to the City for approval is of concern to them because there is no public hearing process available to assure partici- pation by all interested and affected parties in the formation of that plan. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. In the ensuing discussion Commission questioning of Mr. Cope elicited the following information: The Red Onion has been and will continue to be included in the discussions on the parking; the present valet parking system is causing some problems with required fire lane access; the needs of other nighttime users of parking, such as some retailers, fast food establishments, and marina users, place certain constraints on valet parking; as much of the onsite parking as possible has been left in a self -park status to serve the needs of the retail and public users; and the plan meets Fire Department as well as other city requirements. When questioned by Commissioner Erskine as to the specifics of his appeal, Mr. Saltsman responded that he is specifically con- cerned with the level of participation in the plan, the hours of operation, number of attendants, and the fact that the plan has not taken into consideration the addition of a very sizable new restaurant in a location where a few months ago were day- time retail outlets. - The Commission reviewed the feasibility of leaving authority for approving the parking management plan to the professional staff as opposed to a committee of tenants and homeowners. Also discussed by Commissioner Livengood was the difficulty of taking action on the appeal without having a written plan upon which to base a decision. It was the consensus of the Commission that a meeting be arranged among City staff, the tenants of the project, and the developer to discuss the parking plan. The applicant would then be required to submit a revised, finished site plan and the parking management plan back to the Board of -3- 10-18-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 4 Zoning Adjustments for review and report; this report would then come back to the Commission to be taken into consideration in its action on the appeal before it. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-30 (APPEAL) WAS CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 15, 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AFTER REVIEW OF A REVISED, FINISHED SITE PLAN AND A COMPLETED PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-12/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-41 (Cont. from 10-4-83) Applicant: W&B Builders, Inc./Seaside Village Towne Homes Assoc. To permit a change of zone on the subject property from R2-PD (Medium Density Residential combined with Planned Development) to R2 (Medium Density Residential). Subject property is located at the southwest corner of Atlanta Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Planner Jim Barnes explained that this item had been continued to allow staff time to analyze the zone change and to prepare a procedural remedy or manner by which W&B could create two separate, distinct projects on the subject property. Staff has offered two alternative ways to meet that end, as evidenced in the staff report. He pointed out, however, that the staff report had failed to mention the fact that the applicant at a later date would have to file a tentative parcel map to create a separate and distinct entity on Lot 10 if Alter- native No. 1 was pursued by the Planning'Commission. Chairman Porter said that although the hearing was closed at the last meeting there has been new information submitted; therefore, the public hearing was reopened. Frank Thompson, representing W&B, spoke to the Commission to say that of the two alternatives he felt Alternative No. 2 would be the easier for him to implement. He added that he would try to comply with whatever action the Commission decided to take. There were no other persons to address the Commission on this item, and the public hearing was closed. Secretary Palin discussed the alternatives, saying that while any approach to sever Lot 10 from the rest of the tract will create some problems, Alternative 2 is probably the easier method. It would require the special permit to address the deviations from code that would arise in the creation of a separate condominium project. Commissioner Schumacher inquired whether or not the conditions the Commission had imposed upon its approval of the gating and fencing -4- 10-18-83 - P.C. [J Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 5 for the tract would still apply in the event Alternative No. 1 were to be adopted. Staff replied that the conditions would no longer apply and the Commission would have to reconsider its prior action on the conditional use permit granting the gating and fencing to amend those conditions. Chairman Porter suggested altering the zone change to leave the R2-PD zoning intact but impose a "Q", Qualified prefix, since it is more restrictive. His intent would be that the conditions under the "Q" would enumerate the things the applicant would have to do to bring the project into compliance and, if these things were not accomplished or satisfactory progress being made within the 18 month life of the qualified designation, then the City would be within its legal rights to file a Notice of Viola- tion with the county. This approach would mean that there need be no further delay and W&B could proceed to take care of the items the City is asking them to do, even though at this moment Lot-10 would be nonconforming. Legal counsel Art De La Loza informed the Commission that it must have a request from W&B to process the qualified zoning, and it must be an informed, voluntary application by W&B so that there is no question that it is the developer's application that is before the Commission. He added that the language in the code indicates that this Commission does presently have the power to impose the "Q" on the zoning as long as the applicant at this time wishes to amend his application to request the im- position of such designation. Mr. Frank Thompson then addressed the Commission again to express his concurrence with the proposed qualified designation on the subject property. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD NEGATIVE DEC- LARATION NO. 83-41 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-12, TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM R2-PD TO R2, WAS•DENIED AND A "Q" (QUALIFIED) ZONING PREFIX APPLIED TO THE EXISTING R2-PD ZONING ON LOT 10, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING AND CONDITION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING: Retention of the R2-PD zoning on Lot 10 will enable the appli- cant to establish a separate planned residential development -5- 10-18-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 6 pursuant to the provisions contained within Article 936 of the ordinance code and will also retain the rental units under the HUD requirements. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall file tentative tract map, conditional use permit, and special permit applications to create a separate condominium project on Lot 10 of Tract 9580. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-20 (Cont. from 10-4-83) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach An amendment to the ordinance code adding Article 949.5 which creates a mixed use office/residential district within the zoning code of the City of Huntington Beach. Chairman Porter informed the Commission that the amendment has been modified as directed to delineate specific locational criteria and to shift incidental commercial uses from being principal uses to conditional uses. He also pointed out a section of the amendment concerning height limitation which is not clear and suggested that the wording be changed to read . . exceed the building height limit by not more than fourteen (14) feet." Marc Firestone indi- cated that this change would be acceptable to staff. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was present to speak to the matter. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-20 AS AMENDED ABOVE WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-28 (Cont. from 10-4-83) Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach An amendment to the ordinance code to amend Article 996, Parkland Dedications, to reference the 1982 amendment to Section 66477 of the Government Code in establishment of the City's park standard. -6- 10-18-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 7 Jeanine Frank reported that since this item was heard on October 4, 1983 the department has received an attorney's opinion indi- cating that the State beaches could be included as park acreage for purposes of computation of the City's park ratio per thousand population. This has brought the acreage up to the already es- tablished standard, so staff is recommending no change in the ordinance other than referencing the new Government Code section to state that it has been taken into consideration. She recommended a change in S. 9961.2 to read . . builder and/or subdivider shall dedicate land . . . " in order to enable the City to collect in lieu park fees on new construction within those tracts which were subdivided prior to the time recreation and park fees were established. Art De La Loza pointed out that the Commission under the new Government Code section can recommend anywhere between 3 and 5 acres per 1000 population at its discretion. The public hearing was opened and closed when no one was present to speak for or against the amendment. Extensive discussion took place, including R1 per acre valuation for in lieu fees, the cost to developers, the use of such fees for "recreational purposes" other than park acquisition, the advisability of still requiring 5 acres per thousand when surplus park sites have been sold, the 1980 census figures as a permanent basis for park calculations, and the question of whether or not fees which have been obtained for park and rec purposes can be used to improve an area where there are commercial operations, such as in Central Park. To the last item Art De La Loza replied that it is permissible so long as the commercial use is incidental to the recreation facility and serves the public. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-28 WITH THE MODIFICATION SUGGESTED ABOVE BY STAFF AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. Further review of the park acreages in the City took place. Com- missioner Schumacher urged that the present standard in the City be maintained, and Commissioner Livengood said he could support the motion if acreages are clearly clarified. He suggested that a phrase be added to break down the acreages into a certain number of acres within neighborhood parks, "x" number of acres in the City beaches and parking areas, "x" number of acres in the State beaches, etc_ Both the maker of the motion and second agreed to so amen*d their motion. THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins, Erskine ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None -7- 10-18-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 8 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-06/TENTATIVE TRACT 12054/ND NO. 83-40 Applicant: S.Y. Kimball To permit the subdivision of 15.78 acres into 87 Rl lots with front- ages less than required by S. 9102.2 of the ordinance code on property located south of Edinger Avenue between Saybrook and Santa Barbara Lanes. Planner Jim Barnes reviewed the application, suggesting that two changes be added to the suggested conditions of approval in regard to location of a drainage easement and the width of Lot 24 in the tract. In response to a question from Commissioner Schumacher, Mr. Barnes noted that widening Lot 24 will have an effect on Lots 23 and 25, necessitating the expansion of the variance request to in- clude those two lots as being less than the minimum lot frontage. The public hearing on Conditional Exception No. 83-06 was opened. Bruce Bornemann, representing the application, addressed the Commis- sion to concur with the suggested conditions of approval and make himself available to answer questions. Richard Oliver, 4104 Delphi Circle, questioned an apparent discrep- ancy in the number of units shown on the negative declaration and the number actually proposed on this map. Jim Barnes explained that the 76 lots quoted by Mr. Oliver had been an earlier proposal be- fore the applicant had acquired the park site as well as the school site. Staff had subsequently determined that the change in the num- ber of units had not been substantial enough to change its determin- ation on the negative declaration. Dr. Robert A. Minow, 16262 San Clemente, spoke to question provisions for drainage, citing last year's closure of Saybrook because of flooding. He also inquired as to traffic control, and urged that the traffic impacts of this project be carefully evaluated. The ap- plicant's representative responded that some of the past problems may have been caused by tidal action or perhaps by improper. mainten- ance of the existing drainage channel; however, the problem is being discussed with Public Works and will be addressed in the grading plan and the Public Works improvement plan. Les Evans reported that the barrier in Santa Barbara will remain in place and traffic channeled up to'Saybrook. Although the inter- section of Saybrook and Santa Barbara will be the only exit from the subject tract, the increase in traffic count is not expected to be more than can be handled by the intersection. - There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. -8- 10-18-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 9 The Commission discussed lot size, frontages, and averaging. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-40 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMEND- MENT AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AMENDMENT: The Negative Declaration shall contain a statement by staff that the increase from 75 to 87 lots, with its resultant den- sity of 5.41 units per acre, is not sufficiently substantial to change the staff recommendation on the environmental im- pacts of the proposal. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL NO. 83-06 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. Exceptional circumstances apply to this property because of its shape that preclude the applicant from achieving the proposed density and fully comply with the minimum lot width requirements in Section 9102.2 of the ordinance code. 2. Approval of the conditional exception will not cause a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Tentative Tract No. 6808, which is adjacent to the site, was approved with a variance for lot width for the entire tract. 3. Approval of the conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification, nor will it adversely affect property within the proposed subdivision. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12054 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -9- 10-18-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 10 FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 15.78 acre parcel of land into 87 lots as proposed results in 5.51 units per net acre with an average lot size of 6,410 square feet. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as objectives for this type of housing. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of use at the time the Rl zoning was placed on the property. 4. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the low density designation on the land use element of the General Plan. 5. The lot size, depth, street widths, and, with the approval of Conditional Exception No. 83-06 the lot frontage, are proposed to be constructed in compliance with the standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and supplementary City sub- division ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative tract map received and dated October 14, 1983 shall be the approved layout. 2. The water system shall be in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. 3. Sewer, drainage, and street improvements shall be in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. 4. Fire hydrants shall be located in accordance with Fire Depart- ment standards. 5. An erosion and siltation control plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to construction of the project. 6. Landscape cutouts along Saybrook Lane and within the interior of the project shall be designed and developed in accordance with Public Works standards. 7. The house eventually constructed on Lot 24 shall be designed in such a manner that additional paved area for offstreet parking is provided. The design shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services. 8. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time of development. 9. The property shall participate in the local drainage assessment district at the time the property is developed. -10- 10-18-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 11 10. A copy of the recorded final tract map shall be filed with the Department of Public Works. 11. The drainage easement portrayed on the approved map be- tween Lots 21 and 22 shall be shifted to lie entirely upon Lot 22, rather than on both lots. 12. The width of Lot 24 shall be increased to twenty (20) feet. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter stated for the record that his nay vote was cast because he feels that a flag lot in a tier of lots is not'neces- sary and only speaks to additional yield at the expense of lot size. ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-14/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-43 Applicant: Kurtis Sandhoff To permit a change of zone from R5 to C4 on property located at the southwest corner of Breeland Drive and Goldenwest Street. Michael Strange reviewed the request for the Commission, point- ing out that the staff is recommending a 50 foot setback from Goldenwest Street in keeping with that required on other major arterials. The preliminary plan indicates about a 23 foot pro- posed setback; the applicant could encroach 25 feet into the setback if a conditional exception were approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments with the required extra foot -for -foot land- scaping. This would preclude parking in front of the buildings. The public hearing was opened. Craig Hampton of Pacific Building Concepts was present at the meeting to represent the applicant. He said that the present structure on the property is at 39 foot setback, but they have no problem with the 50 foot requirement so long as they can take advantage of the encroachment provision as outlined above. He also discussed the required sight angle, and staff concurred that the sight angle to the south is required to avoid blocking other commercial sites, but the sight angle to the north is not necessary. Vida McCray, 15852 Rollins Lane, strongly oppose the zone change and traffic problems. She also changed what assurance could the in the future they would not be fast food, in and out operation, spoke to the Commission to on the basis of parking, noise, inquired if the zoning were residents have that some time faced with something like a -11- 10-18-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 12 Jim Stead, 6932 Breeland Drive, opposed the proposal for the same reasons as the previous speaker; in addition, he questioned whether or not more of the mature trees on the site would be removed, as had happened when Colonial Realty had established its use in the building. John Cash, 15812 Rollins Lane, expressed his main concern as being with traffic impacts and the danger they might present to his small children. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners Higgins and Livengood questioned the traffic which could be expected to be generated by commercial uses, the possibil- ity of increase in square footage on the site, and the need to know exactly what uses are to go onto the property. Staff responded that it is hard to calculate traffic generation without a specific site plan to review, that the existing building will remain office while the proposed new construction to the south will be retail, and that the Commission can impose the "Q" zoning prefix under which the permitted uses on the property can be limited. Mr. Higgins said that under C4 zoning the property could be built to its maximum for retail use, and with the street configuration and the existing parking problems in the area he would be very reluctant to approve the zone change. Chairman Porter concurred that probably there would be significant traffic impacts, adding that the residents in the area would have reason to expect that this problem would be addressed in the nega- tive declaration by some reference to the vehicle trips per day to be added by the project. He also discussed the fact that approval of the zone change would in effect be promoting strip zoning, whereas the existing zoning on this property does provide some buffer between the commercial to the south and the residential area. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-43 WAS REJECTED AS INCOMPLETE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY PORTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-14 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The existing zoning is very appropriate for the site and provides an effective buffer between the residential uses and the other commercial uses in the area, whereas the higher, more intense uses such as would be allowed under the C4 zoning would not be compatible with the adjacent residential area. C� 1 �L -12- 10-18-83 - P-C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 13 2. The C4 zoning designation would permit the property to convert totally to commercial in the future and would extend strip zoning along the arterial highway. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: Erskine The Commission recessed at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-3 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A proposal to amend Chapter 95 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by adding regulations to assure that industrial develop- ments within 150 feet of residentially zoned and general planned sites comply with standards of performance necessary to minimize effects to the residents of Huntington Beach. Jim Barnes explained that this amendment would require that a use permit be filed for industrial uses within 150 feet of a residential property to enable staff to impose appropriate condi- tions to mitigate impacts which would result from that interface. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was pre- sent to speak to the matter. Commissioner Livengood asked if this amendment would have any impact upon the industrial project presently before the City Council; staff responded that it would not affect that particu- lar project. Mr. Livengood then indicated that he would like to see the minutes relating to that project and a breakdown on the conditions that the Commission had imposed on that develop- ment. He said that he did not feel the present amendment is as complete as it should be, one of his concerns being the reserva- tion to the Director of Development Services of the right to waive the use permit requirement. Commissioner Schumacher said she would prefer to continue the amendment and have the staff address some of the conditions imposed on the Heil and Gothard project, such as building set- back, no doors or windows in the back, all activity confined to the front of the buildings, height limitations, etc. Some anticipation of problems with dust and noise should also be included. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-3 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1983, AND STAFF DIRECTED TO ADDRESS THE ABOVE CONCERNS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell -13- 10-18-83 - P.C. ABSTAIN: None Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 14 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-29 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A proposal to amend S. 9101.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to set forth standards for allowing second units in single- family districts. Jeanine Frank informed the Commission that the Attorneys office has informed staff that deed restrictions on second units may be unconstitutional; that is why staff is recommending that the public hearing be opened, testimony taken, and the item continued so that some other method of protection for the Rl neighborhoods can be devised. She said that the other recommendations in the amendment are approved by the Housing Committee, except for 11 and 12, which are staff additions to implement energy conservation measures and to disallow separate utility Teeters for second units. The Commission briefly discussed how other jurisdictions are hand- ling the problem; the state standards which would be imposed in the event the City passes no ordinance at all; the difficulty of enforcing owner occupancy of second units; and the parking, flood plain, entrance, and square footage problems which will arise in permitting such units. The public hearing was opened. Mary Aileen Matheis, 8101 Slater Avenue, of the Huntington Beach/ Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, spoke to the Commission to ex- press her concerns as follows: 1) The Board feels that second units are a very necessary part of the housing program of the State of California; 2) there had been a great concern about the deed restriction and its effect on future sale of property and the possi- bility that it might result in a cloud on the title; 3) it is not known how lenders will react to a second unit and whether they will consider it an asset or an encumbrance; 4) the 6000 square foot lot limitation would seem to eliminate most of the downtown area where it would seem that both economics and practicability would make such units desirable; 5) the effect of a second unit on prop- erty taxes; and 6) the methods of enforcement, for example, on a resale of a second unit residence. She concluded her statements by saying that the basic concern is for the preservation of property values while at the same time pre- serving the historic right of a property owner to utilize his own property as he sees fit, and offered any help she might be able to give to the Commission. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the amendment, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed why the downtown was omitted, and staff replied that the legislation is directly speaking to R1 districts and the Downtown is within specific plans and is not zoned R1. Also, -14- 10-18-83 - P.C. 1 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 15 a developer can already build one structure on each 25 feet, which equals two units on an R1, 50 foot lot and the staff feels that the small lots and the traffic problems in the downtown make in at inappropriate area to encourage additional density. Commissioner Higgins recommended that the size of an addition be dropped from 650 square feet to at least 400 square feet. Commissioner Schumacher suggested that second units could be controlled by restricting the residence to only one entrance and by tightening up on the parking requirements to discourage such uses. The mechanism which could be used to control owner -occupancy requirements was discussed, and Secretary Palin said that various approaches have been considered, such as municipal licenses, the bed tax provisions, and permitting no more than one rental on any R1 lot. Glen Godfrey said that if we should create conditions that would de facto preclude second units in single-family districts it would be necessary to make findings that, by virtue of public health, safety, and welfare, you could not allow such units. Commissioner Porter asked staff to add to Item 11 in the first sentence so that it would read " . safety engineering and water conservation . . . " and to also add installation of approved smoke detectors." ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-29 WAS CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 6, 1983, TO ALLOW STAFF TO RETURN WITH' ANSWER TO ITEM NO. 1 AND TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION, BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Porter, Erskine,Schumacher, Commissioner Erskine asked that staff include a description or analysis of the intent of the enabling legislation because that would affect his decision on the amendment. Chairman Porter also instructed staff to indicate in any future transmittals on this item that the public hearing had been opened and closed. -15- 10-18-83 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Plgnning Commission October 18, 1983 Page 16 ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 83-3 Applicant: Grace Lutheran Church Addition of 600± square feet of building area to an existing nursery at the Grace Lutheran Church. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 83-3 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITION: The site plan received and dated October 6, 1983 shall be the approved layout. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Secretary Palin reported on City Council actions taken at its meet- ing of October 17, 1983. PLANNING'COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood requested that the Commission receive a break- down on conditions imposed on an industrial project at Gothard and Heil and a copy of the final Downtown Specific Plan. Commissioner Schumacher discussed the transmittal of the Commission's actions to the City Council. Commissioner Porter inquired as to the status of the condominium conversion ordinance and staff investigation of a sign on Beach Boulevard. There being no further business,'the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. �� t7 6J es W. Palin, Secretary Marcus M. Porter, man :df u -16- 10-18-83 - P.C.