Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-06APPROVED ON 1-4-84 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, TUESDAY. DECEMBER 6, 1983 - 7:00 PM - Civic Center California COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Winchell CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Livengood requested that Item A-1, minutes of the regular meeting of November 1, 1983, be pulled for separate consideration. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 1983 MEETING, AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCES 83-12, 83-14 AND 83-15 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell,Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ITEM A-1, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1983, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell,Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: Higgins REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-05/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83-576/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-48 Applicant: State -Wide Developers, Inc. A request to create a 5,177 square foot lot in lieu of 6,000 square foot required, at property located at the northeast end of Park Avenue, between Park and Midway Channel. Applicant submitted a request for continuance to the January 4, 1984 meeting. The chairman asked if anyone in the audience was present to address this issue. One person was present, however, he said he would return on the 4th of January to speak to the Commission. The chairman opened and continued the public hearing. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-05, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 83-576 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-48 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 1984, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: Erskine CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-39 (Continued from 10-18-83) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A recommendation to amend Chapter 95 of the Ordinance Code by adding regulations to assure that industrial developments 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 informed the Commission that word was received from the City Attorneys office that due to substantial changes to the code amendment, the item should be readvertised and recommends to the Commission that they continue the item. There were no persons in the audience to address this matter, therefore, the public hearing was not reopened. Discussion following regarding the information necessary to write the code amendment. Art De La Loza stated that one of the major concerns was interpretation of uses permitted in the 45 foot setback. He said this setback could inhibit industrial activities such as loading and unloading. He said perhaps a clearer definition of the word "setback" would help in the rewriting. Chairman Porter recalled that it was not the original intent to have no activity going on in the setback area, he said the concern was regarding the proximity of the buildings on the east side of Heil in the Lusk Industrial Park and that this was the beginning of landscape buffers. Commissioner Mirjahangir recalled the project on Heil and Gothard and that the fire requirements were a concern with fire possibly reaching over and igniting the adjacent residential properties. He also recalled that noise was a concern as far as impaction of the adjacent residential areas. Commissioner Livengood said that some compromise to reduce the setback could be worked out with possibly a condition not to allow door openings. Tom Poe of the Fire Department, stated that that particular site on Heil and Gothard was accessible because of the location of the flood control channel. He said the only additional requirement he could foresee would be fire sprinkled if it were a high-rise structure. Commissioner Schumacher stated that the reason this came up was that there is a complex to the south along Gothard that residents are utilizing for storage and is quite unsightly. Chairman Porter stated that the important thing was not to repeat problems of the past. Discussion ensued regarding buffers. Commissioner Erskine stated that a buffer is the distance the structure is set back from the property line, that if 1 -2- 12-6-83 - P.C. you have a setback from a sidewalk, there should be no other use on the street. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-39 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-3 WERE CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 4, 1984 MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-29 (Continued from 10-18-83) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A recommendation to amend Section 9101.3 of the Ordinance Code to set forth standards for allowing second units in the single family dis- trict. Jeanine Frank gave a brief summary of the "second unit" code amendment. Commissioner Erskine stated that he believed the intent was to provide low cost housing and that by requiring additional park and recreation fees on, basically, a room addition, was counter to the original intent. Some discussion followed regarding age of the prospective tenant of the second unit. Jeanine Frank stated that the Housing Committee recommended that it was not their intent that age of the tenant be limited, because it would be too difficult to police. There was some misunderstanding that this is a result of the "granny flat" bill which would limit the age of the tenant. Commissioner Erskine suggested that staff contact the League of Cities to ask if it was their intent to limit the units to older persons. Some discussion ensued regarding the various fees being proposed. The public hearing was opened. Mark Conley, on behalf of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, submitted a letter regarding their position on the proposed code amendment and went on to explain the contents of that letter. He voiced their opposition to the fees being proposed, that it be treated the same as a room addition. He was also opposed to the owner -occupied requirement because of deed restrictions and transferability of property. Mr Conley saw the concept of the second unit as an income producer for persons who do not utilize the whole property. He also said he was opposed to calling it a unit. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher requested that staff investigate how the flood plain laws will affect this new code amendment. It was suggested that smoke detectors be required in the second units. Separate discussion and straw voting was conducted by the Commission on the following twelve standards delineated in the proposed code amendment. 1. Applicant must be owner -occupant. -3- 12-6-83 - P.C. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR #1 WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None 2. Minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR #2 WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None 3. Parking requirements, etc. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR #3 WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None 4. Second unit shall be attached to the main dwelling as to be an architecturally unified whole. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD #4 WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None 5. Not larger than 650 square feet and one bedroom. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR #5 WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None 6. Second unit shall not be sold separately from the main dwelling. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR #6 WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: -4- 12-6-83 - P.C. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None 7. A separate entrance will not be visible from the street in front of the main dwelling. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD #7 WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None 8. Second unit will not cause any change in visual character of surrounding neighborhood. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD #8 WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: Erskine 9. Unit shall comply with applicable land use regulations. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR #9 WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None 10. Park and recreation fees, etc. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO DELETE #10. MOTION FAILED TO ATTAIN FOUR AFFIRMATIVE STRAW VOTES AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None 11. Implementation of energy and water conservation measures, etc. A MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECONDED BY HIGGINS TO APPROVE #11 ADDING THE REQUIREMENT OF INSTALLATION OF A SMOKE DETECTOR UNIT. Discussion ensued on the motion. Art De La Loza asked the Commission -5- 12-6-83 - P.C. to clarify if these requirements were to apply to the entire property or just to the new unit. Commissioner Higgins agreed that this would apply to the whole property. Commissioner Mirjahangir did not agree to this amendment and withdrew his motion. A SUBSTITUTE MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO APPROVE #11 AS REVISED ABOVE. THIS MOTION FAILED TO ATTAIN FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Higgins, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD #11 (a-d) WAS APPROVED TO APPLY ONLY TO THE SECOND UNIT, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None 12. No separate utility meters shall be permitted for the second unit. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR #12 WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Brief discussion took place about limiting the age of tenants to over 62 years, as far as the intent of the State legislation. Discussion resumed on Item #10 which failed to attain four affirmative straw votes. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR A COMPROMISE STATEMENT FOR ITEM #10 WAS REACHED LIMITING THE FEE ASSESSED TO 25%, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SECTIONS 5.04.010 AND 5.16.260 WERE APPROVED AS WRITTEN, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None -6- 12-6-83 - P.C. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-29 WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED 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 Glen Godfrey asked the Commissioners if it was their intent that Item #11 supercede any requirements established by State energy conservation requirements. Chairman Porter asked staff to investigate that possi- bility and to report the findings to the City Council with the Commis- sion's recommendation. Commissioner Schumacher requested that Item C-5 on the agenda be heard next due to the people in the audience who wish to address this issue. SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 83-5 Applicant: McDonalds Corporation c/o John Ramsey A request to permit a 100 square foot freestanding sign at an existing restaurant located on the north side of Edinger Avenue, approximately 250 feet east of Edwards Street. Mike Strange announced that the applicant indicated that because their project planner was ill and not present this evening that they would be requesting a continuance to the next meeting. Chairman Porter stated that normally the Commission is willing to grant a continuance the first time it is requested. Commissioner Erskine suggested that public testimony be heard tonight from those who were present. Mike Strange made the staff presen- tation. He said that staff found that identification of the existing restaurant could be accomplished with a wall sign within a landscaped planter. He also was in receipt of a petition from neighbors who are opposed to the approval of the special sign permit, which was dis- tributed to the Commission. He added that the play area that was previously approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments has not yet been constructed. The public hearing was opened. Don Nelson, representing the applicant stated he would like to continue to the next available date. Bob Deguise stated that he agreed with the staff's recommendation to deny the sign permit. He said he obtained the petition that was distributed and that most were in favor of a low profile sign. He said he was also opposed to the color of the sign (red). He went on to complain about the noise that is ongoing in his opinion. Gerald Collins stated he was also a neighbor who concurs with Mr. Deguise's objection of the permit. The public hearing was continued to the next meeting. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 83-5 WAS CONTINUED TO TH9 MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 1983, BY THE -7- 12-6-83 - P.C. FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Erskine requested that this item be placed first on the December 13th agenda. COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach An amendment which would change the following land use designations: 1) The half blocks from the alley to Pacific Coast Highway between 16th and 18th Street and between 8th and 9th Streets from High Density Residential to Visitor -Serving Commercial, 2) the half blocks from the alley to P.C.H. between llth and 14th Streets from Visitor -Serving Commercial to High Density Residential and 3) the area north of Pecan Street up to Hartford Avenue between 6th and Lake Streets from General Commercial to Mixed Use Office Residential. Jeanine Frank gave a brief presentation. The public hearing was opened. Seeing there was no one present who wished to address the Commission on this issue, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS COASTAL ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 83-2 WAS APPROVED BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1315 AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 83-5 Applicant: Heath & Company A request to permit the continued use of an existing, nonconforming sign at a restaurant located at the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Damask Drive. Mike Strange made the staff presentation and recommended approval of the continued use for a two year period. The public testimony was opened. Orman Butler, on behalf of Heath Sign Company, requested that some other method of assurance be provided in lieu of the requested 31500 cash bond. Because no other persons wished to address the Commission, public testimony was closed. Commissioner Higgins did not agree with the applicant that a 31500 cash bond would be an economic hardship on General Mills, owners of the -8- 12-6-83 - P.C. property. Suggestion was made that the applicant submit a performance bond in the same amount. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 83-5 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a performance bond, in lieu of a cash bond in the amount of 31500.00, with the City for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the sign structure. If the sign is not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the'sign ordinance after two (2) years from the date of approval, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter on the property where said sign is located and remove said sign, and the cost of removal shall be deducted from the bond and summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of Huntington Beach and the remainder, if any, returned to the person depositing the bond. 2. The site plan and elevations dated October 27, 1983, shall be the approved layout. 3. A revised landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Development Services prior to occupancy of the restaurant. The approved landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy of the restaurant. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 83-4 Applicant: Mola Development Corporation A request to amend the approved site plan for Conditional Use Permit No. 81-26, which permitted a 288-unit planned residential development on 12.5 acres of property located on the east side of Bolsa Chica Street south of Warner Avenue. The site plan amendment is a request to permit balcony support walls for two buildings along the south property line. The original proposal was to cantilever into the proposed setback. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked if the garage was accessible for fire trucks. Staff stated that it was accessible. Richard Harlow, speaking for Mola Development, described the modifications proposed. He said he agreed with the staff report which recommends approval. Chairman Porter noted that if the project were coming before them as a conditional use permit it would require a special permit for this deviations. He also recommended that, in the future, it would be helpful for staff to enumerate the actual amendments to the site plan, for easier reading. -9- 12-6-83 - P.C. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 83-4 WAS APPROVED AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: Pay & Play Racquetball Signing Acting Secretary Godfrey stated that staff was still evaluating this item and would report back at the next meeting on December 13, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Schumacher asked staff to investigate the status of a signal (which is not yet in operation) at the corner of Newland and Yorktown. Chairman Porter stressed the importance of having a member of the Public Works staff present at the meetings because questions do arise that require their presence. Commissioner Livengood asked staff to research code requirements on speed bumps (such as those at the McDonald's on Edinger) and asked for a progress report on the shopping center at Springdale and Edinger. Commissioner discussion took place regarding the way the staff report is presented to City Council citing the example of the "Lube & Tube" appeal at their last meeting. It was suggested that in a case where the Planning Commission recommendation is opposed to staff's recommen- dation, that a representative be present to answer any questions on the Commission's view. Chairman Porter recommended that in lieu of that option for staff to at least get with himself or Vice Chairman Livengood before the report is given to City Council. Commissioner Mirjahangir took this time to congratulate Mike Adams on his promotion to Senior Planner in current planning. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Acting Secretary Godfrey reviewed the highlights of the last City Council meeting, which included their decision not to include the Collins/Zweible site in the redevelopment project, their action on the Circulation Element Amendment, and their referral back to the Planning Commission on a zone change at the corner of Banning and Magnolia. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Porter adjourned the meeting at 10:07 P.M. to the next regular -10- 12-6-83 - P.C. meeting of December 13, 1983, in Room B-8. Glen Godfrey, ActTng S cretary Marcus M. Porter, Chairman jlm I -11- 12-6-83 - P.C.