Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-22APPROVED JULY 2, 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter Mirja anger COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Erskine CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting on May 7, 1985. A-2 General Plan Conformance No. 85-2 A-3 General Plan Conformance No. 85-3 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE THE MAY 7, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES WITH CORRECTIONS, GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 85-2, AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 85-3 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: B-1 Historic Preservation slide presentation - Barbara Milkovich REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: C-1 OLDTOWN/TOWNLOT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-2, DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, DISTRICT TWO RESOLUTION NO. 1343 On May 7, 1985, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the proposed code amendment for the Oldtown, Townlot and Downtown Specific Plan, District Two areas. The current code does not have sufficient provisions limiting floor plan design or other specific restrictions which could help in preventing units approved as a single family dwelling from being modified to add illegal rental units. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment: Shirely Long, member of the Board of Realtors Inc. Kirk Kirkland; Michael McMahon; Mike Abraham; Kent Pierce, President of the Board of Realtors, Inc.; Robert Corona; and Lowell Zehnder. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood suggested going through the ordinance for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated he would like to see four parking spaces required for all structures in the Downtown area. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she agreed with Commissioner Mirjahangir regarding four spaces per unit, provided that two be enclosed and the other two have an apron in the alley. This may necessitate eliminating the courtyard area. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that he would like to delete the requirement of limiting the height. Mike Adams stated that staff revised this section of the ordinance to read: Multistory Dwelling Exception: there shall be a minimum offset between t e second and third floor of ten (10) feet at the front of the structure and five (5 Ffeet at the rear. The Commission discussed Section 9130.12 No. 4 of the ordinance in regard to obtaining permission from staff to place additional outside "key" entrances. The Commission disagreed with this requirement. Commissioner Mirjahangir suggested that staff come back with landscaping standards for the sides of the apron and garage. The Commission decided to change wording in the definition for bedroom to eliminate tying the number of parking spaces to bedrooms. Commissioner Winchell asked staff if this could be continued for staff to incorporate the Commission's input. Secretary Palin agreed, but staff would have to recommend to City Council to extend the moratorium due to the fact that it will expire within a few days. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE OLDTOWN/TOWNLOT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-2, DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, DISTRICT TWO RESOLUTION NO. 1343 TO THE JUNE 4, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-38, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-011, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-3 Conditional Use Permit No. 84-38 is a request to allow the addition of a second unit to an existing single family residence pursuant to Section 9101.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception 84-011 is a request to alter the reduction of a rear yard setback from ten (10) feet to six (6) feet as required in Section 9103.31 R1, Low Density Residential Zoning'District. Coastal Development Permit No. 85-3 is a mandatory entitlement pursuant to provisions set forth in the recent certification of the Local Coastal Plan by the Coastal Commission. On May 7, 1985, Conditional Use Permit No. 84-38, Conditional Exception No. 84-011, Coastal Development Permit No. 85-3 were automatically continued to the May 22, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as a result of a 3-3 tie vote. The applicant is requesting a second unit in an R1-CZ, Low Density Residential District, Coastal Zone. The applicant presented revised plans for staff review on May 15, 1985. The revised plan maintain a ten(10) foot rear yard setback. This change eliminates the necessity for Conditional Exception No. 84-011. The revised plans also indicate an additional sitting room to the floor plan of the existing residence. When the second unit abuts the proposed sitting room, the applicant feels that a fifty (50) percent connection between the existing residence and the second unit will be provided. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Andrew Allegretti, owner, spoke in support of the project and also stated that he concurred with the alternative action submitted by staff. Jim Poper, architect , spoke in support of the project and also stated that he concurred with the alternative action submitted by staff. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. Mike Adams informed the Commission that the applicant has met the requirements of the ordinary code and that the Conditional exception was no longer part of the proposal. He stated that due to this, staff was recommending approval of the alternative action. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-38, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-011, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-3 WITH CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir, NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-38: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 85-38 is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and will not result in any modification to the requirements of the Coastal Land Use Plan. 3. The proposed second unit addition as designed will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the area and may be detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed location, site layout and design will properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. The proposed combination and relationship of uses to one another on the site are properly integrated and does "create an architecturally unified whole" as required in Section 9101.2(c)(a) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated May 22, 1985, shall be the approved layout. 2. The applicant shall provide safety, energy and conservation measures as required by Section 9101.3. 3. The addition shall comply with all applicable provisions of Section 9101.3(c) of the Ordinance Code and Building Division. 4. The residence shall remain owner-occuppant. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-3: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the City Coastal Zone suffix as well as other provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code applicable to the property; and conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The proposed project can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. 3. The proposed project conforms with the public access and public recreational policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. C-3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 (HOLLY PROPERTY) Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1. The amendment addresses approximately 126 acres of property known as the Holly Property located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, west of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right -of -Way, north of Garfield and Ernest Avenues and east of Crystal and Goldenwest Streets. The request is to change the Land Use designation from Estate Residential, General Industrial and Office/Professional to Planned Community. Environmental Impact Report No. 84-1 was prepared for this amendment as a separate document and must be approved by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council before action is taken on the Land Use Element Amendment. On March 19, 1985 and again on May 7, 1985 the Planning Commission continued action on Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-1. EIR 84-1 in conjunction with this Land Use Amendment request was reviewed by the Planning Commission_on March 19, 1985. At that meeting, the Commission approved the EIR, but expressed concern with the fiscal impact section. In response to these concerns staff has reworked the fiscal impact section. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bill Holman, representing the Huntington Beach Company, was opposed to staff's recommendation and proposed that the Holly Property be redesignated from estate residential, general industrial, and office professional to planned community. Jerry Galich; adjacent property owner, spoke in support of the proposal. Bruce Greer, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition of the project. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. After some discussion, the Planning Commission expressed strong opposition to the proposal stating that they want to keep the existing General Plan as is until a study for a master plan of the area had been done. They directed staff to have a consultant brought in to study and incorporate the _ Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan with a master plan study of the whole area. Commissioner Porter stated that he would like the Commissioners comments incorporated into findings for denial. i A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO DENY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 (HOLLY PROPERTY) WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWINC VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. The City needs to develop a comprehensive plan for the Ellis/Goldenwest area prior to changing the land use designation on the Holly Property. 2. There is a need to retain existing industrial designated property in the City in order to accommodate the expanding industrial base. 3. Industrial property is necessary to provide employment opportunities and a balanced community and to rezone a significant size parcel at this time to residential may preclude that opportunity. 4. The City should retain the existing general plan on the Holly Property until Gothard is realigned with Crystal. 5. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council consider hiring a consultant to prepare an overall master plan for the area. C-4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-2 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-1 Transmitted for public hearing is Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2/Environmental Impact Report No. 85-1. The amendment considers changes in General Plan designations on 22 sites. Twenty-one of the changes are City -initiated Administrative items which are intended to establish consistency between the General Plan and existing zoning. These areas, Items 3.1-3.21 are not covered by the EIR. Area 2.1 is the only amendment item which is covered by the EIR and which is not City initiated. The amendment consists of the following recommended changes: 2.1 - The applicant's request is to redesignate 10.1 acres located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential. Zone Change 85-2 has been filed by the applicant to be processed concurrently with the amendment request. Staff recommends approval of the requested change to Medium Density Residential. Staff's recommendation on the zone change request is contained in the separate Zone Change 85-2 staff report. 3.1-3.21 - A City -initiated request to amend the General Plan designation on 21 sites in order to achieve consistency between the General Plan and existing zoning. Staff recommends approval of all 21 sites. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED George Alvarez, representative for M.D. Janes, spoke in support of the proposal. Ron Pattinson, consultant for Mr. and Mrs. Marion, displayed renderings of the proposal in support of the project. Geri Ortega spoke in opposition to the proposal stating that she favored Estate -Equestrian Residential and that a long range well defined plan is needed for the area. Steve Feldman, Dave Roberts, and Richard Tumora spoke in support of the proposal. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that Parks and Recreation should provide written comments on the proposal prior to action by the City Council. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she was opposed to higher density so close to the City Park. She also stated that she cannot support the change until there is an overall plan for the area. Commissioner Winchell stated that she would like to have comments from Parks and Recreation and feels the area needs a master plan. Commissioner Rowe also stated that the area needs an overall master plan. Chairman Liverigood stated that he also felt the area needs an overall plan. He also expressed concern regarding helicopter patterns and the need for horse access. A straw vote was taken on area of concern 2.1 to deny. A MOTION WAS MADE TO DENY BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangi NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF AREA 2.1 LUE 85-2: 1. Medium Density Residential is incompatible with Central Park. 2. An overall plan for the Ellis-Goldenwest Area needs to be approved prior to adopting amendments to the General Plan in the vicinity. Planning Commission discussion ensued regarding additional findings and staff was directed to come back with expanded findings at the study session. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE AREA OF CONCERN 3.1 THROUGH 3.21 TO THE JUNE 4, 1985 PLANNING COMMISS10ti MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangi NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 (IN CONJUNCTION WITH LUE 85-2, AREA 2.1 AND EIR 85-1) Initiated by the M. D. Janes Company, Zone Change No. 85-2 is a request to rezone the property located on the northwest corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street from C2-0-(Q) (Qualified Community Business District Combined with Oil) to R2-PD (Medium Density Residential, Planned Development). This zone change is being considered concurrently with Land Use Element Amendment No. 85-2, Area 2.1, a request for redesignation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron Pattinson spoke in favor of the proposal. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commission review ensued. After a brief discussion the Commission in unison were opposed to the proposal because they felt that the zone change was not in conformance with the General Plan or with the draft Specific Plan Study. -8- P.C. May 22, 1985 1 ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ROWE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 (IN CONJUNCTION WITH LUE 85-2, AREA 2.1 AND EIR 85-2) WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-2 1. The proposed zone change is not consistent with the existing General Plan of General Commercial. 2. The proposed zone change is not consistent with the draft Ellis/Goldenwest specific plan study. C-6 CODE AMENDMENT 0. 85-13/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-23 The Planning Commission requested that staff initiate a code amendment to add locational criteria to adult dancing, live entertainment, and discotheques within the C2, Community Business District; C4, Highway Commercial District; North Huntington Center Specific Plan; and Seabridge Specific Plan. Code Amendment No. 85-13 is in response to the public nuisances created by a number of existing adult discotheques and night clubs located adjacent to residential areas. These problems include littering, vehicles speeding in the parking lots, and loud and boisterous patrons. Because of these inherent problems, the Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt locational criteria in an attempt to prevent future public nuisances from occurring at adult discotheques and businesses having live entertainment. The Planning Staff recommended continuance of Code Amendment no. 85-13/Negative Declaration No. 85-23 to the June 4, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting to which the Commission concurred. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR'TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-13/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-23 TO THE JUNE 4, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTIONED PASSED -9- P.C. May 22, 1985 C-7 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-11 On April 16, 1985, the Planning Commission directed staff to initiate a code amendment covering the areas of concern outlined by the ad -hoc committee on the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The general changes are to the Board's make-up, areas of responsibility, and noticing procedures. Due to the time limt of 11:15 p.m. for public hearings, Board of Zoning Adjustments Code Amendment No. 85-11 was continued to the June 4, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting due to the late hour. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO CONTINUE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-11 TO THE JUNE 4, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING D-1 Site Plan Amendment No. 85-14 A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO DENY SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-14 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher and Mirjahangir out of the room ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed structure will not be compatible with adjacent properties. 2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be contrary to the regulations and intent of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 3. The site plan amendment does not result in an improved development. P, -10- P.C. May 22, 1985 D-2 Review of Single Family Residence Plans (four) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE REVIEW OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PLAN CHECK NUMBERS 13652, 13653, 13545, 13583 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION PASSED DISCUSSION ITEMS E-1 Information on the Palm Court Project A presentation was given by the applicant on the Palm Court Project which will be heard as a public hearing at the June 4, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. E-2 Adult Entertainment - Code Amendment No. 85-12 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ROWE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-12 WAS SET FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE JUNE 4, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Porter Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None MOTIONED PASSED ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission adjourned at 12:05 a.m. to June 4, 1985 for a 6:00 p.m. study session and a 7:00 p.m. regular meeting. A Tom Livelig od, Ch irm n -11- P.C. May 22, 1985