Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-04APPROVED 2/19/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1986 - 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P A A ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes January 7, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 1986 AS SUBMITTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: Rowe (was not present for the January 7 meeting) MOTION PASSED A-2 Minutes January 22, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 1986, AS SUBMITTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-3 A-4 A-5 Resolution commending Doris Ferguson, past City employee A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION COMMENDING DORIS FERGUSON BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-1 Vacation of a portion of an unimproved alley. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-1 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-2 Proposed construction of a retarding basin and minor revisions to Fountain Valley Channel by the County of Orange in the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed retarding basin will be located adjacent to the Talbert Channel (D02) and the Fountain Valley Channel (DO5). Minor revisions to the Fountain Valley Channel will be constructed between Talbert Channel and Garfield Avenue. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-2 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -2- (4216d) 1 J A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO INITIATE A ZONE CHANGE FOR THIS SITE FROM R1 TO R1-FP1 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 MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY ROWE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT GUIDELINES BE ESTABLISHED REGARDING HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS. WHERE BUILDING FACADES ARE TO BE SAVED, ESTABLISH A SET PROCEDURE TO BE FILED DURING DEMOLITION TO ASSURE PRESERVATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-2 Chairman Livengood announced that Item D-1 would not be discussed•at tonight's meeting. It will be advertised for a public hearing for the February 19, 1986, meeting. PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -3- (4216d) PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NO. C-1 THROUGH C-8 WERE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: C-3, C-1, C-4, C-5, C-2, C-7, C-8 and C-6. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-18/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 298/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-70 Applicant: Jerwel Enterprises This item was continued by the Planning Commission on January 22, 1986. The applicant is requesting to consolidate a portion of the property adjacent to the railroad and behind an existing commercial shopping center at the southeast corner of Gothard Street and Center Drive. The tentative parcel map covers the entire shopping center and the adjacent piece and consolidates them into one parcel. The applicant's zone change request covers just this adjacent piece of property. It is a request to change the zone from M1 to C4, the same zone district as the existing shopping center and consistent with the General Plan designation of General Commercial. Since the remaining acreage within the corridor between Center Drive and Edinger Avenue is zoned M1 and R1, staff has expanded the zone change to incorporate these properties. A change to C4 will eliminate any inconsistencies between the General Plan and the zoning for the area. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-70 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued Prior to any action on the project, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 85-70. Final action shall be by the City Council prior to approving the zone change. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jerry Cline was present to speak in support of the project and to answer any questions. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood asked if the applicant had agreed to the conditions of approval. The applicant stated that he was in agreement. PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -4- (4216d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-18/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-298/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-70 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-18: 1. A change of zone from M1 (Light Industrial) and R1 (Single Family Residential) to C4 (Highway Commercial) will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the property as General Commercial. The zone change to C4 brings the property into conformance with the General Plan. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-298: 1. The proposed consolidation of two (2) parcels for purposes of commercial use is in compliance with the size and shape of property required for such uses. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-298: 1. The tentative parcel map received and dated December 16, 1985 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. The blue border of the map shall be expanded to include Parcel 2, the portion remaining after the railroad property is consolidated with the Jerwel parcel. Parcel 2 shall include the original Parcel 2 as shown on Parcel Map 22-18, excluding therefrom the northerly portion which has been conveyed to Southern California Edison pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. b. A five foot wide open space reservation easement shall be shown on the final parcel map for the easterly five feet of Parcel 1. 2. A parcel map shall be filed and approved Public Works and recorded with the Orange copy of the recorded parcel map shall be Department of Development Services. by the Department of County Recorder. A filed with the PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -5- (4216d) 3. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's water system at the time said parcel is developed. 4. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach's sewage system at the time said parcel is developed. 5. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said parcel is developed. 6. The development shall comply with all applicable City ordinances. 7. Drainage system shall comply with City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works' standards. C-2 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 - "BUILDING HEIGHTS" Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Staff has reviewed the proposed change to the definition section (Article 970) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code with the Planning Commission on two separate occasions. As previously stated staff is recommending an amendment to modify the definition of "Building Heights." The Uniform Building Code definition of Building Heights will provide greater continuity between the Planning and Building Divisions of Development Services and would facilitate internal consistency. Also, most members of the development community are familiar with the terms of the Uniform Building Code definition which would reduce the level of confusion which currently exists. If the Planning Commission views the Uniform Building Code definition as being too liberal, the Commission may consider reducing the maximum height limit in residential and commercial districts. This would offset any added building height which could be achieved by using the Uniform Building Code Standard versus the current Huntington Beach Ordinance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the item so the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners felt that further language and clarification was needed on this ordinance before recommending it to the City Council. They also felt that a definition should be incorporated into the ordinance to specifically distinguish between natural and artificial grade and further clarification regarding parapets and visual height versus actual height be made. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 - "BUILDING HEIGHTS" TO THE MARCH 4, 1986 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -6- (4216d) AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-64 Applicant: Avelma Zeno On January 22, 1986 the Planning Commission continued Conditional Use Permit No. 85-64, a request to add a second unit to a single family dwelling until February 4, 1986. The applicant has indicated to staff that he will need additional time to prepare revisions to the elevations and site plan for the proposed second unit. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-64 TO THE FEBRUARY 19, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 85-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-72 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach On December 17, 1985, the Planning Commission continued Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 85-2 to the February 4, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. This is a request by the City of Huntington Beach to realign Gothard Street eastward approximately 250 feet and align that portion of Gothard, 600 feet south of McFadden Avenue. The purpose of the realignment is to align Gothard Street with the proposed extension of Gothard to the north through to Hoover Street. The Planning Commission directed staff (at the December 17, 1985 meeting) to determine the City of Westminister's plans for Hoover Street. In addition, the Commission requested information relative to the level of dependency which the businesses along Gothard Street have on rail service. With respect to the former issue, the City Administrator and members of the City Council have met with Westminister City Council members and their City Manager to discuss a cooperative effort in aligning Gothard Street to Hoover Street. As a result, the City of Westminister has agreed in concept to participate in future studies which would align Gothard to Hoover Street. Further, Westminister's PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -7- (4216d) Circulation Element does show Hoover Street connecting with Gothard Street south of McFadden Avenue. Their circulation map also depicts Gothard Street in the City of Huntington Beach as Hoover Street. It should also be noted that the Huntington Center Redevelopment Area Project Manager (under contract to the City) has had discussions with representatives from the Edison Company and Westminister School District about the realignment of Gothard Street. At this time, neither agency has taken an official position on the project. The precise plan of street alignment is intended as a significant step toward resolving the circulation problems identified by the Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Plan adopted by the City Council. Redevelopment Agency staff has indicated that funds will be made available to acquire the right of way from Southern Pacific to meet the City's goals for the area. The Commission requested that staff obtain, in writing, comments regarding their feelings on the matter, from the Westminister School District, Southern California Edison, City of Westminister, and the Southern Pacific Railroad. Commissioner Rowe questioned whether there would be room for railroad right of way and whether it would negate rapid transit in the future. He also expressed concern regarding the unsafe conditions on the overpass at McFadden. Would there be a signal to ensure safety? THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Stephen Chase, was present representing the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, owner of part of the land involved in this proposal. He stated that the proposal could be illegal. He feels that the City is attempting to tie up this property, prevent it from being developed without any specific plans to acquire it. He met with City representatives and they indicated no specific plans to acquire the property. Under California law if there are proposals to develop the property it cannot be tied up. The Southern Pacific Transportation Company has no plans for the rail line to be abandoned, or no plans for the property to be used for any reason other than rail purposes in the foreseeable future. He believes that the City will end up in litigation and have to acquire the property anyway. He stated that it was the opinion of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company that the City must acquire this property immediately. Richard Schuffenhauer, from Santa Fe Pacific Real Estate (who handles property management and leasing of property for the railroad), stated that they had a signed agreement with Mr. Berge to PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -8- (4216d) lease the property (executed August 1984), and they had anticipated that they would be going into the lease agreement for the development in April 1985. Now that a parcel map cannot be filed they cannot count on having a lease on this property. The Santa Fe Pacific Realty requests that the City takes measures to acquire this property. Orin G. Berge, speaking in opposition to the alignment, has been working with the railroad since 1978 to lease the property involved in this proposal. He has had an option to lease since August 1984. He feels that the City is hampering his project and that he is systematically being discriminated against. Ron Pattinson, consultant representing Mr. Berge, spoke in opposition to the realignment of Gothard Street. He stated that the results of the feasibility study, done on the project, showed that it would be feasible to do only if the railroad was abandoned. The railroad has stated that they have no intention of moving from that location. He does not feel that this alignment will be economically feasible. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal so the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher stated that this alignment has been under discussion for the last two years and that she felt that the temporary use of the property was not being prevented. She does not feel that the City should have to purchase railroad land to use for public use if the railroad has no need for it. She feels that this alignment will solve traffic problems. A MOTION WAS BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-72 AND PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT 86-2 AND RECOMMEND ITS ADOPTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Livengood, Mirjahangir ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED The Commissioners felt that some legal advice, a fuller analysis, and more documentation was needed before they could give their full support on the proposal. They also requested a clarification on the impacts to the environment from the project. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 85-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-72 TO THE FEBRUARY 19, 1986, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN LEGAL ADVISE, WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE WESTMINISTER SCHOOL DISTRICT, RAILROAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, AND THE CITY OF WESTMINISTER, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -9- (4216d) AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-1 Applicants: Ronald and Jill Coleman Conditional Use Permit No. 86-1 is a request to permit an expansion of an existing day care operation from six to twelve children in a single family dwelling. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt pursuant to Section 15301 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Chairman Livengood asked if the Colemans had requested an expansion of their day care operation from the County of Orange. Staff explained that the normal procedure for the applicant was to apply with the City first for a conditional use permit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron and Jill Coleman, applicants, were present to speak in support of the request and to answer any questions. They explained that they did have verbal approval to care for up to 12 children (rotating the number of children present in their home by taking them to the park) from the County social worker assigned to their case. They explained that some of the residents whose signatures appeared on the petitions had been misinformed and misled as to what they were signing. They explained that the day care was their livelihood and that the house they were using for their day care center was a rental house and that they would be unable to spend $3,000 to build a block retaining wall. Ken Irons, neighbor (four doors south), spoke in support of the proposal. Nita Thorne, neighbor, spoke in support of the proposal. She stated that she lived four doors away from the day care and noticed no noise or traffic impacts from the present program. Jeanne Cao, spoke in support of the proposal stating that she is a single parent and her child has been under the care of the Colemans for six years. Pauline Irons, whose child is in the care of the Colemans, spoke in support of the proposal. PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -10- (4216d) Danette Otto, has been leaving her two children with the Coleman's since 1984 and supports their proposal. Susan Anne Foote, neighbor, spoke in support of the proposal. She stated that since most of the children in the Coleman's Day Care program are from the neighborhood, that there is not a traffic problem. Cathy Cukar, neighbor, has been leaving her children with the Colemans for four years and supports their proposal. John Hinrichs, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels that a business should not be conducted in a R1 district. There are 8 to 12 cars at a time dropping off children and he feels that the program does create a traffic impact to the neighborhood. Steven R. Swenson, next door neighbor, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels there are too many children involved. There is a definite noise and traffic problem because of the project. He also stated that if the Commission should decide to approve the project that he hoped the conditions of approval regarding County Approval and the block wall fence would be strongly enforced. Dee Swenson, next door neighbor, spoke in opposition to the project. She stated that she has suffered from the noise and disturbances of the day care center and that her privacy has been destroyed. Bill Galloway, neighbor, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that the day care presents too much noise in the neighborhood. Marzelle Hinrichs, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She stated that her home is presently for sale and that she is having trouble selling it because of the day care center being in the neighborhood. Joffre Loor and Doreen Kushner, spoke in favor of the proposal. Kenneth G. Tetreaula, next door neighbor, spoke in favor of the proposal. He felt that the day care center did not present any problems to the neighborhood. He is not bothered by noise or traffic. Donald F. Hebard, neighbor, spoke in support of the day care program. He stated that the day care was strictly a neighborhood operation and that there was no traffic problems. Denny Reed, spoke in support of the proposal. Ed Webb, spoke in support of the proposal. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal so the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -11- (4216d) The Commissioners had several concerns. Since the applicant has a license from the County allowing 6 children and an expansion of 12 children was being proposed, would the license be revoked if the request was approved. What assurance does the Commission have that the County will also approve 12 children. Further contact with the County would have to be made to assure the Commission that the County would allow 12 children if approved by the City. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-1 TO THE FEBRUARY 19, 1986 MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO MAKE FURTHER CONTACT WITH THE COUNTY. NO SECOND, MOTION DIED. Commissioner Livengood stated that since the property owner allowed the applicants to rent his property with the intention of running a day care center and the applicant was granted a license in December, 1981, to care for 6 children and later granted verbal permission from the County to expand to 12, that it was the Commission's decision to approve or deny a conditional use permit for the property. He felt that with the enforcement of the condition of approval requiring a block wall fence and the condition involving County Social Service approval, that it would resolve all of the problems. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-1 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. NO SECOND, MOTION DIED. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she did not feel a conditional use permit for expansion should be granted to an applicant that has had complaints concerning overcapacity. Also, she felt that due to the new real estate laws regarding disclosure, that it would be detrimental to the property values of the adjacent properties. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY WINCHELL TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-1 BASED ON FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed day care operation for twelve children will have a detrimental effect due to noise and traffic upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and is detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood as is supported by the petition submitted by the applicant's neighbor. PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -12- (4216d) 2. The proposed day care operation for twelve children is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 3. The number of vehicles trips the day care operation for twelve children will generate will cause undue traffic problems for this neighborhood. 4. The proposed day care operation for twelve children is not compatible with existing residential uses in the neighborhood. 5. The County of Orange has been investigating the applicant for over -capacity because of numerous complaints they have received. C-6 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-17 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach The Planning Commission approved Code Amendment No. 85-17 on December 3, 1985, clarifying that the ordinance limits the additional site coverage over 50 percent to dwelling units with a maximum of two stories. On January 7, 1986, the Planning Commission requested that the City Council refer the code amendment back to them for additional review, which the Council did at their meeting of January 21, 1986. The draft ordinance has been further modified to clarify another question that has been brought up by the Planning Commission. Staff intended for the additional open space area to be met on the second level, either in -balconies. or decks contiguous with, the second floor living areas or in the form of a deck over the garage. It was not the intent to allow a home with a roof deck on top of the second story (in effect the third level) to qualify for the additional site coverage. The ordinance attached clarifies that the additional Open space must be satisfied by a deck or balcony on the second level. In addition, the ordinance has been expanded to add back a provision that was deleted at the time the Oldtown/Townlot provisions were being revised (Code Amendment No. 85-2). The item inadvertently deleted concerned the exterior side yard setback of a garage structure on a 25 foot wide lot. Two car garages, required by Code, cannot meet the normal exterior side setback of five feet on such lots. The ordinance details separate provisions for garages in order to permit them at a three foot side setback. This had been permitted in the past and needs to be cleaned up in Article 913. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically excluded from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -13- (4216d) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal so the public hearing was closed. The Commission felt that the ordinance needed clarification. They requested that the definition of "stories" be incorporated into the ordinance before sending it to the City Council for approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-17, WITH ADDITIONS, AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter, Schumacher (out of room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-19 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach The Planning Commission has discussed the need for inspections prior to the sale of residential structures on several occasions. First brought up in conjunction with the public hearings held for the new Oldtown/Townlot provisions (Code Amendment No. 85-2), the Planning Commission took a minute action on June 4, 1985, calling for a system requiring "inspection upon resale" that passed unanimously. The document being discussed at that time was an ordinance adopted by the City of Newport Beach requiring inspections upon the transfer of sale of any residential structure within that City. The preliminary discussion by the Planning Commission was to require such inspections for residential structures within the Oldtown, Townlot, and Downtown Specific Plan districts only. The reason these areas were singled out was due to the number of illegal "bootleg" units suspected to be in existence. An ordinance that would implement such a mandatory inspection program is attached to this report as Alternative #2. A fee for the request would be adopted by resolution of the City Council. (The Board of Realtors has given a figure of 1,345 as the number of single family homes sold within the Huntington Beach area in 1985.) Staff has prepared, as an alternative, a voluntary residential inspection program that would be implemented City-wide for any residential structure of four units or less. The ordinance attached to this report as Alternative #1 sets up a procedure for property owners to request that a report and inspection be conducted prior to sale. Although the planning and building divisions currently respond to requests for information on specific properties, the ordinance would formalize the process by requiring a written application as well as a fee to cover the expense of researching building permit records, planning files and conducting the field inspection. PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -14- (4216d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Natalie Kotsch, Realtor and Huntington Beach resident, spoke in support of the voluntary program. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rowe stated that he would support a mandatory program. He felt that the problem of illegal improvements would always be with us if a mandatory program of "inspection upon resale" were not put into effect. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-19 ALTERNATIVE #1 (VOLUNTARY CITY-WIDE PROGRAM) AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: Rowe ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-8 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-23 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach On November 19, 1985, the Planning Commission directed staff to review a modification to the zoning code that would permit a maximum of two stories within the R1 zone. Code Amendment No. 85-23 incorporates this concern as part of a general clean-up of the R1 provisions. The clean-up is a continuing effort to rewrite Division 9 in a more readable and consistent manner. (See outline of proposed Division 9 amendments, Attachment No. 1.) The code amendment also includes the addition of two new definitions to the Definitions section (Article 970) as well as rewritten Yards and Fencing provisions (Article 977). These latter additions nee d to be addressed due to changes in the format of the new R1 section, Article 911. The definition of "story" (excerpted from the Uniform Building Code) needs to be adopted to clarify the provision restricting height to two stories; the definition of "lot frontage" is relocated from the R1 district and placed in the general definitions section since it applies to all districts. The change in title of Chapter 91 to "Residential Districts" is necessary because the reorganization of Division 9 will place all of the PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -15- (4216d) various residential districts under this one chapter. "Low Density Residential Districts" will no longer be an appropriate title. Article 911 (R1) follows and is consistent in format, design, and numbering with the code amendments already approved by the Planning Commission for the three Industrial districts and the Oldtown/Townlot District. The current code provision would be retained that requires use permit approval by the Board of Zoning Adjustments for requests to build up to thirty-five feet. Code Amendment No. 85-23 would modify this provision to state that when an applicant wants to build a third story, the use permit requirement would also apply. The use permit would be required for any third story, whether or not the building height exceeds thirty feet. The section of the new R1 provisions related to building height is S. 9110.4, beginning on page 5 of the draft ordinance. These provisions for regulating building height will ensure the preservation of existing single family neighborhoods at no more than two stories unless a public hearing takes place, in which case surrounding property owners will be notified and have the opportunity to voice their opinions. It will also allow staff some discretion in their recommendations on requested third stories. A staff analysis will be based upon the particular site, the neighborhood in which it is located, and the compatibility of the proposed design. In addition, specific findings as outlined in Section 9110.4, would need to be adopted prior to approval. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Natalie Kotsch, Realtor and Huntington Beach resident, was concerned that this code amendment would exclude the townlot. She stated that she was, however, supportive of the code amendment. Richard Short, 16241 Chipper Lane, Huntington Beach, stated that he felt that this code amendment should be incorporated into an R2 and R3 zone as well. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners would like to see the entitlement mechanism on maximum building heights changed to require that Planning Commission approval be obtained instead of Board of Zoning Adjustments approval and that they review all residential zone designations, not just R1, for setting height limits. They would also like staff to take a look at "Maximum Building Heights" in the amended Ordinance Code and would like to recommend that the main dwelling maximum height be 25 feet (not more than two stories). An exception of up to 30 feet will be permitted subject to the Planning Commission's approval of a conditional use permit, with revised findings. PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -16- (4216d) It was suggested that a revised proposal be given to the real estate board at last a week before the March 4, 1986 meeting, for their review. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY WINCHELL TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-23 TO THE MARCH 4, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter, Schumacher (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING D-1 LINEAR PARK BOUNDARY CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 19, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. A joint study session on the linear park boundaries with the Planning Commission, City Council, and members from the County, was held on February 4, 1986, at 6:00 PM. A field trip to the site is scheduled for February 5, advertised for the February 1986. The public hearing has been 19, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. D-2 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-15 Applicant: Thomas Jacobs The applicant's request is for the development of two single family dwellings on two 25-foot wide lots on the east side of llth street, just north of the alley parallel to Pacific Coast Highway. The zoning designation is Downtown Specific Plan, District Two. The specific plan permits residential uses in District Two subject to a site plan review. Article 989 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code provides for site plan reviews to be approved by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed residential project is exempt from environmental review because it is in conformance with the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act. MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-15 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -17- (4216d) r- AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-15: 1. The proposal for two single family residences will not have any detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood if redesigned in accord with the conditions below. 2. The proposed two single family residences will not adversely affect the General Plan of Land Use. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. 3. The proposed two single family residences are compatible with other uses and proposed uses in the neighborhood. 4. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed residential development properly orient the proposed structures to streets, driveways, sunlight, wind, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 5. Access to and parking for the proposed two single family dwellings will not create any undue traffic problem. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 85-15: 1. The site plan and elevations dated November 20, 1985, and floor plans dated January 22, 1986 shall be revised to include the following modification: a. The site plan shall be modified to show that the outside spiral staircase will provide access from the second floor to the roof deck only and not to the ground. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for 112 llth Street, the applicant shall obtain a waiver to the 2.5 foot wide alley dedication requirement for the alley that sides on the property and is parallel to Pacific Coast Highway. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for either lot, the applicant shall demonstrate that any oil wells are properly abandoned pursuant to Division of Oil and Gas standards. 4. A materials pallet shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Development Services. PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -18- (4216d) 5. Any changes to the exterior elevations or materials specification shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. 6. The project shall comply with all other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and building division. D-3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-253 Applicant: Pacific Coast Corp. Tentative Parcel Map No. 85-253 is a request for a one lot subdivision to create a legal building site for purposes of developing an approximately 110,000 square foot, two-story mini -warehouse facility. This request was referred to the Planning Commission by, the Board of Zoning Adjustments on January 6, 1986. It was determined by the Board that, because the project is located within a redevelopment area and the pending Precise Plan of Street Alignment could affect the size of the one (1) lot subdivision, Tentative Parcel Map No. 85-253 should be considered by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt under Class 15, Section 15315 from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Since the Tentative Parcel Map relates to the Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 85-2 (Public Hearing Item C-4) it was decided to continue this item to the February 19, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hazletine, applicant, gave his permission to waive the Mandatory Processing Date in order to continue this item. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTINUE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-253 TO THE FEBRUARY 19, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Porter ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -19- (4216d) E. F. G. H. I. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None PENDING ITEMS: The Commission referred staff to the following items and requested a follow-up report: 4. Problem with driveway at Kentucky Fried Chicken should be solved before we approve any more building in this area. Please contact Public Works for follow-up. 9. Need Article 932 defined by staff. How is it being used? 25. Appears to be more stables in the area adjacent to Goldenwest Street, are there any prosecutions? 26. Signs Along Goldenwest Street are up again. 54. Suggest we proceed with pursuing the rubberization of the railroad crossings with the Southern Pacific Railroad. A request was made to get an update of the status of the rail corridor south of Yorktown and to put it on the current pending items list. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Would like staff to prepare an updated organization chart. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: The City Council has requested an investigation by staff and recommendations from the Planning Commission regarding densities in multiple zones and how they compare to other jurisdictions in the region. Staff is proceeding with the investigations. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 PM to Wednesday, February 5 at 1:30 PM for a Field Tour of the Linear Park and to the Sign Code Study Session scheduled for 6:00 PM before the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on February 19, 1986 at 7:00 PM. lip AJme'saWe_."ia`lin_, ecretary m Li epg 00, C air an kla PC Minutes - 2/4/86 -20