Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-04APPROVED 3/18/86 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1986 - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P A P P P ROLL CALL: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, P Mirjahangir A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes February 19, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting A-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-4 A request to dispose of surplus City property Location: North of Ellis, west side of Gothard A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE WITH CHANGES THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 86-4 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: B-1 The Commission directed staff to advertise for a zone change on the surplus property that the City is disposing of on the west side of Gothard north of Ellis, if the underlying zoning is not Ml. B-2 A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ERSKINE THAT WRITTEN NOTIFICATION BE GIVEN TO THE COMMISSIONERS BY STAFF IF AN ALTERNATE ACTION IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO THE CITY COUNCIL IS CONTRARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-3 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR FOR STAFF TO SEND A COMMUNICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDING THAT ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES BE ESTABLISHED IN ALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 1 PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -2- (4397d) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: C-1 PROPOSED BOUNDARY OF THE BOLSA CHICA LINEAR PARK Staff presented the proposed conceptual boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on February 19, 1986. The Planning Commission requested that a meeting be held with representatives of the Commission, City Staff, Orange County EMA, Huntington Beach Company and Amigos de Bolsa Chica. This meeting was held on February 24, 1986. Staff reviewed the planning goals for the Linear Park as stated in the County's Bolsa Chica Linear Park Boundary Study prepared in 1985. The Open Space and Conservation Plan designates a corridor on top of the Mesa bluffs as a scenic corridor. A scenic corridor is defined as a linear area protected from disharmonious development or preserved in a natural state. The corridor may include scenic roadways and open space greenbelts. In 1979 the Planning Commission passed Resolution 1255 determining that the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park was in conformance with the City's General Plan. In 1979, the conceptual boundary shown was smaller in size than the 120 acre linear currently proposed by staff. In the late 1970's, when planning for the Bolsa Chica began, the park was envisioned in a horseshoe -shaped configuration running along the Huntington Mesa bluffs, the north side of the Bolsa Chica and along the Bolsa Mesa blufs. Early plans indicated approximately 315 acres of wetlands to be restored. As planning efforts continued into the 1980's the wetland acreage was increased from 400 to 600 acres. Expansion of the wetlands took away acreage from the linear park. Over the years various studies have shown the park size as ranging from 70 to 194 acres. In 1982, the County prepared a parcel study which depicted a series of five alternatives for the configuration of the linear park. The alternative with the greatest acreage had a western boundary at the zero contour line in the Bolsa Chica and an eastern boundary along a proposed alignment of Edwards and 38th. Street. From 1982-1985, the County and Coastal Commission hammered out the Bolsa Chica LCP. The plan certified in 1985 included 915 acres of wetlands. The acreage and location of the wetlands in Bolsa Chica has had a definite influence on the size and configuration of the linear park. Staff pointed to two areas within the proposed conceptual boundary of the linear park where the width of the park became quite narrow (20 feet) due to severe man-made or natural constraints. One area is located at the northwest corner of the Edison Substation (Parcel 12). Another narrow area is located on Parcel 7 where the trail PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -3- (4397d) must pass between Seapoint Avenue and a drainage culvert. During the preparation of the General Development Plan the County's consultant will focus in on these areas and attempt to alleviate the narrow condition. Outside of these two isolated areas, the width of the linear park on top of the bluff is a minimum of 100 feet. (In comparison, Beach Boulevard is 120 feet wide.) Staff strongly feels that this width is generous enough to accommodate the proposed trails, scenic overlooks and staging areas as well as provide protection of the bluff faces. The Huntington Beach Company proposed a conceptual boundary of the linear park which included approximately 113 acres of land. After numerous meetings with staff, the Huntington Beach Company now supports the larger park as proposed by staff. After meetings with various interest groups and as a result of public testimony an alternate resolution was submitted by Commissioners Winchell and Rowe that provided more acreage for human recreational uses than the current staff proposal. The park would include 85 acres of land readily available and directly useable for human recreation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Lorraine Faber, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, spoke in support of the alternate resolution. She felt that the new resolution itemized the goals for the park. Bill Holman, Huntington Beach Company, spoke in support of staff's proposal. He stated that he was unable to respond to the new resolution since he had just received a copy. He further stated that the Huntington Beach Company could not be supportive to any alternative that would be detrimental to the property surrounding the park. He would like to see the General Development Plan started. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. The alternate resolution was reviewed by the Commissioners. Some of the concerns and remarks made were as follows: larger conceptual boundaries should be set and then be prepared to settle for less, the intent of the linear park should be determined before expanding or reducing the boundaries, are there enough locations for the ESHA's. Commissioner Erskine supported the County's boundary indicating his concern that the expansion of the wetlands during the years of negotiations by the County with the Coastal Commission on the LCP necessitated the reduction of the acreage for the Linear Park. Staff was instructed to amend the map submitted with the alternate resolution and it was also suggested that when the alternate is presented to the City Council that a Planning Commission official be present. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -4- (4397d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE ALTERNATE RESOLUTION 1353 WITH AMENDMENTS AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: Erskine ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-11 - SIG14 CODE The Planning Commission and Development Services staff have worked closely with the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce sign committee as well as with local sign companies. Numerous study sessions and other opportunities for public comment have been available, with active participation by everyone (as outlined below). In addition, a van tour of the City was conducted to further help both the Planning Commissioners and Chamber members understand the reasons behind proposed changes in sign regulations by noting specific examples of signage existing within the City. The Final Draft of the Sign Code is only slightly.modified as compared to the draft presented at the Study Session on February 19, 1986. The following list identifies changes that have been incorporated in the final draft. PAGE TWO 1. Exposed neon conduit, tubing, or raceways have been listed as approved by planned sign program rather than by special sign permit. In addition, lit fascia panels have been included in order to ensure that their use is not excessive and that some trade-off is made in terms of total sign area allowed. PAGE FIVE 2. In order to ensure that a minimum 7-1/2 foot clearance under pole signs is maintained, heights of "bonus" signs have been increased by one-half foot (15.5 feet versus 15 feet). As well, the monument sign permitted for smaller lots (those with up to 400 feet of frontage) have been tiered so that sign height allowed is one foot greater (8 feet versus 7 feet) for bonus signs. 3. The phrase, "Signs shall be completely located within a landscaped planter" has been modified so that it is not as vague. In the past, this wording has proved ambiguous. The following wording hs been substituted: "Signs shall be located in a landscaped planter which is a minimum of two feet wider PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -5- (4397d) than the sign itself." This provision will keep the sign in proportion with the landscape planter in which it is placed and will only really apply when an applicant is proposing a sign within a minimum size planter, one that is perhaps just built around an existing sign to bring it into conformance. PAGE SIX 4. Service station monument signs have been brought in line with other new sign provisions as discussed at the February 19 Study Session. The permitted height has been reduced from ten feet to eight feet. PAGE SEVEN 5. Signs permitted for school and park uses have been modified as directed by the Planning Commission. One freestanding sign shall be permitted per site, while each individual -tenant or use shall qualify for a small attached sign located on the wall of their leased space. PAGE EIGHT 6. Planned Sign Program provisions have�been.clarified to indicate that the provisions of Section 9610.5 (the charts) shall be used as a guide in the design of -a-program. The approval of a program will provide some flexibility in the standards, allowing additional square -footage or redistribution of sign area in exchange for reducing -the total number of signs. PAGE NINE --- 7. The language in the amortization section has been streamlined. The provisions indicate that signs which are not in conformance with the current sign code adopted in 1977 shall be modified to conform with any -new sign -provisions adopted, but that those signs -which are currently in conformance shall not be required to be modified upon -adoption of new sign provisions. PAGE FOURTEEN 8. The monument sign definition has been modified to explicitly state that the base of a monument sign shall not be counted towards the permitted sign area. DIAGRAM A 9. The diagram has been modified to show a twenty foot interior side yard setback for pole signs, while -the setback for monument signs shall be as reviewed -by the Director, after taking into account any adjacent signing. The intent is not to normally require a setback if such placement will not impact other adjacent uses or signs. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -6- (4397d) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission recommended the following changes: Under Prohibited Signs, signs which no longer identified a bonafide business shall e removed within 60 days; under Permitted Signs a section to inc u e u1 ings located at intersections at public streets. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-11 AS AMENDED AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT 86-2 Use Permit No. 86-2 is a request to sell beer and wine in conjunction with an existing drive-thru dairy located just north of Edinger on.the east side of Edwards. The Board of Zoning Adjustments reviewed and denied this request on February 5, 1986 based on certain findings. Subsequently, the applicant appealed the Board's decision to the Planning Commision. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is exempt under Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Karin Gurwell, representing the owner, spoke in favor of the proposed use permit. She stated that the Alcoholic Beverage Commission has strict requirements and they carefully follow them because they would never want to jeopardize their license. Dale Cole, president of Cal VA Dairy, stated that he would rather stay in the milk and dairy business but was very supportive of the applicants and their proposed use permit. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -7- (4397d) Florence Silverstein, homeowner in the neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She stated that there were already two liquor stores in the area and that they did not need another. Hua Do Sok (sp?), presented a petition and several letters submitted by homeowners -in the area in opposition to the proposal. Al Wood, homeowner in the neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He felt that a dairy should not sell liquor. Ron Miller, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that he was against allowing anyone the opportunity to obtain liquor without having to get out of their car. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY WINCHELL, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS DENIAL OF USE PERMIT 86-2 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The proposed use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with a drive-thru dairy is inconsistent with the City's intent to prohibit beer and wine sales in conjunction with drive-thru or drive -up uses. 2. The dairy site is nonconforming to the requirements of the Zoning Code regarding landscaping and the drive-thru lane. The sale of beer and wine would constitute an expansion of a nonconforming use. 3. Granting of the use -permit would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-23 - "R1 DISTRICT AND YARDS AND FENCING" This item was continued from the meeting of February 4, 1985, in order to have the code amendment considered on the,same agenda with the proposed new definition -of building height. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -8- (4397d) 1 P� 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. The change in title of Chapter 91 to "Residential Districts" is necessary because the reorganization of Division 9 will place all of the various residential districts under this one chapter. "Low Density Residential Districts" will no longer be an appropriate title. New Article 911 (R1) 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. With respect to the change in provisions for permitted stories, staff is recommending that the maximum be changed to twenty-five feet and that two stories be the maximum allowed by right within the R1 zone district. The current code provision requiring use permit approval by the Board of zoning Adjustments for requests to increase building height would be modified as discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on February 4, 1986. The new provisions state that when an applicant wants to build a third story and/or a maximum of thirty feet, a conditional use permit would need to be approved by the Planning Commission. The section of the new R1 provisions related to building height is S. 9110.4, on page 3 and 4 of the draft ordinance. These provisions for regulating building height will ensure the preservation of existing single family neighborhoods at no more than twenty-five feet in height and two stories unless a public hearing takes place, in which case surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius 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 by the Planning Commission 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 There was no one to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. Staff was instructed to get clarification of the Uniform Building Code definition of type of roof, grade, and maximum 25 foot height. This code amendment requires passage of Code Amendment 85-24 (Definitions section of Article 970, Division 9, governing building heights) which has been continued until the March 18, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -9- (4397d) MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO CONTI,NUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-23 TO THE MARCH 18, 1986 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-3 Code Amendment No. 86-3 was continued from the February 19, 1986 meeting. On July 16, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Code Amendment No. 85-1. This code amendment established regulations for installation of satellite dish antennas; however, due to the restrictive nature of the ordinance and opposition from the industry, no City Council action occurred. The definition of satellite dish antenna has been changed to reflect that used by the Satellite Television Association, Inc. (SPACE). Other changes include additional installation and screening requirements and a provision for multiple antennas on commercial or industrial sites with adequate screening and setback. The proposed code amendment contains regulations recommended by SPACE. The Planning Commission may choose to include a provision for use permit for those sites incapable of receiving signals from an antenna installed -pursuant to criteria.- Such permit then may be issued upon a�showing by the applicant that installation at a height greater than 15 feet or in another yard area is necessary for the reception of usable satellite signals. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed code amendment is covered by Negative Declaration No. 85-13, adopted by the Planning Commission on July 16, 1985. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED John Sinclair, 8431 Heron Circle, Huntington Beach, suggested that new information, pertinent to this code amendment, was now available from FCC, and should be obtained before the Commission made a decision on the code. There were no other persons present to speak for'or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission felt that a provision should be made that would allow a use permit to be obtained through the Board of Zoning Adjustments. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -10- (4397d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT N0. 86-3 WITH ADDITIONS AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-6 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-9 As part of the reorganization of Division 9, staff is recommending a change in format and a change in location for the Definitions section. Since the definitions apply generally to all of Division 9, their adoption as Article 908 at the beginning of the code with the introductory articles is appropriate. The format change concerns numbering. Previously, every time the Planning Commission or City Council has wanted to modify a definition, several pages of text would have to be printed; each section number covered one letter of the alphabet. Proposed Code Amendment No. 86-9 assigns a different section number to every definition. In this way, individual definitions can be changed easily. In addition, the numbering is set up so that there is room to add up to nine new definitions between each existing definition without difficulty (9080.1.1, 9080.1.2, etc.). CONTENT CHANGES: Many of the changes made do not alter the content of the Definitions. Definitions for archaic terms no longer used in Division 9 were dropped, i.e. "bungalow court." Standard definitions used in other cities were incorporated. Most were not changed, but simply streamlined. Definitions that were significantly changed or added: 1. Antenna, satellite dish 2. Building Height (definition used is staff's recommendation from Code Amendment No. 85-24). 3. Compensation 4. Lot Frontage (previously incorporated in draft ordinance for Code Amendment No. 85-23, but now addressed here) 5. Front, side, rear lot lines PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -11- (4397d) 6. Nontransferable conditional use permit (added in concert with new Commercial Districts, Article 922, which lists adult businesses, game arcades, fortune-telling, as non -transferable) 7. Setback lines; front, side, rear 8. Story (previously incorporated in draft ordinance for Code Amendment No. 85-23 which lists a maximum of two stories in the R1 District, but now addressed here) 9. Yard; front, rear, side ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. Staff was instructed to make changes regarding non -transferable conditional use permits and to include the signs definition in this code. This code amendment requires passage of Code Amendment 85-24 (Definitions section of Article 970, Division 9, governing building heights) which has been continued until the March 18, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-9 TO THE MARCH 18, 1986 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 - BUILDING HEIGHTS On February 4, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No. 85-24 to allow staff time to revise the definition of building height to address concerns the Commission had regarding natural and finish grade, the relationship of building site elevation to street curb elevation and to adjacent properties. The language provided in the definition addresses these concerns. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -12- (4397d) A proposed department policy directive which will require submittal of the grading plan, site plan and elevations at time of initial j entitlement was presented. The grading plan shall include elevations of adjacent properties and will clearly establish street curb elevations by bench mark. This should tie down the reference datum, and clearly depict the height of the proposed building. The staff still supports the adoption of the Uniform Building Code version in that the describing of the reference datum in the definition of building height may not apply in each and every situation where height may be of concern. The review of site, grading and elevation plans during the entitlement review process can more accurately and specifically affix the reference datum and the height of the building as proposed in the department policy directive. The Planning Commission is also considering reduction in height and stories of buildings in residential zones. The attached ordinance and policy directive should complement the height amendments. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED J. Scott Schoeffel, attorney for Chuck Reince, submitted a petition signed by property owners against amending the existing zoning ordinance in which building heights are measured. He requested that this item be continued to allow these people to be present at the next public hearing. He stated that he would be responsible for notifying the concerned residents about the public hearing. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL, SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 TO THE MARCH 18, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-8 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-4 This item was continued from the meeting of February 19, 1986. Code Amendment No. 86-4 proposes no changes in the overall content as compared to the existing code.. It does, however, revise and streamline some of the older and outdated text of Division 9. The PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -13- (4397d) provisions relate to the interpretation, application, and enforcement of both the district maps and all zoning regulations contained in Division 9. In particular, new Article 906 has been revised to include a listing of all current zone districts, overlays, and suffixes as well as their abbreviations. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Code Amendment No. 86-4 is categorically excluded from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-4 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Rowe (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-9 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-5 This item was continued from the meeting of February 19, 1986. Code Amendment No. 86-5 revises existing parking provisions based on staff analysis of problems with the current code, based on decisions made by the Planning Commission over the course of the last year, while at the same time reorganizing and streamlining the provisions. The specific content changes (organized by draft ordinance page numbers) are as follows: PAGE ONE 1. Adds provision prohibiting the storage of inoperable vehicles in regular parking lots. 2. Prohibits parking spaces within an integrated complex from being designated for the exclusive use of any one tenant. PAGE THREE 3. Modifies commercial aisle width to twenty-five feet rather than twenty-seven feet and provides for reduced width of spaces where designated for long-term employee parking. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -14- (4397d) 4. Changes existing provision requiring parking space width increase of three additional feet where such space is adjacent to a wall so that it only applies to sites with over five total spaces. This change will avoid penalizing small residential parcels where the existing provision makes it difficult or impossible to provide required off-street parking. 5. Requires that compact spaces be labeled as such on pavement. PAGE FOUR 6. Specifies minimum aisle width of twenty-four feet for drives that do not have adjacent parking. PArF FTVF. 7. Clarifies that when parking calculations add up to include a fraction, that another full space is required. 8. Requires that the parking for automobile and other sales lots be calculated on the basis of outdoor display area accessible to the public. Current code requires parking based on gross floor area of building. In cases where there is a very small office on a large site, little or no customer or employee parking is now required. The standard of one space per 1,000 square foot of public display area is identical to the requirement of many cities. PAGE SIX 9. Reduces standards for hair salons within a shopping complex to match regular retail standards of 1 space per 200 square feet. Where such a use is on its own parcel, the current standard of 2.5 spaces per station would apply. The current standard tends to be overly restrictive for shopping centers. 10. Separates out food and beverage establishments with twelve seats or less. These smaller establishments with take-out only or limited seating capacity would only need to provide one space per 200 square feet. 11. Requires that dance floors in conjunction with restaurant uses maintain one space per fifty square feet of dance floor area. This standard has been applied in the past by the Planning Commission. PAGE SEVEN 12. Clarifies provisions for offices ancilliary to industrial uses such that offices which exceed 10% of the gross floor area are required to provide additional parking at the office standard of one space per 300 square feet. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -15- (4397d) 13. Clarifies Planning Commission decision on parking standards for single story and multi -story mini -warehouse facilities: one space per 5,000 square feet for single story buildings; one space per 2,000 square feet for multi -story buildings. The need to differentiate the two building designs was based on the fact that in multi -story structures, there is no area immediately in front of one's space in which to park temporarily. A customer would always need to park and then carry items to the upstairs storage unit. 14. Changes pre-schools and nursery schools to one space per staff member, plus one space per six children. Existing code bases parking on the number of classrooms, which is not a logical basis for day care uses which may be a one room facility but with many children. PAGE EIGHT 15. Specifies parking requirement for service stations with convenience markets. The eight required spaces had previously been incorporated in the C2 standards. PAGE NINE 16. Adds standards for loading facilities to ensure that trucks do not impede safe access both on site or on adjacent streets and to ensure buffering of such facilities when adjacent to residential uses. 17. Modifies landscaping requirements so that larger sized trees are required but the total number required is reduced. Rather than one 15 gallon tree per twenty-five lineal feet of streetside property line, the new requirement would be one 30 inch box tree per forty-five lineal feet of streetside frontage. This change was recommended by the Parks and Landscaping Division and is supported by Development Services. PAGE TEN 18. Requires ten foot wide landscape planter be provided in addition to extra three foot width required for outdoor display lots in cases where a nonconforming use requests an expansion and/or exterior modification. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission had concerns involving the change regarding the modification of commercial aisle widths. They preferred leaving the aisle width at 27 feet. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -16- (4397d) 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-5 AS AMENDED AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-10 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-6 This item was continued from the meeting of February 19, 1986. Code Amendment No. 86-6 proposes little change to the substantive content of the RA district standards. The proposed ordinance is part of the general clean-up of Division 9. The provisions have been reworded and reorganized to be in a format that will be consistent with all of the other district regulations. The only change made in provision relates to the maximum height of structures. The height has been reduced from thirty feet to twenty-five feet to be in accord with the proposed definition of building height. Existing code already limits structures to a maximum of two stories and this provision was not changed. After Planning Commission approval, staff will schedule this ordinance before the City Council at the same time as Code Amendment No. 85-24 revising the building height definition. The move in location from Article 960 to Article 910 places the provisions at the beginning of the chapter of Residential Districts as the lowest in density. The existing Al (Agriculture) District is being repealed because there is no longer any such property within the City zoned with this designation. Attached is the draft Table of Contents for the Division 9 rewrite. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. This code amendment requires passage of Code Amendment 85-24 (Definitions section of Article 970, Division 9, governing building heights) which has been continued until the March 18, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -17- (4397d) A MOTION WAS MADE TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-6 TO THE MARCH 18, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell,-Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-2 Code Amendment No. 86-2 was continued from the February 19, 1986 meeting and proposes to make all code sections pertaining to site coverage consistent. Maximum site coverage as defined by Article 970 will be utilized in all zones and maximum amount allowed based on net site area. Presently the method of determining site coverage varies. It may be based on roofed structures, ground floor area, all buildings, or based on gross acreage minus streets and drives. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically excluded from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-2 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-12 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-8 Code Amendment No. 86-8 cleans up and consolidates several separate articles and several miscellaneous sections located in various places of the code. It also substantially revises entitlements for specific uses as first discussed with Code Amendment No. 85-11, Board of Zoning Adjustments. Briefly, other suggested changes include new hotel/motel provisions by conditional use permit, the elimination of the C3 zone of which there are few remaining since the Downtown Specific Plan was adopted, the elimination of the -SS (service station suffix) by adding a conditional use permit requirement for service station uses subject to all -the same standards that had been used as part of the -SS suffix. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -18- (4397d) The consolidation of Cl, C2 and C4 provisions in one article provides a comprehensive view of the major commercial districts within the City. It aids in quick comparison of the differences in these three districts for both staff and the public. The specific content changes are outlined below: 1. Permitted Uses. The administrative review application has been deleted. Permitted uses have been categorized as entitled by staff approval (Plan Review), by Board of Zoning Adjustments approval (Use Permit), or by Planning Commission approval (Conditional Use Permit). The uses that had been administrative reviews have either been delegated to staff or have been "bumped up" as use permit or conditional use permit requirements. For example, restaurants with a seating capacity of over 12, auto sales agencies, and outside uses all had been administrative reviews and are now use permits. Car washes and mortuaries had been use permits and are now conditional use permits. Hotels and motels had been administrative reviews are now conditional use permits. One use which had been by conditional use permit, game arcades, has been dropped to use permit, but with all the same standards currently in effect. 2. Minimum Parcel Size/Frontage. The minimums have been increased, particularly so for motels and hotels which had been 9,000 square feet minimum lot size with a 70 foot width. The intent of these new provisions is to help prevent undesirable, inadequately designed uses from being located on small, narrow parcels. 3. Maximum Building Height. The specific heights listed are unchanged; however, the previously -allowed exception for roof -mounted mechanical equipment to exceed such heights by fourteen additional feet has been deleted. Mechanical equipment should be screened by the architectural features of the building itself (i.e. parapets, mansards) and these maximum heights listed allow sufficient space in which to accomplish this. 4. Setbacks. Hotel and motel standards have been increased to fifteen feet for the front setback (15 feet of landscaping is required under Section 9220.13). Other commercial uses remain the same except that a new provision has been added for a use permit requirement to allow a zero setback for a commercial use abutting a residential zone provided the maximum height of the building shall be limited to eighteen feet within 45 feet of the common property line. This provision is in line with recent staff -suggested variances for such requests in order to eliminate an awkward and unusable ten foot wide area behind commercial structures. The requirement for use permit approval would ensure that surrounding residents would be notified and able to voice their opinion however. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -19- (4397d) 5. Outside Uses - Storage and Display. These provisions have been streamlined, with no content changes. 6. Game Arcades - Same standards as existing under Unclassified Uses, bu fisted as requiring use permit approval by Board of Zoning Adjustments and relocated here. 7. Dancing/Live �/Liv.e Entertainment. These provisions have been moved 'from Ene mis ceiianeouS provisions article and consolidated. No content change has been incorporated. 8. Hotels/Motels. New standards for such uses are listed here which work together with previously mentioned setback changes. Some outdoor recreational amenity shall be required, whether it be a pool or open space area, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. No specific standard or minimum square feet of amenity per room was incorporated because a survey of surrounding Orange County cities showed that none had any such requirement. It would be difficult to determine a specific requirement. Additional landscaping (10% rather than 8%) and 15 foot width at streetside rather than 10 feet have been incorporated. Finally, a maximum length of stay has been added similar to provisions used in several cities to help prevent the conversion of hotel/motel properties to long-term rentals. 9. Service Stations. Same provisions as existing in Article 948, "-SS suffix", are incorporated however they have been rewritten in a concise and readable manner. The prohibition against alcohol sales has been relocated here from the Miscellaneous Provisions. It had not been placed within the -SS standards before, because it was unclear whether such a provision would apply to service station sites without the -SS designation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There was no one present to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission suggested some revisions to the ordinance which included: mortuaries and car washes should require use permits, liquor stores should require conditional use permits; setback requirements on parcels abutting a residential district; and in the section addressing hotels/motels, a change providing a minimum of 1 day to transient occupancy. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 86-8 WITH REVISIONS AND CHANGES AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher . ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -20- (4397d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: D-1 SITE PLAN REVIEW 86-1 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW 86-2 A request for the development of two single family dwellings on two 25-foot wide lots on the east side of 18th Street at Walnut. 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. COASTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically excluded from"the requirement of a coastal development permit pursuant to Section 989.5.3.15(e) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE, SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW 86-1 AND 86-2 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 86-1 and 86-2: 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. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -21- (4397d) 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. 86-1 AND 86-2: 1. The site plan and elevations and floor plans dated January 16, 1986 shall be revised to include the following modification: a. The floor plans shall be modified to eliminate the rear door that provides access to the stair case, subject to providing some other exit as required by the Fire Department. 2. A materials pallet shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Development Services. 3. Any changes to the exterior elevations or materials specification shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. 4. The project shall comply with all other applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and building division. D-2 WAIVER OF PORTION OF CONDITION NO. 17 OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. (CONDITION NO. 171 Casa Linda Development Corp. has requested that the Planning Commission waive a portion of condition of approval No. 17 of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-55. The Fire Department has indicated that the proposed turn around located on -the south end of the project is adequate for turning fire apparatus, therefore, they no longer will require that a gate be located on the southeast corner of the project as per condition No. 17. Condition No. 17 would be modified from: 17. Security gates must be approved by the Fire Department and installed in accordance with Fire Department Standard #403. Also, gates shall be installed on the east side of the complex for Fire Department access. to now read: 17. Security gates must be approved by the Fire Department and installed.in accordance with Fire Department Standard #403. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE A WAIVER OF A PORTION OF CONDITION NO. 17 OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-55 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Porter (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -22- (4397d) 1 1. D-3 WAIVER OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1.E OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N - Five Points Chevron Service Center has requested that the Planning Commission waive condition of approval No. l.e of Conditional Use Permit No. 84-36. The four palm trees required in the condition were to be located at the rear of the building. Prior to planting the trees, the Clothestime Five Points Center was developed at zero setback at the property line immediately south of the service station building. This left a small no -mans -land between the service station building and the new building to the south in which to plant the palm trees. The Huntington Beach Park, Tree and Landscape Division of Public Works stated that the palms would not serve the purpose that was originally intended by condition le. Therefore, they recommended that four 36-inch box pine trees be planted at a more appropriate location which would be readily visible. The problems identified by the applicant regarding drainage and the relocation of four compressor units as well as the lack of visibility of the required palm trees were verified in the field by Public Works. Condition No. le would be modified from: #le. Landscaping shall be provided to the rear of the building to include some large palm trees that will be visible over the roof of the building. to now read: #le. Four 36-inch box pine trees shall be planted at an appropriate location which will be readily visible. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE WAIVER OF CONDITION 1.E OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-36 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Porter (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-4 MAIN/TENTH STREETS SURVEY At the direction of the Planning Commission and City Council, staff conducted a survey of residential uses within the Main -Tenth Streets area. The properties are zoned R1 and R21 general planned Low Density Residential, and developed with both single family dwellings and multiple dwellings. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -23- (4397d) A recommendation by staff to establish a moratorium on the issuance of building permits in this area was not granted by the City Council. Staff had proposed the moratorium so that no new construction would occur prior to the completion of staff's analysis of the area. A survey completed by staff indicates that many properties in the area are developed with multiple units. Downzoning the R2 properties would further the nonconforming uses in the area. The parking generated by multiple dwelling units is a major concern to many area residents. Current zoning regulations now require all parking on -site. Any off -site parking in the area would be available for use by all area residents and guests. Staff believes that development in the area can be proposed in compliance with City regulations. THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO FURTHER RESEARCH THIS AREA SO THAT THE RESIDENTS AND THE VALUES OF THE PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE PROTECTED. D-5 DENSITY CALCULATIONS A request to consider a code amendment to round density to the nearest whole number. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY ERSKINE TO APPROVE THE CONSIDERATION OF A CODE AMENDMENT AFTER STAFF PREPARES A REPORT ON THE INPUT RECEIVED FROM THE BOARD OF REALTORS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: E-1 Letter to the Commission from Mr. and Mrs. Dan Lucero regarding the improvement of the drainage system in the area of 17th. Street and Acacia in Huntington Beach. Staff has discussed the letter with Public Works. Public Works stated that they have no immediate plans to improve the drainage system in that area. Staff will respond to the letter. F. PENDING ITEMS: Updated list attached for the Commission's review. PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -24- (4397d) G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Deadline for getting items on the agenda for the Planning Workshop is March 12th. Commissioner Porter requested that staff obtain a copy of the Public Works Regulations on the installation of traffic signal boxes. H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: A copy of the White Hole report was distributed to each Commissioner. It will be ready for discussion in approximately one month. A code amendment regarding non -conforming buildings is scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing on March 18, 1986. I: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 to the March 15,.1986 Planning Commission Study Session at the End of the Pier Restaurant at 8:00 AM and to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 18, 1986. Tom Livengo d, Ch rma PC Minutes - 3/4/86 -25= (4397d)