Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-09MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1995 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION - 5:30 PM (Agenda Review) RESIDENTIAL INFILL LOT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST AREA PARK SITE REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P A P ROLL CALL: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Gorman, Kerins, Tillotson, Speaker AGENDA APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 1503 - EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO STEVE MAY PRINCIPAL ENGINEER A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - (4 MINUTES PER PERSON, NO DONATING OF TIME TO OTHERS) Anyone wishing to speak must fill out and submit a form to speak prior to Oral Communication or Public Hearing items. No action can be taken by the Planning Commission on this date, unless agendized. NONE A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE, SECOND BY GORMAN, TO MOVE ITEM B-3 TO THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA. MOTION PASSED WITH 6- AYES, TILLOTSON ABSENT. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE MINUTES WILL REFLECT ACTIONS IN THEIR SCHEDULED ORDER B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 CODE AMENDMENT NO.95-1 - REVISIONS TO THE RESIDENTIAL INFH,L ORDINANCE (CONTINUED FROM THE CANCELED APRIL 25, 1995, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: City-wide On February 28, 1995, a public hearing was held on Code Amendment No. 95-1, a request to revise the current Residential Infill Development Ordinance. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance and legislative draft outlining the amendments to the ordinance which were voted on by straw votes. The major amendments were to the following sections: I. (S.230.22) General Provisions This section has been amended to remove proposed wording on "Development Agreements" and new "subdivisions." Staff recommended removal of the wording on "Development Agreements" and new "subdivisions" because the current ordinance adequately addresses existing development agreements. 2. (S.203.06.1) Residential Infill Definition The purpose of this change was to revise the ordinance to include the Committee's definition of "Residential Infill." This new definition states in part that a "residential structure which will have 50% or more square footage of the habitable area removed in order to construct a remodeled or new detached single family dwelling unit" is considered an infill lot. The staff does not support this new definition. 3. (S.230.22.A) Privacy Design Standards The purpose of this change was to substitute the word "opaque" for "translucent" for clarification. Staff supports this change. 4. (S.230.22.B) Noise Considerations The purpose of this change was to provide standards for the location of swimming pool/hot tub and air conditioning equipment to be located in an area of the lot that minimizes noise impacts on contiguous properties. Staff supports this change. S. (S.230.22. C) Residential Pad Heiizhts The purpose of this change was to allow the City Engineer and the Community Development Director joint authority to decide drainage and compatibility concerns, without requiring a conditional use permit for pad heights which are higher than contiguous residential building pads. Staff supports this change. PC Minutes - 5/9/95 2 (p=028) 6. (S.230.22.D.E) Public Notification Requirements The Planning Commission's straw vote was to provide for a discretionary review and appeal process for homes subject to the Infill Ordinance. However, the Commission later voted to accept the staff s recommendation regarding public notification requirements. Because of the straw vote supporting the staffs recommendation on public notification, the current ordinance has not been modified. The staff recommends no change to the existing public notification requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staffs position on Code Amendment No. 95-1 basically remains the same as stated to the Commission on February 28, 1995. This recommendation includes no changes to the residential infll definition, and no change to the current public notification requirements. The staff supports the remainder of the Planning Commission's recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Jeff Metzel, 19391 Shady Harbor Circle, member of the Infill Committee, requested that the Commission approve the Ordinance as recommended by the Committee. He suggested the Ordinance include remodels above the first floor, a 14 day notification period before submittal of plans, and a discretionary appeal process. J. Riley Fowler, 19762 Sea Canyon Circle, member of the Infill Committee, stated he was in concurrence with the previous speaker's recommendation. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSON PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Planning Commission made the following straw votes on the Residential Infill Ordinance Matrix of Primary Issues (Attachment No. 2 of the Planning Commission Staff Report): A straw vote motion was made by Kerins, second by Livengood, to accept Staff recommendation on Section 230.22, General Provisions language. Motion passed 6 ayes, Tillotson absent. A straw vote motion was made by Kerins, second by Biddle to accept the Planning Commission recommendation on Section 203.06.01, Infill Definition. Motion failed 3 ayes, Holden, Gorman, Speaker voting no, Tillotson absent. A straw vote motion was made by Kerins, second by Biddle to accept the Staff recommendation on Section 203.06.01, Infill Definition. Motion passed 4 ayes, Biddle, Kerins voting no, Tillotson absent. PC Minutes - 5/9/95 3 (p=028) A straw vote motion was made by Livengood, second by Speaker, to accept Staff recommendation on Section 230.22.1.D,E Public Notification Requirements, with the exception of a change to the wording for `three (3) days prior to submittal' to `ten (10) working days prior to submittal'. Motion passed 6 ayes, Tillotson absent. A straw vote motion was made by Kerins, second by Biddle to include the right to appeal to a discretionary body. Motion failed 2 ayes, Holden, Livengood, Gorman, Speaker voting no, Tillotson absent. A straw vote motion was made by Livengood, second by Speaker to maintain the current infill codes ministerial review. Motion passed 4 ayes, Biddle, Kerins voting no, Tillotson absent. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 95-1 AS REVISED BY THE STRAW VOTES WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Gorman, Speaker NOES: Kerins ABSENT: Tillotson ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CODE AMENDMENT NO. 95-1: 1. Code Amendment No. 95-1 creates revised standards for the orderly development of residential infill lots, including, privacy standards, noise considerations and pad height requirements. 2. Code Amendment No. 95-1 is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan by complying with the following policies of the Housing Element: a. Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified reuse of residential land on existing residential development. b. Encourage preservation of the existing Low Density Residential character is established single family neighborhoods. PC Minutes - 5/9/95 4 (p=028) B-2 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-39 (CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Community Services Department LOCATION: The property is centrally located in the Ellis -Golden West Quartersection, generally at the terminus of Saddleback and Quarterhorse lanes. The Quartersection is bounded by Edwards and Golden West Streets, Ellis and Garfield Avenues. Code Amendment No. 93-1/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 is a request to amend the Ellis -Golden West Specific Plan for the purpose of designating a neighborhood park. The request was continued from the February 28, 1995, Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to evaluate alternative locations for the proposed neighborhood park. The Community Services Department has prepared an analysis of the alternative park locations in response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission. The report addresses location, access, topography, oil wells, acquisition concerns, and neighborhood park suitability. The report indicates a recommendation for Site "A," the centrally located site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendment for Site "A" or Site "D" because the designation of a neighborhood park on either of these sites will meet the goals and policies of the Recreation Element of the City's General Plan. In addition, the neighborhood park designation will meet the goals and policies of the Master Plan of Development for the Holly/Seacliff area as established in General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 adopted January 8, 1990. Staff read a memo from Commissioner Tillotson for the record as she was absent from the meeting. Commissioner Tillotson stated her support for Site "D" as the neighborhood park site for Code Amendment No. 93-1 for the following reasons: • Site "D" is next to an approved school site and would provide the school and the proposed park expanded areas of playing field. • Safety concerns regarding Site "D" being adjacent to a major arterial highway could be mitigated through design (e.g. buffers). • The acquisition negotiations of Site "D" would be with one (1) entity, versus multiple owners on the other proposed sites. • Site "D" has six inactive oil wells on site with three (3) of these wells being abandoned. PC Minutes - 5/9/95 5 (pcm028) Site "A" is undesirable because currently there are two (2) active oil wells, and would be bisected by a street creating additional cost and safety concerns, and reducing useable park space. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Timothy J. Ryan, 6762 Corral Circle, stated that he would prefer site "A' as the park site because of its central location. Randy Gall, 6846 Corral Circle, stated that he would prefer site "A' as the park site because of its central location. Mary Bell 20292 Eastwood Circle, Equestrian Trail Coordinator, spoke in favor of park site "A". She stated it would enhance the equestrian flavor of the area. Norma Ankerstar, 6792 Corral Circle, stated that she would prefer site "A" as the park site because of its central location. Tammy Agajanian, 6572 Horseshoe Drive, stated that she would prefer site "A" as the park site because of its central location. John Boivin, 6671 Shire Circle, stated that he would prefer site "A' as the park site because of its central location. Gail Wendland, 6591 Trotter Drive, stated that she would prefer site "A' as the park site because of its central location. Maria Kutas, 6761 Corral Circle, stated that she would prefer site "A' as the park site because of its central location. Wally Al-Aseer, 6762 Hitching Post Circle, stated that he would prefer site "A' as the park site because of its central location. Jeff Davis, 6761 Hitching Post Circle, stated that he would prefer site "A' as the park site because of its central location. PC Minutes - 5/9/95 6 (p=028) 1 0 Richard Harlow, 211 Main Street, representing Brindle and Thomas adjacent property owners, referred to a letter submitted by Brindle/Thomas attorney Michael H. Leifer, highlighting the following points of opposition to park site "A": • The proposed ordinance affects a taking or damage to the property for which Brindle/Thomas is entitled to compensation. • The City has no present need to designate any specific park site. • If approved the site designated should be site "D" as it will be situated for dual use with school facilities. Mike Davis, 6711 Shire Circle, stated that he would prefer site "A" as the park site because of its central location. Jack Collins, 6731 Shetland Circle, stated that he would prefer site "A" as the park site because of its central location. Carrie Thomas, 6642 Trotter Drive, stated that she would prefer site "A" as the park site because of its central location. THERE WERE NOT OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY KERINS, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-39 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1 FOR SITE "A" BASED ON FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Biddle, Gorman, Kerins, Speaker NOES: Holden ABSENT: Tillotson ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL - CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1: 1. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to amend the Ellis -Golden West Specific Plan by proposing to designate Site "A" (see attachment) for a minimum four acre neighborhood park is consistent with the City's General Plan by incorporating the goals and policies regarding open space and conservation, recreation, circulation, land use, and community facilities. PC Minutes - 5/9/95 7 (p=028) 2. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site "A' as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Open Space and Conservation Element by encouraging beautification of oil -producing areas and restoration of non -productive oil land, and maximizing the outdoor and environmental potential of the city by providing comprehensive , coordinated recreation, parks and open space programs that fulfill the needs of the community. 3. Code Amendment No. 93A to designate Site "A' as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Recreation Element by providing an adequate neighborhood recreation facility that is a minimum four acres in size, centrally located within a neighborhood and will serve an area within a quarter mile radius. 4. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site "A" as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Circulation Element by providing adequate transportation improvements and access to a future neighborhood park by means of a future local (public) street. 5. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site "A' s a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element by capitalizing on the outdoor and environmental potential of the city and by insuring that adequate open space is provided in all residential areas of the city. 6. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site "A' as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Community Facilities Element by coordinating park development with the provisions of community facilities. B-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-25/SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 95-3/ PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 95-3: APPLICANT: Rick Denman, Signs & Services Company, 10980 Boatman Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680 LOCATION: 16242 Beach Boulevard (southeast corner at Stark Avenue) Conditional Use Permit No. 95-25, Special Sign Permit No. 95-3 and Planned Sign Program No. 95-3 represent a request by Mr. Rick Denman of Signs & Services, Inc. to permit a coordinated sign program for the Sport Chalet Center that includes an 25 foot high, 206 square foot electronic readerboard sign, a monument sign and wall signage which exceed the maximum sign standards allowed by Code. PC Minutes - 5/9/95 8 (p=028) 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Denman has requested a two (2) week continuance to the May 23, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, in order to submit revised sign elevations for the wall signs on the new Sport Chalet building. Staff recommends the Planning Commission accept the applicant's request and continue the item to the May 23, 1995 meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY BIDDLE, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-25, SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 95-3 AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO.95-3 TO THE MAY 23, 1995, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Gorman, Kerins, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Tillotson ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED MARCH 28, 1995 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECOND BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED MARCH 28, 1995, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Gorman, Kerins, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Tillotson ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED APRIL 11, 1995 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECOND BY BIDDLE, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED APRIL 11, 1995, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Biddle, Kerins, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Tillotson ABSTAIN: Holden, Livengood, Gorman MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 5/9/95 9 (p=028) D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS/INOUIRIES E-1 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: Commissioner Kerins - stated that the Orange County Board of Supervisors had approved the Bolsa Chica Development Plan and has forwarded it to the California Coastal Commission. Commissioner Kerins asked when staff would present the City's concept of appropriate planning principles for the Bolsa Chica to City Council and Planning Commission. Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director, stated that a request to hire a consultant to represent the city in discussions with the Coastal Commission would be before the City Council at their May 15, 1995 meeting. Mr. Zelefsky stated that a timing schedule would be discussed with Council on the assumption that the Coastal Commission would be reviewing the Bolsa Chica Plan in August 1995, and he would present a time line at the next Planning Commission meeting. F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS F-1 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING F-2 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING G. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the May 23, 1995, Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 PM. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECOND BY BIDDLE, TO ADJOURN TO A 6:00 PM STUDY SESSION AND THEN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AT 7:00 PM, TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1995, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Holden, Livengood, Biddle, Gorman, Kerins, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: Tillotson, ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED /kjl ROVED B ward A16Wi, Se PC Minutes - 5/9/95 10 Planning Pommission Chairperson (pcm028)