Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-13MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 5:15 P.M. - ROOM B-8 CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P A P P P A ROLL CALL Davis, Bohr, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray Commissioners Stanton and Ray arrived at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Dingwall requested that those interested in speaking on Item No. A-1 come forward to present public comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dean Albright, Huntington Beach Tomorrow, spoke in favor of modifying the public hearing process to allow expanded public input and increase the efficiency of all city departments involved in project analysis and recommendations. He suggested that the Commission be more specific when making recommendations that involve comments or analysis done by the Public Works Department. Ronald Satterfield, Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of modifying the public hearing process and thanked Commissioners Davis and Dingwall for preparing the handout entitled "The Public Hearing Process, Proposed Changes." He stated that a modified process would allow individual groups to present their views without being limited to time restraints. Vincent Russell, Seaside Village, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of modifying the public hearing process. Robert Corona, Seacliff Development Co., Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item and was disturbed with the draft document distributed by the Commission entitled "The Public Hearing Process, Proposed Changes" because of certain phrases used in the document characterizing the development community. Mike Adams, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item and made suggestions to accommodate the public without modifying the current public hearing process. He also concurred with Mr. Corona's concerns about phrases used in the document characterizing the development community. Dick Harlow, Main Street, Huntington Beach, spoke in opposition to the item, agreeing with the two prior speakers adding that the public was not made aware of the study session document in a timely manner. He suggested that the Commission, members of the development community and the public sit down collectively and work out a process that all agree with. He also disagreed with earlier statements made related to project streamlining and delays. (03p=0513) PC Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 2 John Erskine, Irvine, spoke in opposition to the item, stating that the current process works well and should not be modified. He informed the Commission that he was involved in authoring the City's Public Notification Process manual, and he voiced his concerns about phrases used in the document characterizing the development community. Chuck Scheid, Huntington Beach, voiced concerns that the public is uninformed of development activity within the City. He spoke in support of the study session item to improve the public hearing process and promote public involvement in the development review process. A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS 1. MODIFIED PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS — Robert Dingwall Commissioner Dingwall presented an introduction of the item and reviewed the document titled "The Public Hearing Process, Proposed Changes" with the Commission and staff. The Commission voiced concerns about receiving the written material just prior to the meeting. Chairperson Kokal asked staff to identify when the document was received. Staff informed the Commission that the document was received by fax on Friday, May 9 at 11:35 a.m. In response to the comments made by the public, the Commission stated that the document is a collaborative effort by two members of the Commission, and the document is in draft form. The Commission discussed forming a subcommittee to study the public hearing process, and to obtain legal and public opinion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY BOHR,, TO CONTINE THE ITEM FOR A MINIMUM OF SIXTY (60) DAYS AND FORM A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS SUBCOMMITTEE CONSISTING OF THREE (3) COMMISSION MEMBERS (DAVIS, BOHR AND DINGWALL), AND MEMBERS REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC AND DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITIES (MIKE ADAMS, DICK HARLOW, JOHN ERSKINE, DEAN ALBRIGHT, RONALD SATTERFIELD AND JOHN SISKER), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Bohr, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED (03p=0513) PC Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 3 2. STUDY SESSION FORMAT — Randy Kokal a) Fairness — applicant presents, public gets three minutes b) Consider study sessions for "loyal opposition" c) What is a study session? — By laws? d) How can we make study sessions more efficient? e) Is staff needed at all study sessions? The Commission discussed the term "Study Session" and the legal differences between meeting terms (regular, special, study session, etc.), and how the different terms are addressed in the guidelines of the Brown Act. The Commission's opinion was divided on whether or not to advertise "Study Session" and "Public Hearing" sessions as separate meetings. The Commission discussed the importance of holding study sessions to allow staff and applicants time to prepare the Commission for future action on detailed or complex entitlement applications. The Commission stressed the importance of showing no bias during study sessions. The Commission suggested including the topic of "study session format" as part of the recently formed Modified Public Hearing Process subcommittee. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KOKAL, SECONDED BY BOHR, TO CONTINUE ITEM NO. A-2 (STUDY SESSION FORMAT) AND COMBINE WITH ITEM NO. A-1 (MODIFIED PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Bohr, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED 3. AGENDA REVIEW— Herb Fauland Mr. Fauland reviewed the agenda items and introduced Ron Santos, Assistant Planner. Mr. Santos was available to answer questions related to Public Hearing Item No. B-1. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting Mark Bixby, Hillgate Lane, Huntington Beach, informed the Commission that the May 13, 2003 Agenda was not posted on the City's website. He also spoke in support of Study Session Item No. A-1 (Modified Public Hearing Process). 6:30 P.M. — RECESS FOR DINNER (03pan0513) PC Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 4 7:00 P.M. — CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Davis, Bohr, Stanton, Koka/, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray AGENDA APPROVAL A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — None. Terri Elliot, Principal Civil Engineer, announced to the Commission and the community that a flyer was being distributed with incorrect information regarding the re-routing of traffic through a neighborhood located at the southwest corner of Warner Avenue and Graham Street. She stated that Orange County Sanitation District was constructing a new sewer line in the immediate area along Warner Ave., and if the public wanted more information about the project, they can call OCSD at 714-378-2965. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Presentation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. B-1. Applicant/Appellant: W. Gary Lamb Request: CDP: To construct a first, second and third floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling totaling approximately 1,690 sq. ft., including a 171 sq. ft. third story deck; CUP: To construct 682 sq. ft. of habitable floor area and 171 sq. ft. of deck area above the second -story top plate line; VAR: To construct 682 sq. ft. of third floor habitable space not designed within the confines of the roof volume. Location: 16412 Ardsley Circle (south of Humboldt Drive, at the bulb of the cul-de-sac). Project Planner: Ron Santos Coastal Development Permit No. 02-21 request: - To construct a first, second and third story addition to an existing single- family dwelling. • Conditional Use Permit No. 02-40 request: - To construct an addition to an existing single-family dwelling which includes third -story habitable area and a third -story deck. Variance No. 02-09 request: - To construct a third -story addition to an existing single-family dwelling not designed within the confines of the roof volume. Staffs Recommendation: Deny Coastal Development Permit No. 02-21/ Conditional Use Permit No. 02-40 and Variance No. 02-09 based upon the following: - The proposed project does not conform with the requirements of the base zoning district. (03p=0513) PC Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 5 - The proposed project is incompatible with surrounding uses. - The granting of the requested variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. - The requested variance is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right. - The granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. Staff made a presentation to the Commission. Questions/comments included: ■ Regarding height requirements and whether or not the second story height could be increased without adding a third story? ■ How much additional square footage is part of the project? ■ What findings are necessary to grant a variance? ■ Is this the first variance request for a third story? ■ Information was presented regarding a variance to an existing third story residence approved by the Zoning Administrator in1995 ■ Third story ordinance adopted by the City Council in 1992 to add design standards and the discretionary process as recommended by the Planning Commission and subcommittee ■ 16386 Ardsley was granted a coastal development permit in 1985 for a third story (no design requirements in place at that time) ■ All approvals of third story additions, post 1992, have generally complied with the current design standards ■ Window locations should be toward the public right-of-way not directed to adjacent residential (option to include "frosted" or "privacy" glass?) ■ Why was the Huntington Harbor Property Owners Association's letter not included in the report? ■ Why can't the applicant meet the City's design requirements? ■ What is the public notification requirement? (300' radius property owners, 100' radius occupants) • What public comments have been received? (one written in opposition and one oral comment made at the Zoning Administrator meeting) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Gary Lamb, applicant/architect, spoke in support of the item and provided background on the proposed request. He presented diagrams depicting different development options: a) existing dwelling and third story addition; b) alternate with roof pitch design; c) alternate vertical wall design, and d) examples of other existing third story designs in the harbor area. Allen Todd, property owner, spoke in support of the applicant's request. He informed the Commission that he received the staff report earlier that afternoon, leaving him little time to prepare a response. He discussed his reasons for adding a third story to the existing dwelling, adding that the City's historical building permit records are missing. He urged the Commission to support the request. (03p=0513) PC Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Todd was asked to hold up diagram b) showing roof elevations and window treatments. He was also asked if he would consider alternate window treatments. Mr. Todd agreed. Discussion ensued regarding late transmittal of the staff report and Mr. Todd's thoughts as to possible continuance of the item. Mr. Todd asked the Commission to act on the item without continuance and mentioned the significant costs associated with redesigning the request. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion ensued regarding development in the immediate neighborhood, lot sizes in the area and the non -conforming block wall height. Staff noted that the blockwall should not be considered a part of the request and suggested that the applicant's interior property wall be grandfathered. The Commission asked staff to provide examples of limitations placed on other properties within the vicinity, and also asked the applicant to provide cost estimates on redesigning the proposal. The Commission discussed approving the project based on findings that the proposed addition is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and that the variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right. Commissioners also expressed discordance with the City's third -story design standards and opined that the proposed design complies with the intent of the third -story ordinance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOHR, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-21, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.01.40, AND VARIANCE NO.02-09 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (FROSTED WINDOW TREATMENT ON THE NORTHWEST THIRD -FLOOR WINDOW), BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bohr, Stanton, Shomaker, Ray NOES: Davis, Kokal, Dingwall ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.02-211 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.02.401 VARIANCE NO.02-09 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling. (03p=0513) PC Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 7 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 02-21: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-21 to construct a first, second and third floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling totaling approximately 1,519 sq. ft., as conditioned, conforms with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use designation of Residential Low -Density. The proposed project is consistent with Coastal Element Land Use Policy C 1.1.1 to encourage new development to locate within, contiguous to or in close proximity to existing developed areas able to accommodate it. The proposed dwelling will be located on a previously developed site, contiguous to existing residential development. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the Residential Low -Density base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, with the exception of third -story standards addressed by Variance No. 02-09. The project complies with HBZSO standards for maximum building height, minimum yard setbacks, maximum site coverage and minimum on -site parking. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure and services in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed dwelling will be constructed on a previously developed site in an urbanized area with all necessary services and infrastructure available, including water, sewer and roads. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The project will not impede public access or impact public views to coastal resources. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.02-40: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 02-40 to construct an addition to an existing single-family dwelling with (a) 682 sq. ft. of habitable floor area and a 171 sq. ft. deck above the second - story top plate line, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed dwelling will be constructed in single-family residential neighborhood predominantly developed with two and three story homes of comparable height and value. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses, since the design, materials, height, size and massing of the proposed dwelling will be comparable with other dwellings existing in the surrounding neighborhood 3. The proposed project will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, with the exception of third -story design standards addressed by Variance No. 02-09. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of RL-7 (Residential Low -Density — 7 units per acre maximum) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: LU 9.2.1: Require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the: LU 9.2.1 b: Use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with surrounding development; (03pom0513) PC Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 8 The proposed addition will not exceed the height limit allowed by right in the RL zoning district (30 feet) and will be constructed in a neighborhood developed with existing three- story dwellings. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - VARIANCE NO.02-09: 1. The granting of Variance No. 02-09 to construct 682 sq. ft. of third -story habitable space not designed within the confines of the roof volume will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The project is proposed in a neighborhood which includes other existing dwellings with third -stories not designed within the confines of the second -story roof volume. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The subject property's existing site and building conditions prohibit the design and construction of a third -floor addition that is compatible with the existing architecture and the surrounding neighborhood and in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Consequently, the subject property is deprived the privilege of constructing a third -story addition in a neighborhood developed with other existing three- story single-family dwellings. 3. The granting of the requested variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The requested variance is necessary to allow an existing single-family dwelling to be expanded to a size and value comparable to other dwellings existing in the neighborhood. 4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification and is consistent with the General Plan. The requested variance will allow for construction of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling resulting in a positive impact on the value of the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed third -story will be setback an adequate distance from side property lines to ensure no significant reduction in privacy on adjoining properties. 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 27, 2003, shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes, and similar items on the site plan and elevations. b. Obscure glass shall be used for the northwest third -floor window, adjacent to the bathroom. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. (03pa n0513) PC Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 9 b. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on plans submitted for building permits. (FD) 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City specification #426 — Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) b. Plans for an automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department for review and approval by the Fire Department as separate plans for permits. (FD) c. Shop drawings for a fire alarm system shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department for review and approval by the Fire Department as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) 4. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Discovery of any contamination/pipelines, etc. shall be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. (FD) b. All applicable Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) 5. The final building permit(s) cannot be approved until the following has been completed: a. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout in accordance with approved plans. (FD) b. A fire alarm system shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. (FD) c. Address numbers shall be installed on structures to comply with Fire Department City Specification 428. (FD) d. A new sewer lateral shall be installed. (PW) e. A new domestic water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC) and Uniform Fire Code (UFC). The water service shall be a minimum of one inch in size. (PW) f. A separate backflow protection device shall be installed, per Water Division standards for domestic water service. (PW) g. The existing domestic water service and meter shall be abandoned per Water Division standards. (PW) h. A 36-inch box tree or palm equivalent shall be planted in the front yard. (PW) i. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. (03p=0513) PC Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 10 j. Building permits shall be obtained for the accessory structures constructed without permits or structures shall be demolished. k. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. 6. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 7. The applicant and/or applicant's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-21/Conditional Use Permit No. 02-40/ Variance No. 02-09 shall not become effective until the ten working day appeal period has elapsed. For projects in the appealable area of the coastal zone, there is an additional ten working day appeal period that commences when the California Coastal Commission receives the City's notification of final action. 2. Coastal Development Permit No. 02-21/Conditional Use Permit No. 02-40/ Variance No. 02-09 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Coastal Development Permit No. 02-21/Conditional Use Permit No. 02-40/ Variance No. 02-09, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 5. All applicable fees from the Building & Safety, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $43.00 for the posting of the Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. (03p=0513) PC Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 11 7. State -mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 8. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within public the right-of-way. (PW) 9. Any proposed cantilevered deck, dock, and/or ramp improvements located in the public waterway shall require separate permits. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED MARCH 11, 2003 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOHR, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED MARCH 11, 2003, AS AMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Bohr, Stanton, Kokal, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shomaker MOTION PASSED C-2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED APRIL 8.2003 A MOTION WAS MADE BY STANTON, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED APRIL 8, 2003, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Davis, Bohr, Stanton, Kokal, Shomaker, Dingwall, Ray NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — None. E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS — None. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Davis — Suggested that the Commission consider a Zoning Text Amendment for the 3rd Story Ordinance. (03p=0513) PC Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 12 Commissioner Bohr — Informed the Commission that he would like to present information during the June 24, 2003 Study Session on improving the conditional use permit process. F. Commissioner Stanton — None. Commissioner Kokal — Inquired about obtaining a copy of the Environmental Impact Report for the AES Power Plant, and information related to NPDES and applicable permits. Commissioner Shomaker — None. Commissioner Dingwall — Informed the Commission that he had a conversation with a representative from Earthcorps, a environmental company interested in presenting information to the Commission related to the Poseidon desalination project. Commissioner Ray — Requested that applicant's receive staff report information as soon as it becomes available. He also suggested that staff distribute alternate findings prior to the respective public hearing, rather than at the time of the public hearing. 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS None scheduled. PLANNING ITEMS F-1. Scott Hess, Planning Manager — reported that no Planning Department items were heard before the City Council on May 5, 2003. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Planning Manager — reported that no Planning Department items will be heard before the City Council on May 19, 2003. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Herb Fauland, Principal Planner — reviewed items for the regularly scheduled meeting of May 28, 2003. ADJOURNMENT —Adjourned at 8:50 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 2003, HZ:HF:d APPRO Ho a d Zelefsky, Secretary Randy KAal, Chairperson (03p=0513)