The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-06-08MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE'% 2004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER . 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH; CALIFORNIA 92648 . 5:16 P.M. - ROOM B-8 — CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P P ROLL CALL: , Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood (Ray arrived at 5:20 p.m.) AGENDA APPROVAL — APPROVED 6-0 A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS: . 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO: 03-01 (THROUGH LOT FENCING) -�C . from the May 26, 2004 meeting for continued discussion — Paul Da Ve Paul Da Veiga discussed the following points of information: ■ preservation of slopes (new fences, setbacks) ■ rear yard useable space (variation of sloped areas) • slope stability ■ number of through lots within the City (115 citywide, 76 in the Harbour) Chair Davis suggested conditioning fence construction to be built at the same elevation with the existing slab. Commissioner Thomas asked if cut and fill'*uirement , exist. Staff replied no, only within the Ellis/Goldenwest'Specific Plan area. Commissioner Thomas discussed erosion areas being void of vegetation. Commissioner Dingwall discussed the importance of consistency between the proposed ordinance and Huntington Harbour (HH) CCR's, stating that the CCR's prohibit any type of slope modification. Commissioner Livengood asked that the Commission focus on recommendations made by the Beautification, Landscape, and Tree Committee (BLT) provided on Attachment 1.6, and then look at the HH CCR's to compare along with recommendations made by staff. Staff discussed provision (W) on Attachment 1.3, requiring the rear yard setback of a through lot backing up to a local street to be equal to the front yard setback required for the zoning district in which the subject property is located. (04ag0608 Action) PC Minutes June 8, 2004 Page 2 Commissioner Scandura suggested that the term "crest" be used to identify top of grade. Staff explained that the tern "crest" provides too many variations for top of grade. Commissioner Thomas suggested following the existing fence line. Chair Davis asked why it was not possible to condition fence construction to be at the same elevation with the existing slab. Staff stated"that it was impossible to verify requirements at the Zoning Counter, and that staff could not visit each property site requesting a modification. Chair Davis suggested charging a fee for a site visit. - Commissioner Dingwall suggested that if property owners are granted the ability to modify a slope, they must hire a licensed surveyor or engineer to inspect and sign off any proposed modifications, releasing the City from potential liability. Commissioner Scandura defined the term "crest", referencing a drawing in the legislative draft, and agreed with Commissioner Dingwall about survey work needed to verify elevations. Staff explained that the zoning code is written with development standards that apply consistently to all properties within certain zoning districts, in this instance with a residential setback requirement of 15 feet. Staff also explained that the intent of the BLT recommendations is to further regulate the zoning provisions for fencing by not allowing fences within the 15-foot setback. Staff also discussed the requirements for through lot fencing prior to 1980, a-codeamendment to address fencing in the late 1980's that called for a conditional use permit, and approved fence proposals since 2001. Commissioner Dingwall stated that unique lots need unique regulations. Discussion ensued about CCR language, varied setbacks, and responsibilities of the HH Property Owners Association (HHPOA). The Commission modified the legislative draft taking straw vote action as follows: A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO DRAFT REGULATION LANGUAGE THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THROUGH LOTS WITH SLOPES, AND THROUGH LOTS WITHOUT SLOPES. AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES (04p=0608) PC Minutes June 8, 20N Page 3 A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL; TO ALLOW NO LESS THAN A 3-FOOT GRADE DIFFERENTIAL ON THE ENTIRE LOT. AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL, SECONDED BY THOMAS, REQUESTING THAT STAFF ATTEMPT TO DRAFT REGULATION LANGUAGE THAT COINCIDES WITH THE REGULATIONS LISTED IN THE HUNTINGTON HARBOR CCR'S. AYES:. Thomas, Dingwall NOES: Scandura, Ray, Davis, Livengood ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION FAILS Commissioner Thomas asked if the HHPOA has an architectural committee. Members in the audience confirmed. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY RAY, TO MODIFY #4 ON ATTACHMENT #1.2 BY MAKING THE TERM "PROPERTY LINE" PLURAL, AND REVISING THE LAST SENTENCE TO READ "SHALL BE ENTIRELY LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED WITH PLANT MATERIAL SUFFICIENT.TO CONTROL EROSION OF SUCH SLOPES/GRADES WITH NO VISIBLE HARDSCAPE." AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Livengood NOES: Dingwall ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE. BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO REPLACE LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN #3 ON ATTACHMENT #1.6 WITH "NO VISIBLE STRUCTURES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING FENCING, WALLS OR RETAININ WALLS, SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE STREET -GRADE, INCLUDING ON THE PROPERTY LINE, OR ANYWHERE WITHIN THE SLOPEIGRADE." AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES (04p=oso8) PC Minutes June 8, 2004 Page 4 A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO ACCEPT A CONDITION RELATED TO FENCING THAT STATES "ALL FENCING SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE CREST OF THE SLOPE FENCE LINE, INCLUDING SIDE FENCING OF A CORNER LOT ADJACENT TO A STREET." AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES Discussion ensued regarding how to define rear yard setback. A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO MODIFY "B" ON ATTACHMENT #1.5 BY ADDING LANGUAGE "WITHIN THE 15 FOOT SETBACK OR CREST OF SLOPE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE." AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO MODIFY "E" AND "F" ON ATTACHMENT #1.5 BY ADDING LANGUAGE "WITHIN THE 15 FOOT SETBACK OR CREST OF SLOPE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE." AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY RAY, TO REVISE "W" ON ATTACHMENT #1.3 BY ADDING LANGUAGE "WITHIN THE 15- FOOT SETBACK OR CREST OF SLOPE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE." AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES (04p=0608) PC Minutes June 8.2004 Page 5 A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO ACCEPT "ALL DWELLINGS SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO 10 FEET FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK." AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DAVIS, TO ACCEPT BLT'S RECOMMENDATION TO STRIKE #7.E. ON ATTACHMENT #1.7. AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS. MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY - DINGWALL, -TO ACCEPT,BLT'S RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE ADDED TO #11 ON ATTACHMENT #1.8. AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENDGOOD, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO ACCEPT BLT'S RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE NOTED ON ATTACHMENT #1.10. AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DINGWALL TO DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE HUNTINGTON HARBOR PROPERTY OWNERS CCR'S, AND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. WITH NO SECOND, THE MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Ray discussed information provided on Diagram C on Attachment #1.10, stating that front and rear yard setbacks should be differentiated. . (04;>CMW08) PC Minutes June 8, 2004 Page 6 A STRAW VOTE MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO ADD "B" INDICATING MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK ON DIAGRAM C, ATTACHMENT #1.10. AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES Commissioner Thomas asked about drainage pipes that drain through the retaining walls at the rear of the slopes in the Harbour. With the issued not present on the agenda, Chair Davis suggested that the Commission contact staff directly to ask questions and receive information. Vice Chair Ray suggested taking public comments on the item. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Regarding Study Session portion of Meetinq Randy Furhman, Roundhill Drive, provided comments on Study Session Item No. A-1. He discussed grandfathering of existing fences, verification of setback measurements, "top of grade" definition, property inspections by City staff, no walls allowed within the setback, erosion control, and underground retaining walls not visible within the slope. He stated that the City Council requested that the term "secondary frontage" be used instead of rear yard property line, and stressed the importance of establishing a standard for neighborhood notification. Commissioner Scandura asked about the current notification process. Staff explained the 300 foot radius notification process and that homes that directly face a property in the process of changing its appearance (walls, fences, additions, etc.) are notified. Commissioner Thomas asked if the HOA's are typically notified, and staff confirmed. Carole Garrett, Roundhill Drive, provided comments on Study Session Item No. A-1. She discussed neighborhood notification through the CUP process. She then provided the Commission a photograph of a home on Marianne Street that is in the process of shoring up the rear yard slope because of slippage, and informed the Commission that the property owner did not apply for a CUP or notify adjacent property owners. She further added that the project appears to require major engineering efforts, and urged the Commission to consider the need for strict enforcement. Richard Batistelli, HHPOA, provided comments on Study Session Item No. A-1 and the photograph provided by Ms. Garrett. Gail Stoner, Roundhill Drive, voiced concerns related to slope stability and wall safety issues. 2. PROTOCOL — LATE COMMUNICATIONS — Commissioner Scandura Commissioner Scandura presented a possible rule for the PC Protocol regarding late communications. He discussed the difficulty in receiving late information from the Commission on items requiring a vote without being able to review or analyze it, ask questions, etc. He stated that late communication with a small amount of information is (04p=0608) PC Minutes June 8, 2004 Page 7 not a problem, but when late items with complicated information are provided just prior or during a meeting, that can be a problem. He also mentioned that staff and the public are not able to review late items properly, and that the public is not aware of certain information that may have been included in a staff report and provided on the City website. Commissioner Scandura discussed how the item relates to the proposed revised public hearing process, and that recent recommendations by the Public Hearing Subcommittee included discouraging late communication from staff, the applicant, and the public. He stated that the Commission should be included in this recommendation. - He proposes that Commissioners submit all written materials related to agenda items requiring a vote by the Wednesday preceding the meeting when the item will be heard so that the communication can be included in the staff report that is distributed to the Commission, City staff, and the public. Any communication not submitted by the deadline is deemed a late communication, and the Commission may consider continuing the item in order to allow time to examine the communication. A MOTION WAS MADE BY THOMAS, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER SCANDURA'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD A RULE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROTOCOL REGARDING THE SUBMITTAL OF LATE COMMUNICATION MATERIALS ON AGENDA ITEMS THAT REQUIRE A VOTE. Commissioner Dingwall concurred with Commissioner Scandura's concerns, stating that the Public Hearing Subcommittee held the same opinion after lengthy discussions. However, he disagreed with his recommendation that a unanimous vote of the, Commission be required to consider a Commissioner's submittal of a late communication, stating that the Commission's Bylaws call for a majority vote. Commissioner Dingwall presented a recommendation on late submittal of information identified as "Note 1" that he described as "all encompassing", and will be included as part of the recommended changes to the proposed revised public hearing process. He also asked that if the Commission approves a new rule related to late communication for the protocol, that it be temporary until the Commission votes on the final recommendation by the Public Hearing Process Subcommittee. Discussion ensued on the legality behind a change in the Commissions voting process from a majority vote to unanimous. Staff and Legal Counsel advised against acting on Commissioner Dingwall's Note 1, stating that it includes action outside the protocol, is not on the agenda for discussion, and will be presented at the July 13, 2004 meeting. Legal Counsel stated that the Commission's bylaws must be amended when any change takes place in Commission process or procedure, and that such action requires City Council approval. Vice Chair Ray discussed what the Brown Act considers as late submittal of information, and whether or not Commission members have the right to submit information late, similar to the process identified for late submittals by the public. (04p=0608) PC Minutes June 8, 2004 Page 8 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY RAY, TO AMEND THE MOTION BY DELETING LANGUAGE ON COMMISSIONER SCANDURA'S RECOMMENDATION REFERENCING THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO CONSIDER LATE COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED BY A COMMISSIONER. Commissioner Livengood voiced opposition to -the amendment, stating that the . Commission should set an example -as being responsible enough to provide written information on any item heard before the public in a timely manner so that staff, the Commission, and the public are provided an opportunity for review and consideration prior to action on an item. The amended motion was restated and action was taken by the following -vote: AYES: Ray, Davis, Dingwall NOES: Thomas, Scandura, Livengood ABSTAIN: None - ABSENT: None MOTION FAILS - The original motion was restated and action was taken by the following vote: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Dingwall, Livengood NOES: Ray, Davis ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION PASSES B. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS — None. 7:00 P.M. — COUNCIL CHAMBERS — CANCELLED: NO PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 7:45 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of July 13, 2004, Huntington Beach Civic Center. NOTE: The June 22, 2004 meeting has been cancelled due to a lack of agenda items. AP=fED . . H rd Zelefsky, Secretary Ro Davis, Chair, (04pCm0608)