HomeMy WebLinkAboutOffice Professional District - OP District - Design Standard 'a
Authorized to PubllSh Advertisements of all kinds inclt� public
notices by Decree of the Superior Court e-Orange County,
California. Number A-6214, dated 29 September. 1961. and
A-24831. dated 11 June. 1963.
a
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Orange Public Notice Advenlllnq covered
by this ertidevo is sm in 7 point
with 10 pica column wldth
I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid;,) am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to or interested in the below
entitled matter. I am a prAcipal clerk of the Orange
Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the
NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general,circulation,
printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa,
County of Orange, State of California, and that a
Notice of Zone Change
of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete
copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa,
Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley,
Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna
Beach issues of said newspaper for one time
consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of
May 20 198 7
198
198
198
198 ��� I(► ��6�
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the b P �4_9
foregoing is true and correct. 0 `7
ho
Executed on May 20 , egg 7 ���,
at Costa Mesa, California.
Signature
04,
liso
DVe AAA, h-2
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
NOTICE mpu; IC HEARING
ZONE L_ -.NGE NO.A7.1: : .
(R5 to OP(Office Professional District)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council
Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California,on the date and at the
time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish'to be heard relative to the application
described below.
DATE:Monday,June 1,1987
TIME:7:00 P.M.
SUBJECT:Zone Change No.87.1
APPLICANT:City of Huntington Beach
PROPOSAL:To change the zoning of twenty-seven sites within the community currently designated"115"to the
designation of"OP"(Office Professional).(Map shows approximate locations)
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:The proposed zone change is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
j'ON.FILE:A copy of the proposed ordinance is on file in the Department of Development Services,2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public.A copy of the staff report will be available to interested
parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue)after May 27,1987.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against
the application as outlined above.All applications,exhibits,and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of
the City,Clerk,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California,for inspection by the public.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL, By: Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk, Phone (714)
536-5405
Dated 5/12/87
Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot May 20, 1987 W700
r\
\
3
W
CITY OF
M HUNTINGTON BEACH
E4in9 r a ..I
I
H it � •
1 I I•. �
i WBrne
v �
C•, 41
Slaver r
0
Lo
Tal ert
Ellis
\
Gar iel
rf
f-r--' Yor tow C -t/
Ad ms
I1
Atl anta t�
„
4_ �uj`Existing sites curc�l,ently zoned R5.
ats,
j-
AA ..
NOTICtOF-,.. .,.....
". PY7BFIC'LHEARING_;°";::..:
CODE AMENDMENT NO.'.87-3
OP (Office Professional District&'Design Standards for Parking Areas)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public healing in the Council
Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California,on the date and at the
time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application'
described below.
DATE: Monday, June 1, 1987
TIME: 7:00 P.M. See_*
0/ySUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 87-3, . 2Z45
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach
LOCATION: City-wide
PROPOSAL:To repeal existing Articles 940,"115,Office Professional District,"and 949.5,"OR,Office Residential.
District,"and add new Article 920 entitled"OP,Office.Professional District."Also,to amend Sections 9021(Application).";-.-
related to enforcement of Division 9;9060(Districts)correcting list of districts,and 9605 related to design standards for,
.parking areas. _
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:.The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act. .
ON FILE:A copy of the proposed ordinance is on file in the Department of Development Services,2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public.A copy of the staff report will be available to interested
parties at City.Hall or the Main City Library(711.1 Talbert Avenue)after May 27, 1987. '
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against
the application as outlined above.All applications,exhibits,and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of
the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL, By: Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk, Phone (714)
536-5405
Dated 5/12/87
Published Orange Coast Daily Pilot May 20, 1987 W700
rr
REQUEST FOR CITY COUN IL ACTION
September 21, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council Date
Submitted to: Paul E. Cook, Interim City Administrator
Submitted by: Douglas N. La Belle, Director, Community Development
Prepared by: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3
TO CREATE THE STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED TO THE NEW
Subject: DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OF "OP" (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL)
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Fundinq Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On August 17, 1987, the City Council voted to continue Code Amendment No. 87-3 (and
the accompanying Zone Change No. 87-1) relative to Office Professional development
standards to the meeting of September 21, 1987, and requested that the Planning
Commission report back on the specific issue of required setbacks adjacent to R1
Districts. Presented for your consideration is the subject code amendment and zone
change with the Planning Commission's recommendation that an exemption clause be
provided for existing buildings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission action on September 1, 1987:
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY LEIPZIG, THE PLANNING COMMISSION
VOTED TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE ONE AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE CONSISTENT WITH THIS
ALTERNATIVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Pierce, Higgins, Livengood, Leipzig, Silva
NOES: None
ABSENT: Schumacher, Summerell
ABSTAIN: None
Alternative One: Include an exception provision for existing buildings with a side yard
setback adjacent to R1 property. Revise Section 9200.6 such that a fifteen (15) foot side
yard setback be required for newly constructed buildings only. Expansions to existing
buildings may be at the legally established setback. (Attached Ordinance 2905)
�I
Pla 5/85
ANALYSIS :
When the code amendment was approved by the Planning Commission on May 5, 1987, the
Commission voted to modify the setbacks for buildings adjacent to R1 (Single Family
Residential) Districts. The existing code for the R5 District requires a fifteen (15) foot
rear yard setback when adjacent to R1, and a five (5) foot interior side yard setback
whether or not a lot abuts R1 property.
On September 1, 1987, staff outlined three alternative code amendment changes that
addressed the concerns raised by the property owner whose building would become
nonconforming, and require a greater building setback for any future upper level
construction, by the proposed code amendment. That office building currently has a five
(5) foot side yard setback from the rear yards of neighboring R1 properties. The
alternatives were as follows:
1. Include an exception provision for existing buildings. Proposed Section 9200.6
regulation could be revised to apply to new developments only and that any
expansion of existing buildings may be built with the same existing setback.
2. The additional setback requirement not apply to one story structures. This change
would mean that the concerned property owner's building would not be classified as
legal nonconforming. Expansion of the building would still need to comply with all
applicable provisions of the code, however.
3. Allow upward expansion of existing buildings the opportunity to use the existing
setback subject to use permit approval by the Zoning Administrator. This
application would ensure that all abutting property owners are notified and would
also allow the imposition of conditions that would protect the privacy of the single
family lots, such as limiting the window openings on one side of the building.
The Planning Commission selected Alternative No. 1 as the most viable solution because
it excludes only one building from these provisions.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Adopt Ordinance 2905 excluding the provision in revised Section 9200.6 that the fifteen
(15) foot side yard setback be required for newly constructed buildings only.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance 2905 (Planning Commission recommendation)
2. Ordinance 2905 "A" (Alternative Action)
3. Planning Commission staff report dated September 1, 1987
4. RCA dated August 3, 1987
5. RCA dated June 1, 1987, including:
a. List of land uses on sites adjacent to R1 properties
b. Map depicting the existing R5 sites, and noting those adjacent to R1 properties
c. Existing Article 940, marked to show changes and cross-referenced to ordinance
section numbers
d. Public hearing notices and letters sent out to all "R5" property owners, and those
who requested them as part of the City's "notification matrix."
e. Planning Commission staff reports dated April 7, 1987 and May 5, 1987
DLB:JA:gbm
RCA / 9-21-87 -2- (9068d)
= huntington beach-. department of communifi development
Ep_oR
TO: " Planning Commission - - _
_FROM: : Community- Development
DATE: September 1;.. 1987 :.
SUBJECT::=;:. :' REPORT :BACK 4T0_:CITY -COUNCIL.ON- CODE_ AMENDMENT-__NO
- OFFI:CE PROFESSIONAL -(OP.). D-ISTRICT;,.
1 . 0 GENERAL` INFORMATION:
August . -7 ' heCityCocil- vtedt -cotinue- CodeOn ;
- Amendment No 87-3:. (and _the accompanying Zone-_Change No 87-1) to -
- the: meeting of` September 21,. -1987 :1 a6hd= requested -that:-.the_:Planning
_- Commission r.ep:ort_.-back- ori-the---_specific= issue=.of =required- setbacks=`'__ =-
ad3-scent_:to R1 districts Some-council members indicated-there.
_ _ _ hr ldb -anintention suc odemendmgood - ent but'felt u =
exception--.clause: for_=on-e" lot •.that -is _most--affected__by_:the revisions: _ -
When the -=amendment- was.-- approved by-the Pl:ann`ing__Comm ssion._on -M
- _-_ May -5 -1987=, the Commi=ssion,-voted—to- _modify -:these::-setbacks._- _The
exi-st.irig . code for the R5 district-.-ii 1:res_ a =f,ifteen (1-5) _-foot- fear
yard:-setback when= _adjacent-to _R1--and- 5 foot interior=sideya=rd
-- _ -setb-ack-__whether or='not �it-`abuts- R1_ zoned--`p-roperty,f_the= pro_posed_code-
-specifies fYi_is :grea_terse_tback__ (`15 ,`feet)_:for side_ yards -.as well:- - :
_ -(Sect.i.om 9200. 6)=.: ._ Staff cont-inues: to -recommend:_the :iricrea-sed. -
_ - set.back _for_ side=yards:when the property abuts_ R1 =--
St-a:ff -has-_ outlined ._three-: alternative- code- -amendment=- changes-= that ---- _
_=-add-ress=-the-concerns== raised:_.by_ the-pro-per_ty:_owner=whose-building -
___ : - :will.:become .nonconforming,° and require a g-reaver= bui:lding.-setback-_- _
_ for:`any -fut_ure .upper--level- construction, :by- the= proposed: code
= amendment.. --That. off ice-.-building =.current ly:.has---a: f ive__(-5)-- -foot s ide -
- rd_:-setback_--from the rear--yards of==_neighboring-_R1-properaies�=--;_The, - -
alternatives- _are -as follows:
=_ 1:`-= Include-=an on provision:for -_existing _buildings:
-_- Proposed_-Section 9200 .6--regu-lation could be revised:_to apply to: - -
- :new developments only and that = any-. expansion' of.- ezisting. .
buildings .may :be .bu-ilt w.i-th the- same ezisting setback.-
= The- additional setback _requirement=no apply.
_ to -one story:_ -= --z _
structures:..-_ This -change- would: mean--than-:the concerned_=property
owner' s--buillding_ would.--not-.-be -classified =as-=1ega1- =
- - -'-nonconforming :Expansion of_the building would -still=need_ to
comply:with all:.-appii.cable provi-sions of- the the :code, however..:
e.: :.. .- A FM<23C. .:- -
3 . Allow upward expansion of existing buildings the opportunity to
use .the existing setback subject to use permit approval by- the
Zoning Administrator. ---This .application would ensure that all
abutting property owners are notified and would. also allow the
- imposition of conditions that would protect the privacy of the .
single family lots, such as limiting the -window openings on -one
side of the building.
For background information, all of the past Requests for Council
Action- have been attached, as well .as' the correspondence from the
concerned property -owner .
2 . 0 RECOMMENDATION': _
Discuss. the issue of. setbacks adjacent to R1 zoned properties and:
make recommendation to the City- Council .
ATTACHMENTS:
1. RCA dated August 3 , 1987
2 .ALetter .from Board- of Realtors dated August. 17, 1987
SH:JA:kla
'Staff Report -: 9/1/87 -2- (8952d),
Huntington Beach
Fountain Valley
Board of REALTORS' Inc.
R E A LTO R' 8101 Slater Avenue • Huntington Beach, CA 92647 • (714) 847-6093
August 17, 1987
The Honorable Jack Kelly, Mayor
and members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Honorable Councilmembers:
This is the third time we have appeared before you to oppose Agenda Item G-1 (a &b) which proposes to
create "new standards" for the proposed "new" CAP District -- and retroactively apply those standards to
existing R5 properties.
As you know, our Board Office building at 8101 Slater, which was built to code in 1977, is one of the
properties currently zoned R5 (Office Professional) which would be adversely affected by the proposal.
I believe we have adequately documented in our previous correspondence that, unless you exempt the
few properties which are currently legal and conforming to the R5 zone from compliance with the new
"OP"zone --you will effectively downzone -- reduce the value -- of these properties. We can find no
justification for this action, and we hope that you agree.
As a nonprofit corporation, we made a legitimate investment in this community and constructed a
building in accordance with the existing rules. We constructed a building which met our needs and
which could be expanded as those needs increased. Now, that investment is being jeopardized without
reason.
If the new standards are enacted as presented and applied to our property, our ability to refinance the
property will be affected since we will be unable to obtain competitive rates. Even if we are able to
obtain special insurance to cover the building, we will probably have to go to another carrier and will
undoubtedly pay a significant increase in the premium, not to mention that the building will, all of a
sudden, become "legal, nonconforming." In addition, our ability to expand the building will be
severely reduced.
We believe you have a responsibility to protect the property rights of those who make legitimate
investments in this City, unless you wish to send a message that Huntington Beach is not a safe place
to invest...that this community is one where the rules are changed...retroactively...and for no reason.
We believe the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions relative to the "taking of private property" apply to
this proposal, at least in principle. In our view, the proposal to adopt new standards for the OP zone
and then place existing R5 properties in that zone, making them nonconforming properties and
changing the potential use of those properties, constitutes a "taking" of our investment and a reduction
in our property's potential. We respectfully request that you make a decision on behalf of property
rights, and vote "NO" on the application of new OP standards to those properties which conform to the
current R5 standards. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lila Nowell OFFICERS
Board President LILA NOWELL, President• FRANK C. HORZEWSKI, First Vice President
JAN SHOMAKER, Second Vice President/MLS Chairman • JAMES RIGHEIMER, Secretary/Treasurer IIVJJ
DIRECTORS
R.L. "KIRK" KIRKLAND• BETH DUNCOMBE• PHYLLIS RHYAN• LOU STAN • TOM VAN TUYL
WILL WOODS, Executive Vice President• JUDITH SEVERY, Vice President/Public Affairs
Huntington Beach yXzl 7
Fountain Valley
Board of REACTORS® Inc. '����
R E A LTO R 8101 Slater Avenue • Huntington Beach, CA 92647 • (714) 847-6093
September 21, 1987
The Honorable Jack Kelly, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
RE: Agenda Item F-2 (a)and (b)
Honorable Council Members:
On behalf of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of REALTORS®, I would like to urge your
support of this item with the addition of"Alternative One" as recommended by the Planning
Commission at their meeting of September 1, 1987,as follows:
Alternative One: "Include an exception provision for existing buildings with a side yard setback
adjacent to R1 property. Revise Section 9200.6 such that a fifteen(15)foot side yard setback be required
for newly constructed buildings only. Expansions to existing buildings may be at the legally established
setback. (Attached Ordinance 2905)"
As you know,we are very concerned about this proposal to create new standards for the Office
Professional District — more specifically, to change the setback requirements --and apply these "new"
standards retroactively to existing buildings. As we have testified in the past, this action would make
our building"legal,nonconforming,"jeopardizing our ability to obtain insurance and financing,as well
as our current ability to add a complete second story to the existing structure.
We believe it is unfair to change the setback standards for existing buildings since it is obviously
impossible for a property owner to comply. We believe that the Planning Commission's
recommendation to exempt existing buildings with a sideyard setback adjacent to R1 property and
revise Section 9200.6 so that an increase in the sideyard setback be required for newly constructed
buildings only is a fair resolution of this issue.
We urge your support BUT ONLY WITH THE ADDITION OF ALTERNATIVE ONE.
Sincerely,
Lila Nowell
Board President
LN/JAS/km
OFFICERS
LILA NOWELL, President• FRANK C. HORZEWSKI, First Vice President `
JAN SHOMAKER, Second Vice President/MLS Chairman • JAMES RIGHEIMER, Secretary/Treasurer \/1
DIRECTORS
R.L. "KIRK" KIRKLAND• BETH DUNCOMBE• PHYLLIS RHYAN• LOU STAN • TOM VAN TUYL
WILL WOODS, Executive Vice President 9 JUDITH SEVERY, Vice President/Public Affairs %�-
Huntington Beach
03 Fountain Valley
Board of REALTORS' Inc.
R E A LTO R' 8101 Slater Avenue • Huntington Beach, CA 92647 • (714) 847-6093
August 31, 1987
The Honorable Kent M. Pierce, Chairman
and Members of the Planning.Cor- m?ssion -
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: Agenda Item D-1/Report Back to City Council on Code Amendment 87-3,
Office Professional (OP) District
Honorable Commissioners:
You may recall that we appeared before your meetings on April 7 and May 5, 1987, to express
our concerns regarding new standards proposed for the "OP" Office Professional District.
As you know, our Board Office building at 8101 Slater, which was built to code in 1977, is one of
the properties currently zoned R5 (Office Professional) which would be adversely affected by the
proposal.
Some revisions in the proposed standards were made at those two meetings and a number of
our concerns were resolved, however, following the public hearings there was a new item added
to the proposed new standards which had not been discussed previously. Unfortunately, this
item will, in and of itself, present a very serious problem to our building -- which is the major
asset of our nonprofit corporation.
This item is the proposed increase in the sideyard setback from 5' to 15'.
If this item Js retained and-retroactively applied to °our building, it will -- all of a sudden,
become a "legal, nonconforming" building, which not only affects our ability to obtain
insurance coverage but also affects our ability to refinance or sell. Attached for your
information is a letter we have received from our insurance agent, South Shores Insurance,
outlining this issue.
This provision also affects our ability to add a second and third story to the building to provide
additional office space. Staff has explained that the second or third stories would have to
conform to the new set back-- permitting a "partial" second story.
It appears to us that this provides for an"architectural white elephant" -- Staff explains that we
can accomplish the same amount of square footage by "lopping the building over to the parking
lot side" -- but that is prohibitive due to our unusual requirement for excess parking.
OFFICERS
LILA NOWELL, President• FRANK C. HORZEWSKI, First Vice President /
JAN SHOMAKER, Second Vice President/MLS Chairman • JAMES RIGHEIMER, Secretary/Treasurer
DIRECTORS
R.L. "KIRK" KIRKLAND• BETH DUNCOMBE• PHYLLIS RHYAN• LOU STAN • TOM VAN TUYL
WILL WOODS, Executive Vice President 9 JUDITH SEVERY, Vice President/Public Affairs
August 31, 1987
Page 2
We believe the most appropriate and fair resolution to this dilemna is to approve "Alternative
1" as described in the September 1, 1987 staff report, grandfathering existing buildings
including the right to expand those building with the same existing setback (which is currently
legal under our R-5 zoning). As a nonprofit corporation, we made a legitimate investment in
this community and constructed a building in accordance with the existing rules. We
constructed a building which met our needs and which could be expanded as those needs
increased. Now, that investment is being jeopardized without reason. We can find no
justification for this action, and we hope that you agree.
We believe you have a responsibility to protect the property rights of those who make
legitimate investments in this City, unless you wish to send a message that Huntington Beach
is not a safe place to invest—that this community is one where the rules are
changed...retroactively...and for no reason.
We believe the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions relative to the "taking of private property"
apply to this proposal, at least in principle. In our view, the proposal to adopt new standards
for the OP zone and then place existing R5 properties in that zone, making them
nonconforming properties and changing the potential use of those properties, constitutes a
"taking" of our investment and a reduction in our property's potential. We respectfully request
that you make a decision on behalf of property rights, and support Alternative 1.
Sincerely,
L a Nowell
Board President
LN/JAS/km
`4
25V ® T H
SHORES
I
INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.
19010 Brookhurst Street, Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646. Phone (714) 963-5647 540-2529
July 24, 1987
Judy Severy
Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley
Board of Realtors Inc
8101 Slater Avenue
Huntington Beach, California 92647
RE: Building Insurance, 8101 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach
Dear Ms. Severy:
The present building insurance is in the amount of $443,500.00. The
building is covered on replacement cost basis so that if the building
were destroyed by fire the insurance company. would- provide. funds .to
replace the damaged building without depreciation.
If the city would apply restrictive. zoning to your--property, you may..be . -
subjected to serious-penalities on a loss settlement. The insurance
company would of course repair the damaged portion of the building.
However, insurance proceeds apply only to damage caused by an insured
peril. Proceeds do not apply to undamaged portion of building that
code restrictions do not allow you to rebuild. In event of a 65%
insured loss to building, the insurance would apply to 65%, not to 35%
unbuildable due to city code. You could therefore suffer a large
uninsured claim.
Since/rely,
1
Steph F. Holden
SFH/ff
COMPLETE PROTECTION, HOME, LIFE, AUTO, BUSINESS, OFFICE
*0
03 e-ntington Beach
Fountain Valley
Board of REALTORS® Inc.
R E A LTO Rn 8101 Slater Avenue • Huntington Beach, CA 92647 • (714) 847.6093
-
August 3, 1987 R— 1 7—9 7
The Honorable Jack Kelly,Mayor
and Councilmembers
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: Agenda Item G-1(a) Code Amendment 87-3 To Create The Standards To Be Applied To
The New District Classification of"OP" (Office Professional)
Dear Honorable Councilmembers:
We are here this evening to OPPOSE Agenda Item G-1(a) which purports to create standards for
the new "OP" (Office.Professional) zone classification. Unfortunately, these "new" standards are
not intended to apply only to new-"OP" buildings, but-also retroactively to 27 properties which are
currently zoned R-5 (Office Professional). It drastically affects 6-properties because it proposes
even more stringent requirements on those which are within 45' of R-1.
We.currently have a.legal, conforming one story building, 5500 square feet, built to code under the
-R-5 (Office Professional)standards in 1977. Under the current standards, we could construct a 3
story-.office building on the site, 35 feet.high, with an additional 14feet for roof equipment. Our
building meets all required setbacks and only has 14%-site coverage due to our unique need for a
large number of parking spaces to accommodate our membership. (We have 69 spaces-- 51 more
than the required 18 spaces -- and we could still use more.)
Now the City Staff and Planning Commission are for some reason proposing "new" standards for
this zone. If these standards are applied as proposed, all of a sudden, our legal, conforming
building will become a legal, NONCONFORMING building. It was appraised at$730,000 in
1985. Included in the appraisal is the following statement: "The existing use conforms to zoning
regulations and is therefore considered a legal, conforming use." As you know, we are a
nonprofit corporation, and this building is our major asset so, this downzoning presents a serious
problem to our membership.
We disagree with the staff analysis which attempts to discount the financial impact of this proposed
change on our property:
(1) Staff states that "the ability of the site to accommodate an office building of like size or
larger would not be affected by the code amendment." THIS IS NOT TRUE. While the site could
accommodate a larger structure, a larger "footprint," in the City's terms, that would have a \
corresponding effect on our ability to provide adequate parking for our members' use. �.
OFFICERS u
LILA NOWELL, President• FRANK C. HORZEWSKI, First Vice President �1
JAN SHOMAKER, Second Vice President/MLS Chairman • JAMES RIGHEIMER, Secretary/Treasurer 1`
DIRECTORS
R.L. "KIRK" KIRKLAND• BETH DUNCOMBE• PHYLLIS RHYAN• LOU STAN• TOM VAN TUYL
WILL WOODS, Executive Vice President• JUDITH SEVERY, Vice President/Public Affairs
.e
a� August 3, 1987
Page 2
(2) Staff assumes that in the event of significant structural damage to the building, "the owner
would want to make significant changes in the building design." While that may be an option for
an owner to consider, it is certainly presumptious to assume that an owner would want to, or could
even afford to,make those changes,*and it doesn't seem appropriate to enact legislation to force
this redesign at the owner's expense.
The economic facts are these. The results of the new standards particularly the 10 foot increase in
the side setback, are that if our building were destroyed by 50% (or more), even if we wanted to
construct the identical building,WE WOULD HAVE TO DESTROY THE REMAINING 50% of
the structure in order to build the new building 10 feet from the current site. We have been advised
by our insurance carrier that they would only be responsible for the part destroyed by fire or other
disaster--but not for the part required to be razed by the City. (Attached is a letter from our
insurance agent with regard to this.)
Building Height
Staff analysis implies that this section has no effect on our building. We disagree. Simply stated,
the current zoning permits construction of a 3 story, 35' building. The proposed new zoning limits
us (because we are within 45' of R-1) to a 2 story, 25' building, unless we could obtain a
conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. That is a significant difference.
In simple economic terms, according to our 1985 appraisal, if we were to rent this building, at the
time, the rent would probably be $1.20/sq. ft. or$6,350 per month. Presuming we added two
additional stories the same size under the current zoning standards, we could triple that income --
$19,050/per month. Obviously, if one can only have a two story building, the rent drops to
$12,700/per month. (Keep in mind, these were 1985 figures.)
Expansion of Legal Nonconforming Building
The proposed change in the side setback of our building has an even more deleterious effect on our
property. Now, if we wanted to add a second story to the building, we would have to setback the
second story 10 feet along the entire length of the building. Do you have any idea what a "partial"
second story would look like? The staff describes our ability to move the second story over 10 feet
from one side and have it lop over into the parking lot on the other side-- but we consider the
staffs suggestion totally unrealistic -- not only because we think the building design would be
rather incongruous but also because.it again interferes with our ability to provide adequate parking
for our membership.
Grandfathering of Existing Sites
We disagree with the staff statement that "existing sites are always grandfathered." It may be that
the imposition of new standards would not require us to tear down our building, but unless you
exempt existing legal conforming buildings from the new standards, our investment is certainly not
grandfathered! Our ability to add a needed second or third story to provide needed office space is
certainly not grandfathered! Our ability to develop our property to its highest and best use is
certainly not grandfathered! We would still have problems obtaining insurance and would pay a
premium should we even try to sell or refinance.
We feel that the suggestions by staff that this proposal has no adverse affect on our investment are
not only simplistic -- with no regard for the use of the building -- but also cavalier-- with no
understanding of economics.
August 3, 1987
Page 3
We respectfully request that you protect our private property rights -- and grandfather existing R-5
sites, if indeed they are currently legal and conforming. If you then wish to create "new" standards
for "new" OP zoned lots, that would be fine...however, to revise the standards on existing lots is
neither reasonable nor responsible.
The Alternative Action suggestion to exempt one story structures from the setback requirement is
also not acceptable. While it would solve one major problem since our current building would at
least retain its "legal, conforming" status, we still would be unable to utilize our property to its
highest and best use, should we ever proceed to expand the building, since the second story would
still have to be offset to meet the new setbacks.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
,J Y
Lila Nowell
Board President
LN/JAS/km
Publish 20/87 / - a V
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3
OP (Office Professional District & Design Standards for Parking Areas)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold
a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic
Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and
at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all
persons who wish to be heard relative -to the application described below.
DATE: Monday, June 1, 1987
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 87-3
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach
LOCATION: City-wide
PROPOSAL: To repeal existing Articles 940, "R5, Office Professional
District," and 949.5, "OR, Office Residential District,"
and add new Article 920 entitled "OP, Office Professional
District." Also, to amend Sections 9021 (Application)
related to enforcement of Division 9; 9060 (Districts)
correcting list of districts; and 9605 related to design
standards for parking areas,
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt
from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed ordinance is on file in the
Department of Development Services, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach. A copy of the staff report will be
available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main
City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after May 27, 1987.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express
opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined
above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are
on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, California, for inspection by the public.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
- Phone (714) 536-5405
Dated 5/12/87
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
,IE 7
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3
OP (Office Professional District
and Design Standards for Parking Areas -
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington
Beach Civic ,Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California,
on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider
the statements of all persohs who wish to be heard relative to the
application described below.
AQON / SUNS Il
DATE/TIME: `Tues'$-8y, :rr-ii -, 1987, 7: 00 PM
APPLICATION NUMBER: Code Amendment No. 87-3
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach
REQUEST: To repeal existing Articles 940, "R5, Office
Professional District" , and 949 . 5, "OR, Office
Residential District, " and add new Article 920
entitled "OP, Office Professional District. " Also, to
amend Section 9605 related to design standards for
parking areas and minimum driveway width, and omnibus
clause.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: ' The proposed project is categorically exempt
from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed ordinance is on file in the
Department of Development Services, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by
the public. A copy of the staff report will be
available to interested parties at City Hall or the
R7,
Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after �9J l � l
Ap � 1 8 .
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and
express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application
as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call
Jeff Abramowitz, Assistant Planner at 536-5271.
James W. Palin, Secretary
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
(762ld-2)
Publish ./20/87
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3
OP (Office Professional District & Design Standards for Parking Areas
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold
a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic
Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and
at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all
persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below.
DATE: Monday, June 1, 1987
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 87-3
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach
LOCATION: City-wide e,44„ce,9_4
G
PROPOSAL: To repeal existing Articles 940, "R5, Office Professional �' 9
District," and 949.5, "OR, Office Residen ial District,"
and add new Article 920 entitled "OP, Off ce Professional
District." Also, to amend Sections 9021 9060fl nd 9605
related to design standards for parking areas
_ @
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt 84
re
from the provisions of the California C-gi1eC �tsf
Environmental Quality Act.
o rho J
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed ordinance is on file in the
Department of Development Services, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach. A copy of the staff report will be
available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main
City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after May 27, 1987.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express
opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined
above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are
on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, California, for inspection by the public.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
Phone (714) 536--5405
Dated 5/12/87
t _ REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date Angnct 31 19R7
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council �l3�� t $/O
Irl �► -f°
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Director, Community Development
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3 — TO CREATE THE STANDARDS TO BE
APPLIED TO THE NEW DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OF "OP" (OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL).
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes PC] New Policy or Exception aez 0.11Ds
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Code Amendment No. 87-3, which creates the standards to be applied to the new district
classification of "OP" (Office Professional), was continued from the meeting of July 6,
1987, due to the length of the Council's agenda. The public hearing was held on June 1,
1987. At that time, the City Council continued the item requesting additional
information from staff regarding building setbacks, expansion of legally nonconforming
buildings, and rebuilding after destruction.
It should be noted that the ordinance for Code Amendment No. 87-3 had included a
section covering some revisions to the parking standards (unrelated to the OP District). It
has been determined not to include these changes at this time but to bring them forward,
along with other changes to the parking standards, as a comprehensive review of that
article.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission action on May 5, 1987:
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PIERCE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION
VOTED TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY
THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell, Livengood
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Staff recommendation is identical to that of the Planning Commission. ��
P10 5/85
L `
t
ANALYSIS:
The staff report dated June 1, 1987 includes an explanation of all proposed changes in the
new OP as compared to the existing R5. In addition, a matrix has been prepared as
requested which offers a direct comparison of the regulations.
The following section responds to the questions raised by the Council on June 1, 1987.
Rebuilding a Nonconforming Structure after Destruction
Article 965 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code contains the regulations pertaining
to nonconforming structures. These provisions were completely revised last year in
response to concerns raised by property owners, the Board of Realtors and financial
lending institutions.
The issue brought up at that time dealt with difficulties in obtaining financing or in
refinancing "downzoned" properties, those where the existing density could not be rebuilt
if destroyed by fifty percent or more.
With respect to the Board of Realtor's site, the ability of the site to accomodate an office
building of like size or larger would not be affected by the code amendment. As for fire
or other natural disaster, the following provisions would apply. If the structure was
destroyed by up to 50 percent, it could be completely rebuilt as it stood. If the structure
was destroyed between 50 percent to 100 percent, all provisions of the code would have to
be complied with, including the fifteen (15) foot setback at the side yard. It should be
kept in mind that after such an extent of structural damage, it is likely that an owner
would want to make significant changes in a building's design--expanding the square
footage in other areas for example.
In any case, financial institutions would have no difficulty lending on a property that could
be rebuilt with just as much, if not more, building square footage as had existed prior to
destruction.
Building Height
Another concern has to do with protecting the future ability of the Board to increase the
number of stories of the existing building. The maximum height proposed is 38 feet,
which would accommodate a total of three stories. The proposed "OP" provisions read
that no entitlement is required for a building if constructed up to two stories or
twenty—five feet. If the full 3 stories is requested, a conditional use permit is required in
order to provide notice to surrounding residential property owners. These provisions
governing maximum building height had previously been modified by the Planning
Commission in response to comments by the Board of Realtors and the Huntington Beach
Company.
Expansion of a Legally Nonconforming Building
In designing a second story, the question of whether the existing setback could be used
was raised. Again, Article 965 governs the expansion of existing nonconforming
structures. Specific provisions apply to structures which are nonconforming only due to
setback requirements, Section 9652(c) stating that Use Permit approval by the Zoning
Administrator is required to expand or enlarge. Normally, the portion of the building that
is being added must conform to the current standards of the code. In the case of the
Board of Realtor's building, this would mean that the second story portion of the building
RCA — August 3, 1987 —2— (8681d)
would be required to set back ten (10) feet from the first floor facade, creating a tiered
effect. Of course, the second floor could cantilever at other areas and actually be of
greater square footage than the first. Section 9652(c) goes on to state that "additions
determined by the Director to be minor in nature may be constructed at the existing yard
setbacks if such setbacks were legally established."
"Grandfathering" of Existing Sites
With respect to the "grandfathering" of existing sites, that is in fact what happens every
time a code is modified. "Grandfathering" refers to existing uses and structures, not the
future right to develop a property. Should the City Council wish to exempt all existing
lots from the additional side yard setback requirement where a lot abuts a single family
residential home, then a provision could be added to the ordinance such that this
requirement only apply to "OP" lots created in the future.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION :
Since the intent of the code amendment was not to make any existing sites
nonconforming, the City Council may wish to consider revised development standards that
would not have such an impact. One alternative would be that the additional setback
requirement proposed for office structures adjacent to single family homes not apply to
one story structures. This change would mean that the Board of Realtor's building would
not be classified as legal nonconforming. Expansion of the building would still need to
comply with all applicable provisions of the code. Should the City Council wish to
examine such an option or one similar, staff recommends that the Council direct the
Planning Commission to review and report back on the proposed code amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance (legislative draft)
2. Development Standards Comparison of "R5" and "OP"
3. RCA dated June 1, 1987, including:
a. List of land uses on sites adjacent to R1 properties
b. Map depicting the existing R5 sites, and noting those adjacent to R1 properties
c. Existing Article 940, marked to show changes and cross— referenced to
ordinance section numbers
d. Public hearing notices and letters sent out to all "RS" property owners, and
those who requested them as part of the City's "notification matrix."
e. Planning Commission staff reports dated April 7, 1987 and May 5, 1987
DLB:JA:gbm
RCA — August 3, 1987 —3— (8681d)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ' ' .
Existing R5 Proposed OP as Approved
by Planning Commission
(S.9401 .1 ) PERMITTED USES. Professional (S. 9200.1 ) PERMITTED USES.
services may be located in professional
business buildings. Professional offices (a) Professional offices, including, but
are defined as offices for the conduct of not limited ' to, accountant, archi-
any one of the following uses only: tect, attorney, chiropractor, col-
lection agency, dentist, engineer,
Accountant, architect, attorney, chiro- insurance broker, optometrist,
practor, collection agency, dentist, physician and surgeon, private
engineer, insurance broker, optometrist, detective, real estate sales, social
physician and surgeon, private detec- workers, surveyor and pharmacies.
tive, real estate sales, social workers,
surveyor and pharmacies. Diagnostic (b) Diagnostic laboratories and bio-
laboratories and biochemical laboratories chemical laboratories that do not
that do not exceed fifteen hundred (1500) exceed fifteen hundred (1500) square
square feet in gross area are also feet.
permitted.
(S. 9401 .2) USE PERMIT. (S. 9200.2) USE PERMIT.
Motels and hotels. (a) Diagnostic laboratories and bio-
chemical laboratories . exceeding
Service establishments in conjunction fifteen hundred (1500) square feet.
with a motel or hotel .
(b) Emergency medical centers and
clinics, provided that any such
facility operating between the hours
of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. shall be
located a minimum of 150 feet from
any residentially zoned property. .
(c) Uses of a similar nature, but not
specifically listed in Section
9200. 1 .
(S. 9402) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. (S. 9200.3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
Unclassified uses pursuant to provisions (a) Building heights between twenty-five
of Article 933. and thirty-eight feet when located
within forty-five (45) feet of any
property zoned or general planned
for single family residential use.
(b) Unclassified uses pursuant to the
provisions of Article 963.
. l
(S. 9404) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE/FRONTAGE. (S. 9200.4) MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE/FRONTAGE.
Minimum site area: 6000 square feet. Minimum lot size: 10,000 square feet.
Minimum frontage: 60 feet. Minimum lot frontage: 100 feet.
EXCEPTION: Any parcel or lot, or com- EXCEPTION 1 : Any parcel or lot, or
bination of parcels and lots, existing as combination of parcels and lots, existing
a legal building site on or before the as a legal building site on or before
effective date of this section shall June 19, 1972, the effective date of
remain a legal building site. Ordinance 1754, shall be considered a
legal building site.
EXCEPTION 2: Any parcel or lot, or
combination of parcels and lots, existing
as a legal building site between June 19,
1972 and August 19, 1987, the effective
date of Ordinance 2905, shall be
considered a legal building site.
(S. 9404.1 ) BUILDING HEIGHT. The maximum (S. 9200.5) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. The
building height shall be three (3) maximum building height shall be three
stories, but not to exceed thirty-five (3) stories, but not to exceed thirty-
(35) feet. eight (38) feet. Within forty-five (45)
feet of any property zoned or general
EXCEPTION: Rooftop mechanical equipment planned for single family residential
and screening may exceed the thirty-five use, building height shall be limited to
(35) foot height limit, provided that two (2) stories and/or twenty-five (25)
they shall not exceed building height by feet, except upon conditional use permit
more than fourteen (14) feet. Screening approval by the Planning Commission.
shall set back fifteen (15) feet from any Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall
exterior building edge and shall not be screened on all sides by the
project above the equipment which it is architectural features of the buildings.
designed to shield from view.
(S. 9404.3) YARD REQUIREMENTS. S. 9200.6 SETBACKS. Setbacks are as
listed below except if otherwise
(a) Front Yard: 5 feet. Parcels designated on the sectional district
fronting on a state highway: 50 feet map. Interior side and rear setbacks
shall be increased by ten (10) feet where
(b) Exterior Side Yard: 10 feet a parcel abuts an R1 District property.
(c) Interior Side Yard. 5 feet Front: 10 feet. Parcels fronting on a
state highway shall be fifty
(d) Rear Yard. 5 feet, except where (50) feet, except such setback
permitted uses abut an R1 District, may be reduced pursuant to S.
in which case the minimum rear yard 9220.7(d) .
shall be fifteen (15) feet.
Interior side: 5 feet
Exterior side: 10 feet
Rear: 5 feet
(8669d)
S. 9404.2 OFF—STREET PARKING. The S. 9200.7 PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. All
arrangement, access, and number of all developments shall be required to meet
parking spaces and/or lots shall conform the off—street parking standards and
to Article 979. landscaping requirements contained in
Article 960.
Sections Deleted from the OP Provisions
S. 9403 ON PREMISE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. On premise
sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within private clubs or lodges may
be permitted subject to the following requirements:
(a) A site plan application shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Commission; and
(b) Such sale shall be conducted within the same building and in conjunction
with the permitted use.
S. 9404.3 YARD REQUIREMENTS. All yards shall be measured from the existing
property lines or from the ultimate right—of—way lines as required by Article
973.
(8669d)
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date June 1, 1987
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council �.
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator`Jnn w"I
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services n
6
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3 - TO CREATE THE STANDAR S TO
BE APPLIED TO THE NEW DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OF
"OP" (OFFICE PROFESSIONAL) .
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes D4 New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Code Amendment No. 87-3 creates the standards to be applied to the
new district classification of "OP" (Office Professional) . There
are several reasons for the code amendment; to change the name for
the Office Professional districtfrom "R5" ; to move the existing
article numbered as 940 to 920 as part of the reorganization and
streamlining of Division 9 ; to eliminate archaic language, make the
zoning code internally consistent; and provide an opportunity to
evaluate current development standards to determine any changes that
are appropriate.
Also incorporated as part of the proposed ordinance are several
clean-up pieces of legislation. Each is separately discussed in the
Analysis section of this report .
RECOMMENDATION•
Planning Commission action on May 5, 1987:
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PIERCE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION
VOTED TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3 AND RECOMMEND ADOPTION BY
THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell,
Livengood
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Staff recommendation is identical to that of the Planning Commission.
PIO 5/85
ANALYSIS•
The following section identifies and explains proposed content
changes from the existing R5 regulations to the new OP regulations .
It is categorized by page number, that is, by where each provision
is found in the ordinance. The ordinance is attached to this report
as well as a copy of existing Article 940 marked to show cross-
references with the new regulations .
OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT
Page 1
Section 9200 . 1 Permitted ' Uses .
All uses previously listed as permitted by administrative review are
included under this section. Plan review approval by the Director
has been substituted, however, for the administrative review
approval by the Board of Zoning Adjustments . The administrative
review application has been phased out in all residential and
commercial districts to date for the purpose of streamlining the
review and approval process . The plan review application, handled
entirely by staff, can be processed within a much shorter time
frame.
Section 9200 . 2 Use Permit .
The most significant change is the elimination of hotels and motels
as permitted uses along with ancilliary service establishments .
Specific standards for hotels and motels were adopted in July of
1986, which allow them in the C4 District only, subject to
conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission. Hotels
and motels are not appropriate uses for the Office Professional
District . None exist at the present time.
Section 9200 .4 Minimum Parcel Size/Frontage.
The minimum standards for both lot width and lot size have been
increased to be more consistent with modern subdivision design.
Since exceptions are provided for existing lots, the minimum
standards of 100 feet and 10, 000 square feet will only apply to the
creation of new lots in the future.
These same figures for minimum lot width and square footage were
adopted as part of the new provisions for the C2 and C4 Districts .
RCA - 5-20-87 -2- (8210d)
Page 2
Section 9200 . 5 Maximum Building Height.
The maximum building height has been increased from thirty-five to
thirty-eight feet . The existing code permits roof equipment to
exceed the building height by an additional fourteen feet . This
provision is proposed to be eliminated. The code requires screening
on all sides by the architectural features of the building itself,
such as parapet walls . To address roof-mounted equipment, Section
9730 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code (Miscellaneous
Provisions) provides that the maximum building height in any
district can be exceeded by ten (10) feet for the purpose of
installing and screening mechanical equipment . If more ,than ten
(10) feet is requested, a use permit before the Board of Zoning
Adjustments is required. Virtually all, roof-mounted mechanical
equipment is able to be properly screened with a four (4) foot high
parapet wall .
In addition, the maximum height provisions have been modified so
that unless a conditional use permit is approved by the Planning
Commission, building height is limited to twenty-five feet and no
more than two stories where a structure is located within 45 feet of
R1 property. The conditional use permit process ensures that
adequate public notice would be given to all surrounding property
owners impacted by any proposed construction. There is strong
justification for the inclusion of a conditional use permit pro-
vision since the process is also required whenever the building
height of even a single family home is proposed to be greater than
twenty-five (25) feet . (This requirement was adopted by the City
Council in early 1986 after extended public hearings . ) The Building
Division indicates that professional office buildings of two to
three stories generally require 10 feet to 11 feet per story.
Section 9200 . 6 Setbacks .
Setback requirements remain substantially the same, although two
.changes have been made. An inconsistency has been eliminated with
respect to the front yard setback. The Off-Street Parking standards
require that all lots have a minimum 10 foot wide landscaped planter
along street frontages . This higher figure of 10 feet is already
being applied.
The second setback change made concerns the fifty foot setback
required for parcels fronting on a state highway. The proposal is
to permit a reduction in this setback provided additional land-
scaping is provided. Section 9220 . 7 is referenced from the
commercial districts standards; it allows a building setback of
twenty-five feet where twenty-five feet of landscaping is provided
between the building and the street frontage.
RCA - 5-20-87 -3- (8210d)
MISCELLANEOUS "CLEAN UP" AMENDMENTS
OFF-STREET PARKING
Section 9605(a) Design Standards .
The provision added back to this section requires that a corner
cut-off of ten feet be provided for visibility purposes wherever the
intersection of two drive aisles is located adjacent to the sides of
a building.
Page 3
Section 9605(f) Parking Design Standards (Continued) .
This provision added to the minimum driveway width requirements
concerns residential driveways that are located along the rear or
side of a building. It requires that the driveway width be twenty
feet wide if it is designed between two buildings, or between a
building and a property line. A driveway width of ten feet is not
adequate for on-site circulation, or the possibility of two-way
traffic.
MISCELLANEOUS "CLEAN-UP" AMENDMENTS
DIVISION 9 INTRODUCTION
Page 5
Section 9021(f) Enforcement.
The language added here has been recommended by the City Attorney' s
office in order to aid in the prosecution of persons who are in
violation of zoning code provisions . It is a general statement
prohibiting the use of a lot or structure for any purpose other than
that which is permitted by Division 9 .
Page 6
Section 9060 Zoning Districts .
This section introducing the various district classifications is
amended to substitute "OP" for "R5" . In addition, the list has been
amended by adding all of the specific plans adopted that are
contained under separate cover.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Code Amendment No . 87-3 is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act .
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not Applicable
RCA - 5-20-87 -4- (8210d)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance
2 . List of land uses on sites adjacent to R1 properties
3 . Map depicting the existing, R5 sites, and noting those adjacent
to R1 properties
4 . Existing Article 940, marked to show changes and
cross-referenced to ordinance section numbers
5 . Public hearing notices and letters sent out to all "R5"
property owners, and those who requested them as part of the
City' s "notification matrix. "
6 . Planning Commission staff reports dated April 7, 1987 and May
5, 1987
` JWP:JA: jr
d�
RCA - 5-20-87 -5- (8210d)
SITES ADJACENT TO R1
(Circled on Map)
1. Medical/dental office north side of Adams, east of Magnolia:
1 story. Dimensions : 126 ' x 167 ' (irregular shape) . Setback '
is 15 feet from R1.
2 . Offices at northwest corner of Atlanta and Brookhurst :
2 stories . Dimensions : 177 ' x 100 ' . Setback is 15 feet from
R1 to the rear.
3 . Church at northeast corner of McFadden and Edwards :
1-2 stories, but buildings are greater than 45 feet away from
Rl, with parking adjacent to the homes .
Dimensions : 363 ' x .335 ' .
4 . Colonial Real Estate Building .(recently approved for day care
use) north of Edinger, west side of Goldenwest: 2 stories . .
Dimensions : 158 ' x 110 ' . Building is greater than 15 feet
from Rl .
5 . Medical office, north side of Heil, west of Springdale:
1 story. Dimensions : 150 ' x 206 ' . Building greater than 15
feet from R1 .
6 . Board of Realtor ' s building, north side of Slater, east of
Beach: 1 story building within 45 feet of R1. Dimensions :
213 ' x 196 ' . Building has 5' foot setback from R1 to the side.
7 . Parking lot/vacant, north side of Newman, east of Beach.
Dimensions : 100 ' x 300 ' . No structures on site.
8 . Office building, west side of Goldenwest, south of Warner:
1 story. Dimensions : 150 ' x 180 ' . Building is greater than
15 feet from R1 to the rear.
SITES ADJACENT TO R1
(Circled on Map)
1. Medical/dental office north side of Adams, ea t of Magnolia:
1 story.
2 . Offices at northwest corner of Atlanta an Brookhurst :
2 stories .
3 . Church at northeast corner of McFadde and Edwards :
1-2 stories, but buildings are great than 45 feet away from
R1, with parking adjacent to the ho es .
4 . Abandoned Colonial Real Estate B lding north of Edinger, west
side of Goldenwest : 2 stories .
5 . Medical office, north side of eil, west of Springdale: 1 story
6 . Board of Realtors building, north side of Slater, east of
Beach: 1 story building thin 45 feet of R1 .
7. Parking lot/vacant, nor side of Newman, east of Beach.
8 . Office building, wes side of Goldenwest, south of Warner:
1 story.
Staff Report - 5/5/87 (8000d)
y
r \
3
w
Lt
CITY OF
M ` ~� HUNTINGTON BEACH
E ing r
H it '
+ W me
i
t Sla er s
...�
0
Tal bert
E11 ' s
field
Y o r t o w
d ms
1
Atl anta
-9y
�,. mum ,;--
Existing sties currently. zoned R5 .
Circled are those that abut Rl :oneds',\
properties, which are proposed to have
separate height restrictions
r1A,Yc�� COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS S. 9460
CHAPTER 94
COIF+ ACIAL DISTRICTS - E V ST+ ,,/c
ARTICLE 940. R5, OFFICE PROFESS AL DISTRICT G'll.`�1
941. ' Cl DISTRICT
943. C2 DISTRICT
945. C3 DISTRICT
947. C4 DISTRICT S F�a� G ao
948. SERVICE STATION STANDARDS
949. EQIIINB STANDARDS - cammmIAL It E_F F C tiJ C -S
ARTICLE 940 t T 1�P_0 PBS ED
R5, OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT 0 )A)A C,
(807, 961, 991, 1076, 1077, 1108, 1172, 1194,
1340, 1366, 1481, 1600, 1666, 1754 - 6/72, 1852-6/73)
Sec-4�or, 9 W 0 -- r e v%5 e(ZL
S. 9400 STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PURPOSE. This district is primarily intended to
provide hotel and motel accommodations for transients and vacation
visitors. It is further intended to provide as a part of these accasmodations the
necessary personal service establishments to serve transients and vacation visitors.
This district is not intended to allow ra1 shopping, merchandising, multiple-family
dwel ng units,, mobile homes or mobilehome
S ec-H o vi 9 200. 1
. 9401 USES PERMITTED. The uses and regulations set out hereinafter shall apply
in the R5 district subject to approval of an review
application by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. pia h
S_ 9401.1 PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. Professional services may be located in profes-
sional business buildings. Professional offices are defined as offices
` for the conduct of any one of the following uses only:
J�ccountant, architect, attorney, chiropractor, collection agency, dentist, engineer,
insurance broker, optometrist, physician and surgeon, private detective, real estate
sales, social workers, surveyor and pharmacies. Diagnostic laboratories and bio
chemical laboratories that do not exceed fifteen hundred (1500) square feet in gross
area are also permitted.
01.2 USE PERMITS REQUIRED. The uses set out hereinafter may be permitt
this district subject to approval by the Board of Zoning Adjustts of
a use permit a ication. (1 i
S. 9401.3 MOTELS HOTELS.
';a) MINIMUM LOT AREA, The mi lot area shall be ni housand (9000) square feet .
(b) MINIMUM FRONTAGE. The minimum age shall seventy (70) feet.
(c) LOCATION AND -ACCESS. All motels shall ocated on and shall be accessible from
an arterial highway which has been d cted the Master Plan of Arterial Streetj!
and Highways.
S. 9401.4 SERVICE ESTABLIS S DEFINED. Service est ishments shall include i
restaurants, ktail lounges, barber shops, ben shops, laundry or i
idry cleaning agencies, 'r el bureaus and magazine stands.
S. 9401.5 SERVI - ESTABLISHMENTS PERMITTED. Service establishments permitted
in
Ah.,"s district within. a hotel or motel. In all cases, publ access
to these ry establishments shall be by way of an inner court or lobby from
se t
hotel or el.
No t public access shall be permitted to the front yard area or exterior side
yardi area from said service establishments.
8/3/73
Y'•i V G l,Vl lC1�^SAL/ L 1J l ftiV 1 J f a/ l I-
e c-h nv► 20 0. :s
y402 USES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. The following uses may be
permitted subject to issuance of a conditional use permit
classified uses pursuant to provisions of Article 933. : (1852 - 6/73) ;--�, -
3 ON PREMISE SALE AND CONSiA�4PTI(kN OF ALCO___HOLIC BEVERAGES. - On r
le and consumption of alcoholic beverages withi a clubs or
lodges may be permit a ub- to the following requ s: Q ed
(a) A site plan application shall b and an
by He Planing
Commission; and ` t�J'�
(b) Such all be conducted within the� same building and in c on with the
fitted use.
Sl 9404 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. ALL PERMITTED USES. Se G-�-�'�� 1 ZOO
(a) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE. The minimum site area ,shall be 1 (600-0)
square feet.
( .(b) MINIMUM FRONTAGE. The minimum frontage shall be s#3M-(16- feet.
EXCEPTION: Any parcel or lot, or combination of parcels and blots, existing as a ,
legal building site on or before the effective date of this section shall remain a
legal building site. 5eci ov' '1 2-0 O �--
' 94U4-. I BUILDING HEIGHT. The maximum building height shall be three err} (3
, �,
�CE-PTJ4N-
stories, but not to exceed thirty- eet, Z 5-�Ae5 Y2 +
e c 3
1351
Lu,,... x per., . .
L
. 9404.2 OFF-STREET PARKING. The arrangement, access, and number of all par ng
spaces and/or lots shall conform to Article 979.
S. 9404.3 YARD REQUIRUNTS. All yards shall be measured from the existing property
lines or from the ultimate right-of-waylines as required by Article 973.
(2166-2/77) i2ci1 o''\ co
(a) FRONT YARD. The minimum front yard shall be €ive feet. Parcels fronting on
a state highway shall be required to set back a minimum of fifty (50) feet from .
the ultimate right of way. . ;
(b) EXTERIOR SIDE YARD. The exterior side yard shall be ten (10) feet.
(c) INTERIOR SIDE YARD. The interior side yard shall-be five (5) feet.-"
(d) REAR YARD. ' The rear yard shall be a minimum of five (5) feet except where
permitted uses abut an RI District, in which case the minimum rear yard shall be
fifteen (15) feet. .
.. t < ... .L.%_ y ..Y.Y,. i`i r ,.,Y r ..c s ♦ _. .. . s`h.
.. > ,` + $ ` r'{ H .y•a-i •_ y, ..%• .. .0 ...n r%ii n✓-*.;X:4 M_ i J• u .',� .. ., ..
•' .,1' 4.....:::7.:..':y ,Ly4.s" '.7_-rA,'1. M1 ..,% :.'9 .L 5Y. .... - . e. ..E'•.. -._ .. .. .r.. ..:.. .... . .:. ... . ...
: ,p:..; •�.•-u J.. . .'� 1.{".• •f.:.. .:.tart ' .:..
- r ... .- ..r. ps'1"tr�n •Fl.p.„."..^�.: vP .. .i-L„
FOB
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271
April 24, 1987
RE: Zone Change No. 87-1/Code Amendment No. 87-3
Dear Property Owner:
As explained in a letter to you dated March 20, 1987, the Planning Commission is in the
process of studying a zone change to OP (Office Professional) from R5 (Office Profes-
sional) for twenty-seven sites within the city. In addition, a code amendment to create
the standards for the new OP District is under consideration.
At their public hearing on April 7, 1987, the Planning Commission chose to continue both
of these items to the meeting of May 5, 1987. They directed staff to mail a second notice
to all property owners further explaining the specific code amendment proposal.
One of the changes being discussed is the maximum permitted building height in the dis-
trict. Currently, the R5 district allows a maximum building height of three stories or 35
feet. The Planning Commission will be discussing possible modifications to this height
limit. A separate, lower building height for office buildings located closer than forty-five
feet to an R1 (Single Family Residential) District is also under consideration.
The specific recommendations for height limits will be presented to the Planning Com-
mission on May 5, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA. All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing, at which
time there will be the opportunity to provide input.
A copy of the staff report and the proposed ordinance will be available to interested
parties at City Hall or the City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after May 1, 1987. Should
you have any questions or comments, or wish to have a copy of the staff report and
ordinance mailed to you, please contact Jeff Abramowitz of my staff, who will be avail-
able to assist you.
Very truly yours,
Oames W. Palin, Director
Development Services
JWP:JA:gbm
(7809d)
40
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271
March 20, 1987
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-1/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3
To Whom It May Concern:
You have been identified as the owner of property within the City of
Huntington Beach currently zoned R5 (Office Professional) . As part
of a comprehensive rewriting and streamlining of the City' s zoning
ordinance, we are proposing to change the name of the zoning
designation to OP (Office Professional) . The name change will
create less confusion for the public, since it is often assumed that
"R5" stands for a high density residential zone.
A zone change needs to be processed for the twenty-seven sites
within the City that now have the designation of R5 . As indicated
in the public notice enclosed, the Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on the proposed zone change at their meeting of April
7, 1987. The City Council is required to approve all zone changes
as well, so a subsequent hearing will be held before the City
Council at a later date. (You will receive a public notice for this
meeting also . )
Concurrent with the zone change, the Planning Commission and City
Council will also consider a code amendment to create the standards
for the new OP District (Article 920) and remove the standards for
the old R5 District . Very minor changes are recommended for the OP
designation. The format and organization of the article has been
revised to make it consistent with the rest of the zoning code. All
of the current R5 standards and all of the current permitted uses
will be carried over into the OP standards with only one exception.
The R5 District currently allows hotels and motels . The new OP
District proposed will eliminate hotels and motels as permitted
uses . Staff does not believe that they are appropriate uses for the
Office Professional District . Specific standards and requirements
are provided for hotels and motels in the C4 (Highway Commercial)
District.
G
ZONE CHANGE NO. 87-1/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3
Page Two
A copy of the zoning district map depicting your property is
enclosed. Should you have any questions or comments, do not
hesitate to call . Jeff Abramowitz of my staff will be available as
well to assist you.
Very truly yours,
G
Oames W. Palin, Director
Development Services
JWP:JA: kla
(7598d)
Enclosure
huntington beach development services department
A
' ®R
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Development Services
DATE: May 5, 1987
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3; NEW OP, OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
DISTRICT, PROVISIONS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
REQUIREMENTS. REPEALS ARTICLES 940 AND 949 . 5, ADDS NEW
ARTICLE 920 AND AMENDS SECTIONS 9605, 9021, AND 9060
1 . 0' SUGGESTED ACTION:
Approve Code Amendment No. 87-3 and recommend adoption by the City
Council .
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
This item was continued from the meeting of April 7, 1987, to allow
staff to obtain additional information for the Planning Commission .
concerning building heights for two and three story office
structures, as well as on typical heights for mechanical equipment
and screening .
Code Amendment No. 87-3 creates the standards to be applied to the
new district classification of "OP" (Office Professional) . There
are several reasons for the code amendment; to change the name for
the Office Professional district; to move the existing article
numbered as 940 to 920 as part of the reorganization and stream-
lining of Division 9; and to eliminate archaic language, make the
zoning code internally consistent; and provide an opportunity to
evaluate current development standards to determine any changes that
are appropriate.
Also incorporated are several clean-up pieces of legislation. Each
was separately discussed in the original staff report dated April 7,
1987, attached to this report. They .are not repeated in this staff
report .
Public hearing notices, and the two letters sent out to property
owners explaining the zone change and accompanying code amendment
have been attached to this report .
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Code Amendment No. 87-3 is exempt from, the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
q-F M-238
4 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
The following section discusses the issues of concern raised by the
Planning Commission at the public hearing . For a full explanation
of all content changes, please see the original staff report .
Section 9200 . 5 Maximum Building Height on Page 2 of Ordinance
The maximum building height has been increased from thirty-five to
thirty-eight feet. The existing code permits roof equipment to
exceed the building height by an additional fourteen feet. This
provision is proposed to be eliminated as has been approved for the
Cl, C2 and C4 districts . The code requires screening on all sides ,!
by the architectural features of the building itself, such as
parapet walls . (Further explanation is provided below. )
In addition, the maximum height provisions have been modified to
limit building height where a structure is located within 45 feet of
any property zoned or general planned for single family residential
uses . This limitation serves to protect any adjacent single family
development . Each of the existing "R5" sites that abut an R1
District are listed in an attachment to this report .
After the public hearing on April 7, 1987, further analysis of the
proposal by the Building Division indicates that professional office
buildings of two to three stories generally require 10 feet to 11
feet per story. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment should be able to
be properly screened with a minimum four (4) foot high parapet wall,
excepting necessary elevator rooms where non-hydraulic elevators are
used.
Staff is recommending that the height provision for buildings within
forty-five (45) feet of property zoned or general planned for single
family residential uses be modified to read no more than twenty-five
feet . The two-story limitation would remain. (The previous
recommendation was for twenty-two (22) feet, which would be the
minimum necessary to accommodate two stories . )
The issue of roof-mounted equipment was discussed by the Planning
Commission as well . Section 9730 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code (Miscellaneous Provisions) provides that the maximum building
height in any district can be exceeded by ten (10) feet for the
purpose of installing and screening mechanical equipment . If more
than ten (10) feet is requested, a use permit before the Board of
Zoning Adjustments is required. . For this reason, Section 9200 . 5
does not mention any special exception to the height limita.tion for
roof-mounted equipment .
Finally, it should be noted that the definition of "building height"
in both the zoning code and the Uniform Building Code adopted by the
City does not necessarily correspond to the actual visual perception
of a building. For example, building height is measured to the
midpoint of a sloped roof, i .e. not from the highest peak of the
roof, but only to the average of the roof ' s highest and lowest
Staff Report - 5/5/87 -27 (8000d)
point . Similarly, the building height of a "flat" building with a
parapet wall or mansard does not include these architectural
features at all . The height is measured only to the deck line, or
the "well" created behind the parapet or mansard extension.
As an illustration, the Board of Realtors ' building mentioned during
the public hearing, measures thirteen (13) feet high for the purpose
of zoning restrictions although it appears to be sixteen (16) feet
high from the street,and parking lot .
The only other difference in the revised draft ordinance presented
for your consideration is incorporating the recommendation of
Commissioner Livengood to -..require a conditional use permit
application for structures`-,located within forty-five (45) feet of R1
property. (Note Section 9200 .3 on page 1 of the ordinance. ) This
process ensures that adequate .public notice would be given to all
surrounding property owners impacted by any proposed construction.
Iri the alternative, the Planning, Commission may choose to specify
that a conditional use permit be'%required only where an applicant
proposes -a building height of greater than a certain specified
number. There is strong justification for the inclusion of a
conditional use permit provision since the process is also required
whenever the building height of even a single family home is
proposed to be greater than twenty-five. (25) feet . (This
requirement was approved by the Planning Commission and adopted by
the City Council in early 1986 after extended public hearings . ) .
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance (revised)
2 . List of land uses on sites adjacent to R1 properties
3 . Map depicting the existing R5 sites, and noting those adjacent
to R1 properties
4 . Existing Article 940, marked to show changes and
cross-referenced to ordinance section numbers
5 . Public hearing notices and letters sent out to' ,all "R5"
property owners, and those who requested them as part of the
City' s "notification matrix. "
6 . Original Planning Commission staff report dated April 7, 1987
JWP:JA: kla
Staff Report - 5/5/87 j -3- (8000d)
r
huntington beach developn.,:nt services department
SYa f F
REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Development Services
DATE: April 7, 1987
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-3; NEW OP, OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
DISTRICT PROVISIONS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
REQUIREMENTS. REPEALS ARTICLES 940 AND 949 . 5, ADDS NEW
ARTICLE 920 AND AMENDS SECTIONS 9605, 9021, AND 9060
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Approve Code Amendment No. 87-3 and recommend adoption by the City
Council .
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Code Amendment No . 87-3 creates the standards to be applied to the
new district classification of "OP" (Office Professional) . As part
of the rewriting and streamlining of Division 9 , staff is proposing
to change the name of the current Office Professional designation
known as "R5" . The name change will create less confusion for the
public, since it is often assumed that "R5" stands for a high
density residential zone.
At the same time, the provisions that apply to such sites are being
rewritten to - eliminate archaic language, to make them consistent
with other requirements in Division 9, and to match the format and
organization of the rest of the code.
The ordinance also repeals existing Article 949 . 5, which contains
provisions for an "OR" (Office Residential) district. There are no
properties within the City with this classification. It had
originally been i:atended to be applied near the Downtown area .
Also incorporated as part of the proposed ordinance are several
clear-up pieces of legislation. Each is separately discussed in '
Section 4 . 0 of :;;his repo.rt .
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Code Amendment No . 87-3 is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality kct .
ACE&
A-FM-239
4 . 0 CONTENT CHANGES:
The following list identifies and explains each proposed change from
the existing R5 regulations to the new OP regulations . It is
categorized by page number, that is, by where 'each provision is
found in the ordinance. The draft ordinance is attached to this
report as well as a copy of existing Article 940 marked to show
cross-references with the new regulations .
OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT
Page 1
Section 9200 . 1 Permitted Uses .
All of the uses previously listed as permitted by administrative
review (old Sections 9401 and 9401 . 1) are included under this
section. Plan review approval by the Director has been substituted,
however, for the administrative review approval by the BZA. The
administrative review application has been phased out in all
residential and commercial districts to date.
The purpose of changing the entitlement body is to streamline the
review and approval process . Previously, to set an application for
a hearing date required a minimum of three weeks, plus staff time in
preparing minutes and action notices, etc. The plan review
application, which is handled entirely by staff, can be processed
within a much shorter time. frame. The same departments represented
on the Board are consulted for input. In addition, any decision
made by the Director can be appealed to the Board of Zoning
Adjustments .
Section 9200 . 2 Use Permit .
1 . The most significant change is the elimination of hotels and
motels as permitted uses along with ancilliary service
establishments (old Sections 9401. 2 through 9401 . 5) . Specific
standards for hotels and motels were adopted in July of 1986,
which allow them in the C4. District only, subject to
conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission.
Hotels and motels are not appropriate uses for the Office
Professional District . None exist- at the present time.
2 . Several uses have been added under the use permit section.
Laboratories exceeding 1, 500 square feet are included so as to
provide a process whereby such uses could be approved.
(Smaller labs are allowed subject to plan review. ) Emergency
medical centers are separately listed here since such
facilities require additional review to ensure compatibility.
The use permit hearing process requires that public hearing .
notices be nailed to all adjacent property owners .
Staff Report - 4/7/87 -2- (7726d)
Section 9200 .4 Minimum Parcel Size/Frontage.
The minimum standards for both lot width and lot size have been
increased to be more consistent with modern subdivision design.
Since exceptions are provided for existing lots, the minimum
standards of 100 feet and 10, 000 square feet will only apply to the.
creation of new lots in the future.
These same figures for minimum lot width and square footage were
adopted as part of the new provisions for the C2 and C4 Districts .
Page 2
Section 9200 . 5 Maximum Building Height .
The maximum building height has been increased from thirty-five to
thirty-eight feet . This change is deemed necessary to accommodate
proper architectural screening of roof-mounted mechanical
equipment . The existing code permits roof equipment to exceed the
building height by an additional fourteen feet . Since the equipment
is then required to be screened, the result is a lattice-type screen
fencing that not only doesn' t match the building design, but often
looks. worse than the equipment it is designed to screen.
The proposed change, again already approved for the other commercial
districts, requires screening on all sides by the architectural
features of the building itself, such as parapet walls .
In addition, the maximum height provisions have been modified to
limit building height to twenty-two feet and two stories where a
structure is located within 45 feet of an Rl District . This
limitation serves to protect any adjacent single family
development . Seven of the existing Office Professional sites abut
R1 Districts .
Section 9200 . 6 Setbacks .
Setback requirements remain substantially the same, although two
changes have been made. An inconsistency has been eliminated with
respect to the front yard setback currently stated at 5' feet, and
proposed at 10 feet . Article 960, "Off-Street Parking and
Landscaping, " requires that all lots have -a minimum 10 foot wide
landscaped planter along street frontages . Thus , the higher figure
of 10 feet is already being applied.
The second change made concerns the fifty foot setback required for
parcels fronting. on a state highway. The ordinance proposes to
permit a reduction in this setback provided additional landscaping
is provided. Section 9220 . 7 is referenced from the commercial
districts standards; it allows a building setback of twenty-five .
feet where twenty-five feet of landscaping is provided betwE:e'n the
building and the street frontage.
Staff Report - 4/7/87 -3- (7726d)
MISCELLANEOUS "CLEAN UP" AMENDMENTS
OFF-STREET PARKING
Section 9605(a) Design Standards .
The provision added back to this section requires that a corner
cut-off of ten feet be provided for visibility purposes wherever the
intersection of two drive aisles is located adjacent. to the sides of
a building . This provision had been inadvertently omitted in a code
amendment adopted in 1986 . An example where such a situation would
occur is in an industrial site with drive aisles going around the
sides of the building. where the asphalt immediately abuts the
building edge (with no curbing, sidewalk or planter in between) , it
is necessary to have a corner "cut off" the building to ensure safe
visibility for drivers .
Page 3
Section 9605(f) Parking Design Standards (Continued) .
This provision added to the minimum driveway width requirements
concerns residential driveways that are located along the rear or
side of a building. It requires that the driveway width be twenty
feet wide if it is designed between two buildings, or between a
building and a property line . A driveway width of ten feet is not
adequate for on-site circulation, or the possibility of two-way
traffic . This provision had been dropped from the code in 1983 .
MISCELLANEOUS "CLEAN-UP" AMENDMENTS
DIVISION 9 INTRODUCTION
Page 4
Section 9021(b) Application of Zoning Code.
Minor word change deletes "ordinance" and replaces it with "code" .
Code is the proper reference for a portion of Division 9; the
ordinance is the implementing mechanism.
Page 5
Section 9021(f) Enforcement .
The language added here has been recommended by the City Attorney ' s
office in order to aid in the prosecution of persons who are in
violation of zoning code provisions .
It is a general statement prohibiting the use of a lot or structure
for any purpose other than that which is permitted by Division 9 .
Staff Report - 4/7/87 -4- (7726d)
Page 6
Section 9060 Zoning Districts .
This section introducing the various district classifications is
amended to substitute "OP" for "R5" . In addition, the list has been
amended by adding all of the specific plans adopted that are
contained under separate cover.
ATTACHMENTS•
1. Draft ordinance
2 . Existing Article 940, marked to show changes and
cross-references to ordinance section numbers
\ JWP:JA:kla
Staff Report - 4/7/87 - (7726d)
Huntington
' Beach
Company c5:
DisAr,hv�,W 70
2110 Mair. Street. Huntington Beach. California 92648-2499 (714) 960-4351 �
R. J. Work
v,ce c.+s,cunt — Generai Manager
May 1, 1987
OF Fp�'/i
Kintington Beach Planning Commission 9
2000 Main Street, ��� rs;�gCA,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 0
�S
Subject: Proposed Code Amendment 87-3
New OP Zoning District
s? .
Honorable Commissioners:
The Huntington Beach Company has reviewed the proposed modifications to
the office professional district. While most of the recommended changes
appear to be well-conceived, we object to the specific provision limiting
building heights ;o 25 feet within 45 feet of an R1 district.
Most.of the sites depicted on the map attached to the staff report are small,
isolated infill sites, in which the 4.5 foot setback required to allow a third
story may be difficult to achieve.
,The staff's suggested alternative of retaining uniform height limits
throughout the district but requiring a discretionary permit for buildings over
two stories within 45 feet of R I properties allows for greater flexibility in
designing and regulating development in the OP district,,
y
our ruI
i r
f
ger J. Work
RJW/WDH/j
zb
Huntington Beach
Fountain Valley -
Board of REALTORS® Inc.
R E A LTO R' 8101 Slater Avenue • Huntington Beach, CA 92647 • (714) P4 7-6093
HU14TINGTOI4 BEACH
CEVELLiPMENT SERVI;,ES
May 5, 1987
dap 7
P.O. Box lJo
The Honorable Kent M. Pierce, Chairman li mii�;ton Beach, CA 92646
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: Agenda Item C-3, Code Amendment No. 87-3; New OP, Office Professional District,
Provisions and Other Miscellaneous Requirements
Honorable Commissioners:
You may recall that we appeared before you when this item was originally presented to object to
the proposed new provisions for the OP District which would have the effect of downzoning and
devaluing Qjg 10 year old office building at 8101 Slater Avenue. (Our April 7, 1987 letter is
attached.)
We indicated to you at that time that the prospect of adding a second or third story to the present
structure had always been considered a possibility to accommodate our need for additional office
space.
We have now reviewed the proposal by staff, and we would recommend that you change the name
of the zone from R5 to OP and retain the current building standards. We would also prefer not to
have separate provisions -- with reduced building story and height limits -- for office
buildings within 45' of R1, but to retain the current provisions permitted under the R5 zoning
to have up to a 3-story 35' building with 14' additional to accommodate rooftop equipment.
After all, when this building was constructed in 1977, if the prpposed standards had been in
effect, we would have built on the other side of the site which is adjacent to a 2-story office
building!
If it is not possible to retain the current standards, obviously the 2-story 2d' limit is
preferable to the 22' originally proposed. In addition, it is our understanding from the staff,
repor?. and conversations with planning staff, that Section 9370 of the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code would permit an additional 10' to accommodate rooftop equipment. We strongly
support that additional flexibility since it will provide greater opportunity for more innovative
and attractive buildings.
OFFICERS
LILA NOWELL. President• FRANK C. HORZEWSKI, First Vice President J
JAN SHOMAKER, Second Vice President/MLS Chairman • JAMES RIGHEIMER, Secretary Treasurer I t
DIRECTORS
R.L. "KIRK" KIRKLAND• BETH DUNCOMBE • PHYLLIS RHYAN• LOU STAN • TOM VAN TUYL
WILL WOODS, Executive Vice President • JUDITH SEVERY, Vice President/Public Aftairs
Huntington Beach Planning Commission,
May 5, 1987
Page 2
Finally, we do not believe a conditional use permit should be required if an applicant proposes to
construct a building within the specified height limits, but only if the building were proposed to
exceed those limits.
We appreciate your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Lila Nowell
Board President
LN/JAS/km
1