Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-11-19MINUTES OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Tuesday, November 19, 1957 Early Session Prior to Public Hearines An early session was called to order from 6:30 P.M. to 7:30 P. M. to act upon matters not requiring a Public hearing. Commissioners Present: Bazil, Stang, Bardwell, Presson, Liles, Davis, and Schryer. Commissioners_ Absent: None. Minutes On motion by Davis and seconded by Stang, the minutes of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission of Tuesday, October 29, 1957 and Tuesday, November 5, 1957, as transcribed and mailed by the Secretary, were accepted as mailed. Ocean View School Conditional Permit Chairman Bazil.opened the hearing for -Ocean View School District request for a conditional permit.to construct a new elemen- tary school at the NE corner of "B" Street and Wintersburg Avenue. The Secretary gave the report which requested offers for dedication from the School District for the "B" Street and Wintersburg Avenue widening. It was pointed out that the request was not new, it being imposed by the Planning Commission of the County of Orange prior to the School Boards acquistion of the site. 'It was further explained that interior streets of the Tract whereupon the school site lies were abandoned by the County in good faith that other requirements would be met. The amount of land from abandoned streets is approximately equal to the area requested for street widening. The Commissioners were informed that the School Board could not be held by law to enforce the request, however it was pointed out that the Commission's request should be made a matter of record to facilitate bargaining power with the School Board at a later date and also to prove the Commission's desires for good planning. The report elaborated that the street widening was necessary for "B" Street at the present time, and for Wintersburg Avenue at a later date; for fire pro- tection reasons and for the safety and welfare of the children attending the school. Page 2 On motion by Stang and seconded by Davis - RECOYIEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That all the school property required for the widening of Wintersburg Avenue to 95 feet north of existing centerline and east of the present City Limits be offered for dedication for street purposes. 2. That all that school property required for the widening of "B" Street to 15 feet east of existing property line be offered for dedication for street purposes. Motion carried. Resolution No. 46 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the Change By -Laws City of Huntington Beach adopting a revision of policy to be inserted in the By -Laws to establish the first and third Tuesday of every month as a day scheduled for the regular meeting of the Planning Commission. A motion was made by Schryer and seconded by Liles.to pass a resolution adopting the above declaration. Roll call vote was taken as follows: AYES: Bazil, Presson, Babdwell, Stang, Davis, Schryer and Liles. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Motion was carried. Informal Discussion Until 7:30 P.M. an informal discussion was held on the following subjects: Parking district boundaries, fire protection in the north annexation, Master Land Use Plan progress, and progress report _`$'om W. L. Weybright, Planning Consultant Associate. Variance: Custom Chairman Bazil opened the public hearing for a Use Drilling Company Variance for Custom Drilling Company to permit a moved -in structure to be used as a business office and to permit the premises to be used for storage of oil drilling equipment. The premises are located approximately 1150 feet north of.Garfield Avenue on the east side of Highway 39• Howard Trabant, 8501 Yorktown Street, Huntington Beach, addressed the Commission and pointed out that property owners in his section had built many good homes fronting the highway and that although it was some distance from his property he requested the Commission to follow through with their original intentions of creating residential districts in the area under con- sideration. Page 3 Upon lengthy discussion of the problems involved, the Commissioners ruled that the area must be brought up to higher standards. Motion was made by Schryer and seconded by Stang to RECOMMEND DENIAL. - Motion was carried. Conditional Exception A public hearing was held for a conditional exception William W. Grant request of William W. Grant following a report by the Secretary. Property is located at 930 Tenth Street and described as Lots 30 and 31, Block 805, Wesley Park Tract. Protests from the following property owners' were heard: Jack Robertson, 931 Tenth Street Robert Long, 925 Tenth Street Al Greer, 922 Tenth Street Anna Grable, 950 Tenth Street The above owners indicated that because of the newer homes across the street and because of the integrity of the well kept neighborhood, they feared the erection of multiple type small bungalows which would generally - lower surrounding property values. Schryer expressed -the opinion that since the applicant had not furnished the Commission with any concrete plans except a sketch of the property, approval should not be recommended as it would loave the property owners unprotected. Bazil observed that it was a higher type of neighborhood that should be protected until such time as the new zoning comes into effect. It was pointed out that the zoning was tentatively planned as R-2 on the Master Land Use Plan which would give the applicant possibly another by later when the new zoning requirements would be more stringent. Motion was made by Stang and seconded by Schryer to 7 REC=-TEND DENIAL. Roll Call Vote - AYES 5, NOES, :2..n, ABSENT, none. Motion carried. Conditional Permit Chairman Bazil asked for the Secretary's report. Southern California Edison Ocean View Sub -Station The Secretary pointed out that the Sub -station had been there for many years and was now anon -conforming use. The School. Authorities of the new Ocean View School at "B" Street were aware of the Edison facilities and should expect an increase in power equipment from time 11 to time. Page 4 1 1 ,1 The report recommended a condition attached requiring the Edison Company to dedicate 5 feet along their east boundary property line for the widening of."B" Street. Preliminary reports from the City Engineer's office and the Fire Department indicated the advisability of widening "B" Street for safety reasons explained by W. L. Weybright, Planning Consultant rep- resentative. A public hearing was held. There was no comment from the audience except the representative for the applicant. Norman Kuch, representative for Southern California Edison on zoning matters, addressed the Commission and stated that he was not previously in- formed that 5 feet would be requested from the property for dedication. He elaborated by stating that they were opposed to relinquishing the property in conjunction with the granting of a conditional permit. And that there was no objection to widening "B" Street, but that there was objection to the manner in which it is to -be accomplished. He further challenged the legality of the condition imposed. The Commission after some discussion expressed an opinion that if it is within legal limits, it is a reasonable request. Bazil pointed out his own case where the City of Fullerton required dedication of both land and improvements. Motion by Stang and seconded by Davis to RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLL dING CONDITIONS: 1. That the Southern California Edison Company be required to offer for dedication to the City of Huntington Beach a 5 foot strip of land legally described as the east 5 feet of lots 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 for right- of-way purposes without improvements. And that said fence enclosing this five feet be reinstalled five feet west of its present location. This condition shall only be included with the recommendation for approval if it is deemed to be a legally imposed condition in the opinion of the City Attorney. Use Variance A report was read by the Secretary which declared Joseph Alliano the existing site too small for two proposed uses of Barber Shop and Hardware store. The existing site being located at the SW corner of Aldrich and Highway 39 is dimensioned 50 feet by 100 feet for a total of 5000 square feet. It was further stated that the site lies M Page 5 adjacent to the perimeter of a planned commercial zoning area. It was also noted that houses were in close proximity to the site and each other. Mrs. Del K. Niederhiser, 1077 West lst Street, Santa Ana, California wrote a letter to the Planning Commission stating that she owned the house adjacent to the site and that she wished to protest the use of the lot for two stores,.because of the size of the premises. She had no objections to one use or the other. Chairman Bazil opened the hearing to the public. There were no protests heard. There were the following property owners who spoke atainst the letter of protest and in favor of the petition for hardware and barber shop business: Ray Murray, 17411 Huntington Beach Blvd. William H. Guilliams, 401 Montana, Monrovia, California Roderick F. Nagle, 7942 Aldrich Others not identified. It was the consensus of the Commission, that the proposed businesses were too extensive for the property in question. Joseph Alliano, the applicant, addressed the Commission and explained that his hardware store would mostly consist of gardening equipment and that he was aware of the improvements which had to be made. He asked the Commission for permission to submit an alternate plan if this did not meet approval with the Commission. There being no objections, Chairman Bazil continued the hearing until next meeting on December 3. 1957, for futher study. Master Parking Plan W.L. Weybright, Planning Consultant Representative, Review of Alternatives was asked by the Chairman to make a presentation of possible alternatives for the original Master Parking Plan. Weybright pointed out to the Commission that two complete and separate studies with the resulting Master Parking Plan and Alternate Master Plan have been made. He emphasized that his first chioce and preference would be for the original Master Parking Plan. It was explained that the first alternate plan,would in his estimation be a bare minimum. Even though the Council has not attempted to act on either plan, he expressed the opinion that there was strong possibility of enacting a major portion of Original Master Plan "A". Page 6 After exhaustive and thorough re-evaluation of previous studies, he stated that he has completed a final research study with additional information and concludes that any major deviation from Master Parking Plan "A" would handi- cap the necessary financing program. lie reiterated the necessity of having a sound financing program. At this point Weybright conducted a blackboard review to make com- parative computations of a plan suggested by the Planning Commission recently, and Original Plan "A" with only one change. The Planning Commission had suggested the possibility of excluding the -lot composed of Section A of the Trailer Park in their proposal. The one change that Weybright advocated for original plan "A" was a change of lot D to the SEly corner of 5th Street and Olive Avenue. By use of the calculations demonstrated on the blackboard, Weybright concluded that the Planning Commission proposal was not a sound financial risk compared to his advocated plan. He advised that Section A of the Trailer Park was a virtual necessity to secure sound financing. A long and detailed discussion followed Weybright's review. It was expressed by opinion of the Commissioner's that it would be expedient to have an alternate lot on the SEly corner of 3rd and Walnut in the event one of the lots near the beach were rejected. Weybright said that he felt the alternate lot would be too close to the main lot on the Nwly corner of 3rd and Walnut, however he said he would be willing to leave it up to the bonding firm's decision, acting in advisory capacity to the Parking District Authority. On the basis of this opinion, a motion was made by Schryer and seconded by Davis to recommend a.resoULtion for following described Master Parking Plan hereinafter described as Master Parking Plan "A".amended. Master Parking Shall consist of Lots A. B, C, D and Beach Pad. Section Plan "A" Amended. A of the Municipal Trailer Park as was described in original Master Parking Plan "A", except that Lot D shall be relocated to the SEly corner of 5th and Olive. Thereshall also be included within Master Parking Plan "A" an alternate lot X located at the SEly corner of 3rd and Walnut, which may be used to supplant any lot or lots in the plan if so directed by the Parking District Authority. A member of the bonding firm shall be represented in the Parking District Authority. Page 7 Roll call vote AYES: 7, NOES: None, ABSENT: None Commissioner Abstains Commissioner Presson refrained from participation in Edison request for Ocean View Conditional Permit previonaly considered during this meeting and was dismissed entirely preceding an Edison petition considered for reclassification of zoning on Garfield Avenue. Southern California Edison Chairman Bazil opened the hearing for Edison Petition for Rezoning S. Garfield, E-Hwy 39 petition requesting a change of zone from R-4 to 11-1-0 with the M-1-0 classification amended to permit public utility service yards. The property under consideration is situated approximately 560 feet east of Highway 39 on the south side of Garfield with frontage of 330 feet, depth 660 feet. It will be noted that a Planning Commission proposal for possible rezoning of property surrounding the Edison Company premises was considered simultaneously with the Edison petition and that the entire northwest quarter of SEC 1, T.6.S., R.U.W. was posted for public hearing. - The Secretary read a letter ff'om Charles H. Thatcher, trustee of Aldrich R. Peck, large property holding group in the Garfield Street area, which includes the Edison property. Thatcher went on record as being in favor of rezoning to light industrial for the Garfield block. C. D. Shedenhelm, District Manager for Edison Company, addressed the Commission and explained that his firm was only interested in rezoning their specific parcel 330 x 660 feet. He stated that the site was chosen be- cause it was desirable from the traffic standpoint to have the Edison yard located on the east side of Highway 39, and that it is reasonably close Co. existing M-2-0 located on the west side of Highway 39. He outlined the problems involved in the land acquisition and indicated that a conditional permit would not be suitable for his firm as it was not considered to be sufficiently controlled. He exhibited a large neat appearing architectural perspective of the proposed building. Mrs. Dabney, 8081 Garfield, addressed the Commission to state that she had no objection to the Edison proposal,'except that she would definitely oppose any other attemt to resone to M-1 in that area. She felt that it was primarily residential and any major change would be detrimental to those" who have invested in newer homes. Page 8 Howard Trabant, 8051 Yorktown, addressed the Commission and expressed only slight objection to the Edison installation. He asked for protection for those hones situated at the rear where the Edison would have pole yard with unlandscaped chain link fence. Mrs. Trask, property owner on Yorktown, expressed sentiments similar to Howard Trabant.- Carl Steverson, 19172 H. B. Blvd. (office) contended that while there may be no strong objection to the Edison facilities as such, they should be controlled to protect the surrounding individuals. Joe Capocciama, 19232 H. B. Blvd., stated that he had no objection to the Edison facility as it is shown, however he declafed himself to be violently opposed to.any further industrial or other uses in the neighborhood which would be detrimental to the new residences that many of the property owners have recently built. C. S.-Johnson, 19362 H. B. Blvd., explained to the Commission that -he had built a new home in good faith. He proceeded to inform the Commission that he and the adjoining property owners had opposed a proposal in recent years made by the Orange County Planning Commission to rezone the area from residential uses. He said that he nor his neighbor's viewpoints have not changed. Weybright Renders Joint Opinion Chairman Bazil upon hearing all arguments given from the audience, questioned Weybright in regards to the obstacles to rezoning the Edison parcel. Weybright reported that he, the City Attorney and the Planning Technician had held a conference at Bauer's office the morning of the Planning Commission meeting to discuss all possiblities for rezoning. A visiting lawyer was also asked to give his legal viewpoint during the conference. Three possibilities were considered. 1. Spot zone Edison parcel only: This could be legally challenged in a coutt of law, because it would demonstrate arbitrary discrimination without justification for the applicant. 2. The entire surrounding area could be rezoned without partiality: How— ever this would require support from the surrounding property owners and would involve a long and incumbersome legal maneuver to accomplish. Page 9 3. A conditional permit could be granted: This could easily be accomplished without endangering the Interim Zoning Ordinance. Weybright stated that he wqs entirely in favor of Edison's proposed _ facilities. However he argued that the third possibility, a conditional permit, was the only logical, solution to the problem. He emphasized the illegality of the first possibility, and the public sentiment against the second possibility. He elaborated further by explaindng that a conditional permitwas designed specifically for use in such casys, and that the undertaking of removing the existing emergency zoning ordinance would be sheer folly under the circumstances. He then asked Mr. Kuch, Edison representative, if he could explain his objections to a conditional permit. Mr. Kuch said that his firm opposed'a conditional permit for an expensive installation of this type. He estimated that the cost would be around a quarter of a million dollars. He further added that while the site would not be added to in the future•, they had planned expansion within the fenced premises. He said that the firm wished to be free to develop the premises as would be required in the future. There being no further comment from the audience, the Chairman closed the hearing to the public. He added his opinion that to grant a zone change in this specific location would pave the way for the granting of zone changes in specific locations in other areas. There was lengthy discussion among the Commissioners and it was 1 1 noted that strong public sentiment was not in essence against the Edison facilities but against general, industry within the area. A motion made by Davis and seconded by Bardwell to recommend denial of the Edison petition to rezone, with the stipulation that_a conditional permit would be favorably considered. Roll Call Vote AYES: six, NOES: none, ABSTAINED: one, ABSENT: none The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Clifford E. Tripp r Secretary