Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-12-171 1 MINUTES OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COM•1ESSION Council Chambers, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Tuesday, December 17, 1957 Commissioners Present: Bazil, Stang, Liles, Presson, Davis, Bardwell. Commissioners Absent: Schryer. Minutes On motion by Davis and seconded by Liles, the minutes of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission of Tuesday, December 3, 1957, as transcribed and mailed by the Secretary, were accepted as mailed. Re: Hearing Edison Chairman Bazil asked the Secretary to read the Garfield St. Rezoning petition submitted by the Edison Company to re- zone a 330 feet by 660 feet parcel fronting on the south side of Garfield Avenue approximately 550 feet east of Highway 39. The hearing was then opened to the public and the following account is described in a letter of trans- mittal directed to the City Council. L E T T E R . 0 F T R A N S M I T T Al TO: CITY COUNCIL, City of Huntington Beach, California Pursuant to the request of the Honorable City Council, the petition of the Southern California Edison Company for a zone change for its proposed E.D.S. facility was resubmitted to the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach for further determinations and findings of_fact at the regular meeting held on December 17, 1957. The.Planning Commission reviewed the proposal with due consideration given to the Edison Company Represen- . . . tatives and the public -at -large. Edison Company Representatives: Ralph C. Kiser, Dist. Mgr., Edison, Htg. Bch. Dist. H. C. Teagle, Dist. Supt., Edison, Htg. Bch. Dist. C. Robert Simpson, Jr., Asst. Counsel, Edison Co. Norman Kuch, Edison Representative on zoning matters. Planninp, Commission Representatives; Bob Bazil Planning Commission Chairman Vernon Liles is It Member Paul Davis it _ " 1,.amber Allen Bardwell " Is Member, Edward Stang " It Member Clifford Tripp " if Secretary Charles Bauer City Attorney W. L. Weybright Representative for Hahn, Wise & Barber Planning Consultants. Page 2. Letter of Transmittal (continued) Public-- At - large Six property -peers spoke against the Edison rezoning proposal. All persons concerned were allowed to voice their opinions and give arguments at the hearing. Legal counsel for the Edison Company gave an oral presentation and submitted briefs, as did other representatives of the same company, stating arguments for the proposal. Legal counsel for the Planning Commission gave legal advice in answer to questions for the Commissioners. Planning Commission discussion and arguments regarding the Edison Proposal were completed. MOTION: A motion was made by Davis and seconded by Liles to recommend denial of the zoning change request - with the stipulation that a conditional permit would be favorable considered and that the opinions expressed by W. L. Weybright, the City Attorney, and the gervi_OA public are to be incorporated in a finding of facts. ROLL CALL VOTE: By roll call vote the motion was .carried. AYES: Commissioners: Bazil, Stang, Bardwell, Davis and Liles. NOES: Commissioners: None. ABSENT: Commissioners: Schryer. ABSTAINED: Commissioners: Presson. FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR A ZONE CHANGE FOR ITS PROPOSED HUNTINGTON BEACH E.D.S. Based upon the opinion of the Planning Commission, general public, the City Attorney, and the Planning Consultant Representative - W. L. Weybright, the following findings were determined by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission at the December 17, 1957, meeting. IT IS HEREBY FOUND AS FACTS: 1 That the majority of property owners in the NW w of SEC 1, T.6.3., R.11.W., have indicated their desires, through public hearings to maintain the quarter -section for residential usage. 2. That the majority of property owners in this particular area are not specifically opposed to the Edison E.D.S. facility being located at the proposed site as described in their petition requesting a change of zone. 2 That the present zoning will permit the E.D.S. to utilize'the proposed site by the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit authorized by the City.Council. There is no objection given to prevent issuance of such a permit. 4 , That the intent of the Interim Zoning Ordinance is to preserve the character of and integrity of -the neighborhood by -maintaining the present zoning in good faith until such time as the -proper zoning studies are completed for the overall section. Any deviation from the present zoning should be either by Variance or Conditional Use Permits. 5 That the rezoning of the specific parcel 330 feet by 660 feet would be of benefit to the individual firm and to the detriment of the neighborhood and the entire north Annexation area because good faith of the Interim Ordinance would thence be broken. Once the Interim Ordinance Zoning Ordinance has been broken, there will be no criteria to refuse other petitions for rezoning under similar circumstances. 1 1 1 Page 3. Letter of Transmittal (continued) 6 That the Conditional Use Permit was specifically created in the zoning regulation to permit such a proposed use as the E:D:S: facility where necessity warrants it. In the opinion of the Planning Commission the conditions described are those for which the Conditional Use Permit was"intended. There- fore the Planning Commission is on record as being in favor of the proposed site if it is operated under a Conditional Use Permit. The above described findings are transmitted to the City Council with my complete knowledge and approval. • • - Chairman Attest: a tI �� < Clifford V. Tripp Secretary SUPPLEMITARY FINDINGS The Southern Calif. Edison Garfield St. rezoning case hearing held on December 17, 1957. SUPPIMIENTARY TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN BY A CONSENSUS OF OPINION OF THE PLANNING COIav SSICN. 1. That the proposed amendments to the Interim Zoning Ordinance may be of questionable validity. Due to the lack of previous cases in law, the validity of amending the Interim Zoning Ordinance is not readily ascebt- ainable. The Planning Commission does not recommend enactment of Ordinance Amendments which may be questionable. Ew 2. Studies of the general area reveal that the facility would be required to secure a conditional permit in the county territory, Westminster, and Fountain Valley, since these areas are presently maintained under similar Ordinance as the annexations of this city. Garden Grove, Newport Beach, and Costa Mesa all require various types of Use. Permits. It is believed then that the Edison facility will be faced with the same circumstances irregardless of where it may choose to locate in the general vicinity. 3. It is also pointed out that the present E.D.S. in Huntington Beach is partially operating under a non -conforming use with out benefit of rezoning. It appears to be no substantial handicap to their present operations. One may go further to point out that there are many other Edison facilities Page 4. Supplementary Findings (continued) including E.D.S. which are operated under variances and conditional permits. 4. It can be argued that a conditional permit or variance is the more secure and permanent type of zoning regulation. Assuming that the E.D.S. was built upon the properly zoned parcel and at a later date the zoning was changed to make it a non -conforming use; if the building were more than 50% destroyed by an act of God, or otherwise vacated, whi%•� it existed as,non- conforming, then the permit to operate as a non -conforming use would be null and void. On the other hand if the E.D.S. was operated under a Conditional Permit, destruction of the building would not nullify the permit since it is imparted permanently to the land. 5. Assuming the parcel in question is rezoned to M-1-0, there can be no assurance given to the residents in the area that they will receive adequate protection. Requirements to screen the pole yard could not be invoked if the parcel was rezoned. If the Edison Company should abandon the site after receiving the rezoning, there would be no protection for the residents in the'area against other industry. The above described supplemental findings are transmitted to the City Council with my complete knowledge and approval: Bob Bazil Chairman USE VARIANCE: Chester Ingersoll Chairman Bazil opened the public hearing following a report made by the Secretary. The applicant requested a use variance to permit a wholesale and retail variety store: to include lapidary, novelty, souvenir, magazine, leather, antique and other related products. The parcel is located north of Ellis 150 feet on the west side of Highway 39 (18421 H.B. Blvd.). There was: no comment from the audience. Planning Commission . discussion and arguments regarding the variance were completed. Motion was made by Stang and seconded by Davis to RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1 1 1 Page 5. 1. The business shall be conducted entirely within the presently existing structure, and that no other structure, either temporary or permanent, shall be erected on the premises. 2. That the existing 11 offstreet parking spaces in front of existing structure shall be maintained. 3. That.one double faced sign will be allowed with a maximum area of 48 sq. ft. on each face, and may not be located closer than 26.4 ft. to the front property line. Public Hearing Re: _ W. L. Weybright, Planning Consultant representative, Taster Land Use Plan was asked by the Chairman to give the presentation of the Master Land Use Plan. Weybright began the session by explaining the purpose of the Idaster Land Use Plan and that it would be used as a guide for policy in the future rezoning program. The actual regulations were reviewed for the requirements of each specific zoning area. Bazil opened the hearing to the general public and asked that all questions be directed to the chairman. Charles Furr, 1115 Huntington Ave., H. B., addressed the Commission and asked that certain boundaries be.described for the audience and that the uses therein be enumerated. Howard Trabant, 8015 Yorktown, H.B., spoke to the Commission and requested that property within the NW quarter of Section One, T.6.S., R.11.W.9 be. -retained under the present zoning. tTohn F. Thompson, 727 Williams St., H.B., addressed the Commission with questions concerning V-2-0 area adjacent.to Highway 39. He advocated R-5 instead of proposed.R_3 usage. D. T. Tarbox,.207.9 State St., Costa Mesa, stated that his group controlled property on the east side of Highway 39 between Adams and Yorktown. He advocated E-2-estates district or restricted R-1. The area was proposed for R_1. .Norman Ruoff, 5960 Wintersburg Ave., H. B., addressed the Commission and -questioned the proposed area along Wintersburg and the West side city limits. He advocated a recreational area to include trailer parks, golf driving range, etc., because of the close proximity to the proposed state beach at Bolsa Chica. Page 6. R. A. Russell, Real Estate Agent in Midway City, explained to the Commission that he was representing Ocean View interests. He submitted petitions with approximately 55 signatures requesting retention of existing zoning on both sides of Highway 39 from Wintersburg to Coast -Highway. He _ made an official protest on behalf of all those who had signed. .� Harold E. Pedersen, 7422 Wintersburg, H. B., Told the Commission that he was opposed to the proposed R-1 and advocated M-1. Mr. and Mrs. Stelaart Gibbs, 18451 H. B. Blvd., addressed the Commission and requested an explanation of the proposed zoning for their corner. They further questioned the City Attorney in regards to present oil leases in that area. No protests were made. George Conley, 14241 Springdale, Westminster, requested an explanation of what was proposed in the agricultural area noitth of Heil on the west side of Highway 39. Weybright explained that it was being left as A-1 until such time as proposed future development warranted a change. George Williams, 7412 Cedar, H..B., addressed the Commission and argued that the town of Wintersburg should, -in view of present developments be retained as M-1. Clifford Millich, 17182 H. B. Blvd., H. B., addressed the Commission and protested vigorously any change along Highway 39. He also was in protest of removing M-1 from the Wintersburg area. • Theodore Montee, 8221 Hynes Road, Westminster, told the Commission of the difficulties of clearing titles to encyclopedia lot subdivisions, and that they should be given special zoning treatment to permit them to be used for heavy industrial usage. 1 W. E. Curtis, 1741 Huntington Avenue, H. B., questioned the advisability of replacing present M-2-0 near to.17th and H. B. Blvd. He described the refinery nearby with oil storage tanks located adjoining the refinery. Fred Barrigar, 16879 "A" Street, H. B., protested the proposal to eliminate commercial -zoning along "A" Street and Highway 39. Jake Stewart, 8031 Wintersburg, H. B.,, also protested the proposal to eliminate commercial zoning along "A" Street and Highway 39. Arguments were given to prove that the area was presently a commercial'center.- There being no further questions at this time, the Chairman closed the hearings to the public. = l Irn •' • �,1T��,9T ' Huntington P. O.-Box= 190 ingcon,Beach, ItITY Calif Commission VARIANCE.TRANSFERNED FROM COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH STATING CERTAIN RESTRIC71ONS WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: (Excerpt taken from H. B. "Planning Commission Minutest "dated October 15th, 1957). The hearing was openod for a request of E.11. Finch to revise' -two conditions specified in variance No 3671 previously 'granted by the County of Orange. The Secretary explained rthgt the variance was for a USED CAR LOT at the Sid corner of Stark Street and Highway 39. Some discussion was held on the matter after the minute order of the County Board of Supervisors was read. Weybright told the Commission that the request was reason- able and, that an additional entrance along Stark Street was desirable to 'reduce traffic hazards along the Highway. He suggested an additional condition be atta chd d in addition to the other changes to Frevent a car wrecking businass. TIC MOTION CARRIED. Page 7. Hearing Date Set For A motion was made and seconded to hold the second Master Land Use Plan Second Hearing, Jan. 7. Master Land Use Hearing on January 7. 1958. The motion carried and the Secretary was instructed to publish public notice announcing the time and date. Request Weybright Chairman Bazil asked planning consultant represent - to appear at next Land Use Hearing. ative W. L. Weybright if he could obtain permission from his firm to attend the next hearing on land use. Weybright stated that it would be a decision for his firm to make. The meeting was adjourned. Clifford E. Tripp Secretary 1 1 Bob Bazil Chairman