HomeMy WebLinkAbout1959-09-15221
MINUTES
OF THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COI,11-1ISSION
Council'Chambers, City Hall
.-.Huntington Beach, California
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
COILMISSIONERS =SENT: Presson, Schryer, Davis, Stang,
Liles, Sork, Chairman Bazil.
CO1,111ISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Classification of
CONTINUED: 1111-1-A" Restricted I;Ianufacturing
District.
Chairman Bazil asked the
Planning Director for the report on the minor revisions
of 1111-1-A" concerning performance standards and land-
scaping. The Director explained to the Commission that
the Planning Office had received a phone call the morning
of the meeting from Quinton Engineers Ltd who spotted
two typographical errors, but were otherwise in accord
with the classification exactly as it stands.
The hearing was opened to the
audience, there being no comment it was closed. The
Commission reviewed the Ordinance in its final form and
indicated unanamous approval.
A I10TION WAS 11AD E BY STANG
AND SECONDED BY LILES TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO 70, A RESO-
LUTION RECO121ENDING THE ADOPTION OF 1121-1-A" CLASSIFICATION.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Presson, Schryer, Davis, Stang, Liles, Sork,
Chairman Bazil.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None. -
THE MOTION CARRIED.
USE VARIANCE: UV 162 To allow 12 unit motel and
Applicant - G. V. Bradley
Continued coffee shop to be constructed
in an A-1 General Agricultural
District. .Located 75 feet north of MacDonald Avenue
222
9
Page #2
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
on the west side of Highway #39 and legally described as
Lots 116, 1172 118, Tract 417.
A report and recommendation was read
by the Secretary. Chairman Bazil oPened the hearing to
the audience. G. V. Bradley, applicant, addressed the
Commission and asked that the sign provision be re-
worded in order that he would have the option of either
a neon or unlighted sign. The Commission agreed to the
revision. There being no further comment the hearing
was closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHRYER AND
SECONDED BY DAVIS TO -RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. OFF STREET PARKING
There shall be required- 19 parsing spaces- as
indicated by the applicant on the resubmitted plot
plan.
2. CURB AND GUTTERS
There shall be required curb and gutters constructed
along the entire 75 feet of frontage with an ingress
and egress ramp permitted for a maximum of 32 feet
of width.
3. PAVED OFF STREET PARKING
There. shall be required the asphaltic paving of all
parking areas proposed..
4. REAR WALL
There shall be constructed on the rear property line,
a six foot high masonry wall the entire length of
said property line.
5. NEON SIGN
There may be permitted one sign of maximlim of 80 sq.
ft. within the front yard area but not closer than
10 feet to ,any side property line.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Presson, Schrye r, Davis, Stang, Liles, Sork,
Chairman Bazil.
2.
223
Page #3
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th,..1959
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.=
USE VARIANCE: UV 164
Applicant -
Harry Tancredi
To allow 2 two story apart-
ments of 8 units each. Located
approximately 200 feet south-
west of Indianapolis Street on the easterly side of
Geneva Street, and legally described as Lots 30, 31, 32,
and 33, Block 808, Valley View Tract.
The Planning Department report
was read recommending denial. The hearing was opened to
the public.
Edward C. Watry, 616 Hartford
Street, Huntington Beach, California, addressed the
city/
Commission and criticized the policy of granting variances
for would be -zone chanp s: ' He stated that in his opinion
use variances were an illegal zone change and were not
allowed by the State Planning and Conservation Act.
The parking requirements he explained, were far above
those proposed by the applicant. He asked for protection
against such nuisance encroachments.
Paul Darden, 808 Geneva, Hunt-
ington Beach, California, addressed the Commission and
presented a petition with 39 signatures of property
owners in the -area surrounding the proposed variance.
The petition -protested any deviation from the R-2-District
requirements. Mr Darden went on record himself as
being opposed to the granting of the variance.
George Renner, 807 Frankfort
Street, Huntington Beach, California, addressed the
Commission and went -on record as protesting to the
p m posed UV #164.. He added that the area was R-1 in the
majority and would not be compatible with high density
3.
224.
Page #4
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15 th , 1959
apartmen t s .
John Henricksen, 618 E.Quincy,
Huntington Beach, California, addressed the Commission
and stated that if positive measures were not taken to
eliminate the.USE VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION,
the people on the east side can expect to be circulating
protest petitions continually. He suggested the elimin-
ation of Use Variance and Conditional Exception.
There being no further comment the
hearing was closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHRYER AND
SECONDED BY DAVIS TO RECOMMEND DENIAL FOR THE FOLLOWING
REASONS:
1. 39 property owners petitioned to deny the request.
2. The request constitutes spot zoning and would
disrupt the previous pattern established under R-2
zoning.
3. The applicant has submitted plans for inadequate
parking, _ which fall far short of the required stand-
ards now used.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Presson, Schryer, Davis, Stang, Liles, Sork,
Chairman Bazil.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
USE VARIANCE: UV165 To allow the construction of 2
Applicant
James-M. Tye two story 8 unit rental apartments
within the R-2 Zoning District.
Located at 616 Indianapolis Street, and legally described
as being a portion,of Lot B, Block 805, Vista Del Mar Tract.
An existing house would be removed. Each 8 unit apartment
would be built on 50 feet of frontage.
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN.
4
' 225
Page T5 .
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION: UV 166 To allow a 25 feet,,by
Applicant - 0. G. Ashworth
117.5 feet lot to become
a legal building site within the definition of the R-3
zoning classification...
Located 150 feet north-
easterly of Olive Avenue on.the southwesterly side of
13th Street, and legally described as Lot 13, Block 313,
Huntington Beach Tract.
The Secretary reported
that he received two writtEnprotests from: Verna Lackey,
Whittier, California, and.Mrs Edna ilasby, 306 - llth
Street, Huntington Beach, California. .
The hearing was opened
to the public. Clinton "dri.ght, 315 - 15th Street, Hunt-
ington Beach,:California, addressed the Commission and
protested the proposed exception vehemently. He pointed
out that the -majority of -the lot frontagesin the block
are 50 feet.,,,He pointed out,also that the garage in the
rear overlapped the property lines. There being no other
comment, the hearing was closed..,
A T:TOTION WAS T, OE BY
STANG AND SECONDED BY LILES TO RECO.1I111END DENIAL FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:
-1. The applicant purchased the pair of lots 3 years
previously.
2. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood are
built on 50 ft. frontage.
3. The applicant's.existing,garage crosses over the
property line.
4. Three strong protests were registered by immediate
vicinity property owners.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Presson, Davis, Sork, Schryer, Stang, Liles,
Chairman Bazil.
NOES: None.
5.
226
Page #6
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
ABSENT: NONE.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 3420 A tentative tract of approx-
Revised Sept. 15th, 1959
Applicant - imately55 acres. Located
Alco Pacific
in a portion of the southeast
quarter of Section 23, T. 5. S., R. 11. V1.9 SBB & M.
The conditions as re-
commended by the Fire, Engineering*and Planning Depart-'
ments and originally approved were read to the Commission.
The applicant was asked to state his opinion and object-
ions to the conditions - if any.
Mr. Lewis, representative
of Alco - Pacific, addressed the Commission and in-
quired about the requirement that the city franchise
shall provide water to the tract. He explained that he
must have overlooked that requirement at the last
Commission meeting. Mr. Lewis stated that he preferred
to have the Dyke Water Company provide the water system
because it would be more -profitable for his developmRilt.
He added that because of
misunderstanding, he already
contracted with the Dyke Water Company to sell some
a
existing wells on the -property in turn for water servicing
contract.
It was pointed out by the
Engineering and Planning Departments that the question
of water had arisen at the preliminary review committee
hearing level and that both the applicant and his engineer
were present when the water ordinance was explained.
There were no objections given by the applicant or his
engineer at that time when they were asked to put
"water service by the City of Huntington Beach" as a
written condition contingent to the tentative tract map
RM
227
Page ;#7
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
when the hearing was held taro_ months previously.
Mr. Lewis replied that he could only vaguely remember
and that -it must have slipped his mind. He said that
he had other representatives in the audience who might
like to ask some questions. (I r_. Landsdale, and a
managing editor of a county newspaper ).
Mr. Lanasdale addressed the
Commission and demanded that he should have the legal
right to service crater to the tract. The City Engineer
explained that both the crater ordinance and the sub-
division ordinance forbade utility crater service by
unauthorized utilities other than those with an exist-
ing franchise by the State Utilities Commission and the
City of Huntington Beach. Mr. Landsdale challenged the
City Attorney's,:ruling,-and the City Engineer's
opinion on the subject as to its legality. Commissioner
Sork suggested that action on the map be postponed
until ,the _issue eras .settled. I,Ir. Lecris -suggested that
he would rather have immediate action and be allowed to
challenge any issues at a later date. The Commission
ruled upon the recommendation of the Chairman that it
was not the discretion of the Commission to debate legal
questions. Discussion of the issue was dropped. There
being no changes suggested by the Commission as to
required conditions, the hearing was closed.
A IIl WAS MADE BY SORK AN
SECONDED BY PRESSON TO RECOIE,:EIID APPROVAL WITH THE
FOLLOFIING CONDITIONS:
1. "J" Avenue shall receive approval by CONDITIONAL
EXCEPTION allowing 56 feet in right -of -tray width
in variance to the required 60 feet or shall be
altered to become a 60 feet R/W.
7•
M
Page #8 '
11inutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
2. Necessary abutments and approaches shall be
constructed by the subdivider'. for the S 2 of Heil
Avenue railroad R/w crossing.
3. All lots within the subdivision which abut the
proposed Flood Control Channel No 0-5 shall be
fenced at the R/W line with 5 feet high chain link
fence, in accordance with.Flood Control standards..
4. Vehicular access rights to Heil Avenue from all
lots abutting Heil Avenue shall be dedicated to the
City and shall be so marked -on the final map.
5. There shall be required for the final map a covenant;
deed restricting all lots within the proposed sub-
division to single family dwelling use.
6. Delete.
7. "A" Street shall be -named Lincoln Street to coincide
with Lincoln Street to the south.
8. It shall be required that the subdivider and the
OCFD make the arrangements necessary for construction
of the south one-half of the intersection of Heil
Avenue with Huntington Beach Blvd., to its ultimate
width, at no expense to the City.
9. Street slopes shall meet City standards. Deviations
shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
10. Delete.
11. Final map approval shall be conditioned upon the
availability of the adjoining Flood Control Channel
which in the opinion of the City Engineer.has reached
sufficient completion for control of runoff water.
12. 'Water shall be furnished by the City of Huntington
Beach and shall be so stated on the final map.
13. There shall be connected sewers in compliance with
the subdivision ordinance, and such improvement
plans shall be so submitted with the final map.
ROLL, CALL VOTE:
AYES: Presson,, Davis, Sork, Schryer, Stang, Liles,
Chairman Bazil.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
AREA VARIANCE: AV 167 To allow a 15 feet front -
Applicant - Joseph Apple
yard area and a 5 feet rear
yard area in variance to Orange County Land Use Ordinance
No 351 as adopted by Interim Ordinance No 668.
91
229
Page #9
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
Located at the southeast corner
of La Palma Avenue and Patterson May, and legally
described as follows:
- S'•ly 135 ft. of the E' ly 50 ft.
of -that portion of NVI. ' of Sec. 36,
T. 5. S. , R.11. 17. , SBB &-M. , as follows:
Beginning at SW corner of ITW 4 of
said Sec. 36, thence E'ly along
S'ly line of said NW 4 432.86 ft.,
thence N l ly parallel with W I ly line
of said Sec. 140.00 ft. to true
point of beginning, thence continue
N'ly parallel with said 70 ly line
160.00 ft., thence'E'ly parallel
with said S'ly line 162.14 ft.,
thence S parallel to said 17'ly line
160.00 ft., thence 41 parallel with
said S'ly line 162.14 ft. to true
point of beginning.
EXCEPTING; the S'ly 135 ft. of
the E'ly 50 ft.
The hearing was opened to the
public. Joe Apple, applicant, explained to the Comm-
ission that he could achieve a better parking arrange-
ment from a civic planning point of view._ There being
no other comment, the hearing was closed..
A IIOTION WAS 1,11ADE BY DAVIS AIyD
SECONDED BY STANG RECOIZIENDING APPROVAL, FOR THE FOLLOJ-
ING REASONS:
1. The applicant will give a 20 ft. exterior side
yard along Patterson Way and -will provide a
28.5 ft. side yard setback on the interior side.
2. The applicant is merely redesignating his exterior
side yard as the front yard -and making his front
yard setbacks accordingly.
3. There is no dangerous precedents being set in
this case.
ROLL.CALL VOTE:
AYES: Presson, Davis, Sork, Schryer, Stang, Liles,
Chairman Bazil.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE I,1110TION CARRIED.
9, -
230
Page 7#10
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
DIVISION OF LAND: DV 136 To revert two adjoining
Applicant - Amy D. Grant
parcels to one single parcel.
PARCEL DESCRIPTION: The east 63 ft. of the west 171.60 ft.
to revert back to the west 171.60 ft.
of.the east 266.0 ft. of Lot 4, Block B,
of Tract No. 436, Map Book 16, Page 28
.of 11iscellaneous Maps of Orange County.
The hearing was opened to
the audience. John Feltenhoelter, representative for the
applicant addressed the Commission and explained the
purpose of the' division. -There-being no further comment
the hearing was closed.
A IJOTION WAS IdADE BY SORK .
AND SECONDED BY DAVIS TO APPROVE DV'136;THE REVERSION
TO A SINGLE PARCEL.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Presson, Davis, Sork, Schryer,
Chairman Bazil."
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
DIVISION OF LAND: DV 137
Applicant -
City of Newport Beach
Stang, Liles,
DIVISION I: That portion of Section 8,'T.6.S., R.10.71.1
in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington
Beach, California, described as follows:
Beginning at a 4.x 4 post at the northwest
corner of said Section 8, th nce East
2560.80 feet,- thence South 7� West 2655.84 ft.,
thence West 2196.48 ft. to the vilest line
of said Section 8; thence North 2640.00 ft.
to the point of beginning.
EXCEPT that portion thereof lying E'ly of
the following described line: Beginning at
the intersection of the N line of said Sec. 8
with a line bearing N from the 1,711y terminus
of that certain course designated "South
881 45' 00" West 859.00 ft."' in the land
described in the deed to the City of New-
port Beach, recorded January 9, 1926, in
book 626 page 26 of Deeds; thence S to said
►1'ly terminus; thence-S 31° 30' 00" E 463.00 ft.
thence S 2° 00' 00" W 635.00 ft., thence S
260 00' 00" V1 367.30 ft., thence S 670 30' 00"
11 283.00 ft., thence S 430 30' 00" 17 236.00 ft.
thence S 270 45' 00" V1 697.00-ft., thence
S 30 00' 00" W 361.00 ft to the S line of said
land.
10.
231
Page #11
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
ALSO EXCEPT the N 350.00 ft. of the d
340.00 ft. thereof.
RESERVING an easement over the E 10.00 ft.
of the W 50.00 thereof for the construct-
ion, operation, maintenance, repair and
replacement of water mains and appurten-
ances.
DIVISION II: That portion of Section 8, T.6.S., R.10.
W., in the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of
Huntington Beach, California, described
as follows:
The North 350.00 feet of the 'hest 340.00 ft.
Located on the 88 acres on the southeast
corner of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue.
A P,IOTION WAS MADE BY SCHRYER MM
SECONDED BY LILES TO APPROVE DV 137 SlITH THE FOLLOi7ING
CONDITIONS:
LAND DEDICATION
1. There shall be required the dedication of land to
the ultimate R/`-.7 width of Brookhurst Street and
Adams Avenue as indicated by the City blaster Plan
of Streets and Highways, for all street frontage
within Division II.
REQUIRED I1IPROVE1,MNTS
2. There shall be required the full improvements of
all dedicated rights -of -way to include the paving
and installation of curbs and gutters in accord-
ance to City standards for that parcel designated
as Division II.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Presson, Davis, Sork, Schryer, Stang, Liles,
Chairman Bazil.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
DIVISION OF DIVISIONi I: W. 73.45' , W.• 2, Lot 1,
LAND: DV 138 Block C, Tract 436.
Applicant -
M. L. Ilurdock DIVISION II: E. 62. 54' , V . 135. 99' , a- 2,
Lot 1, Block "C", Tract 436.
DIVISION III: E. 62:541, 71. 2f Lot 1,
Block "C", Tract 436•
The hearing was opened to the public,
there being no comment, the hearing was closed.
232
Page #12
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
A MOTION SY S MADE BY LILES
DV 138/A
AND SECONDED BY DAVIS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
CURBS AND GUTTERS:
The installation of curbs and
gutters shall be assured -by the posting of a �'590.00
surety or cash bond (or Bank Guarantee) with the city
clerk on the basis of $2.00 per running foot. The
surety or cash bond (or -Bank Guarantee) shall be re-
deemed if the applicant constructs curbs and gutters
along the frontage of his lots according to City stand-
ards within the specified period. The surety or cash bond
(or Bank Guarantee) shall be forfeited and the City Eng-
ineer shall order the required construction accomplished
at no additional expenses to the applicant, in the event
the curbs and gutters are not constructed within 120 days
after the City Engineer has officially notified the
applicant of established grades and elevations. This
condition shall become null and void in the event the.
City Engineer has not provided established grades and
elevations within 24 months of approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Presson, Davis,_Sork, Schryer, Stang, Liles,
Chairman Bazil. x
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE PIOTION CARRIED.
WESTMINSTER SCHOOL The -Secretary -reported that
SITE APPROVAL
the Westminster Elementary School
District were contemplating the relocation of their form-
erly approved Springdale school site.
Located at the southwest corner
of Willow Lane and Maple Avenue within the City of
12.
233
a
Page ;#13
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
Huntington Beach and legally described as follows:
The east 10 acres of the south 30 acres of the west
50 acres of -the; -'south a of the northwest y of Section
105 T. _5. S. , R. 11. 71. I_ SBB & I.I. ,
A I:10TION 17AS HADE BY STANG AND
SECONDED BY PR ESSON TO APPROVE .THE WESTIIINSTER SCHOOL .
SITE:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Presson, Davis, Sork, Schryer, Stang, Liles,
Chairman Bazil.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE I,IOTION_ CARRIED.
DISCUSSION OF
TENTATIVE TRACT
PRESENTATIONS:
A discussion was held by the
'Commission concerning the process-
ing of numerous tentative tract
maps which have been recently submitted. It was pointed
out by several members of the Commission that last
minute entries have caused much confusion and misunder-
standing. The Planning Director and the City Engineer
agreed that all details of the Tract should be ironed out
before the map gets to the Commission in order to reduce
the deliberations to policy decisions. It was pointed
out by'the Planning Director that subdividers habitually
try to make the.deadline by turning in a revised map the
day of the -meeting, and that the Planning Department has
no opportunity to review it before presentation.
Commissioner Sork maintained that all details should be
considered at a review committee hearing level -and double
checked by the Planning Dept. prior to presentation to
the Commission. Otherwise he pointed out, the review
committee is mal-functioning. In order to remedy the
situation a resolution was proposed for adoption requiring
-that the Planning office post a deadline for tentative
13.
231
Page ;#14
Minutes - H. B. Planning Commission
Tuesday, September 15th, 1959
tract map submittals.
RESOLUTION NO 71 A Resolution creating a
deadline -for tentative •tract -
map submittals of four business days prior to the
Planning Commission meeting. This requirement would
only concern divisions of 5 or more lots.
ROLL CALL, VOTE:
AYES: Presson, Davis,:Sork, Schryer, Stang Liles,
Chairman Bazil.
NOES: None,
ABSENT: None. .
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The Secretary was ordered•by.
the Chairman to publish -RESOLUTION NO 71 in the legal,
section of the local newspaper.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED.
Clifford E. Tripp
Secretary
14.
Robert Bazil
Chairman