Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-02-15MINUTES OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY , FEBRUARY 15, 1968- -- ., COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Lawson, Crabb, Kaufman, Bazil, Miller, Worthy. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Larkin. MINUTES: On motion by Miller and seconded by Crabb the Minutes of the Huntington Beach'Planning Commission of January 18, 1966; were accepted -as -transcribed and mailed by the Secretary. TENTATIVE.TRACT MAP NO. 6151 Number of -Lots: 48 Subdivider: Palos Verdes Developers Total Acreage: 10 Engineer: South Bay Engineering Located on the south -side of Heil Avenue 660 feet east of Algonquin Street and legally described as being a proposed subdivision of the E/2, N/, NWAI SE/4 of Section 20-5-11. The Secretary informed the Commission that Tentative Tract Map No. 6151 and Use Variance No. 66-2 pertain to the same parcel of land and the public hearing should be opened on Use Variance 66-2. was read by the Secretary. The Subdivision Committee Report The hearing was opened to the audience on Use Variance 66-2. Charles Middleton, representin the developer, addressed the Commission and stated that there were nog objections to the conditions suggested by the Subdivision Committee. There being no other comment the hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CRABB AND SECONDED BY WORTHY TO APPROVE,TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 6151 UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Tentative Map received January 14, 1966, shall be the approved layout. 2. Approval of this Tentative Map shall be null and void unless Use Variance No.,66-2 is approved by the City Council. 3. All public streets shall comply with City Standards. 4. All utilities shall be installed underground. Page No. 2 Minutes: H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 15, 1966 5. Vehicular access rights from Lot 41 to Prairie Street shall -be dedicated to the City and a 6 ft. concrete block wall shall be constructed to City Standards along the south line of Lot 41. 6. All "Standard Conditions of Approval" for Tentative tracts that are applicable shall be complied with. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Lawson, Crabb, Kaufman, Bazil, Worthy, -Miller. NOES: None. ABSENT: Larkin. THE MOTION CARRIED. USE VARIANCE NO. 66-2 . Applicant - Palos Verdes Developers To allow the reduction of street rights -of -way as indicated on Tentative Tract Map No. 6151. Located on the south side of Heil Avenue and approximately 660 feet east of Algonquin -Street in the R-2 Two Family Residence District and legally described as the E/z, W/a, NW/4, SEA, of Section 20-5-11. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KAUFMAN AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF USE VARIANCE NO. 66-2 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLgWING,'CONDITION: 1. The Tentative Map received January 14, 1966, shall be the approved layout. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES:, LAWSON, CRABB, KAUFMAN,BAZIL, WORTHY, MILLER. NOES': NONE.! ABSENT: LARKIN. THE MOTION CARRIED. USE VARIANCE NO. 66-4 Applicant - Huntington Auto Service To allow auto storage in the M-1-0 Light Industrial District. Located approximately 272 feet north of Garfield Avenue and west of Crystal Street and legally described as the S16 of,Lot 23, Block E, Garfield Street Addition. The Staff Report was read by the Secretary. audience. The hearing was opened to the Charles P. McKenzie, addressed the Commission and stated that there was a need for this type of use. He also stated that there was no need for the block wall as suggested by Page No. 3 Minutes: H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 15,,, ..1966. by the Staff Report. Geston Route, addressed the Commission and stated that a wall should be required. hearing was closed. at length. There being no other comment the Commission discussion was held A MOTION WAS MADE BY KAUFMAN AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 66-4 UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AS AMENDED: 1. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City and'he shall agree to install all street improvements within 6 months after being requested to do so by the Department of Public Works. 2. A water system shall be installed to Department of Public Works and Fire Department Standards. 3. The entire automobile storage -yard shall be paved to Building Department Standards. 4. A 10 ft. front yard shall be provided. The remainder of the parcel shall be enclosed with a 6 ft. block wall. Said front yard shall be landscaped and permanently maintained., 5. There shall be no stacking of vehicles. 6. UV //66-4 shall become null and void:. February 15, 1970. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: LAWSON, CRABB, KAUFMAN,BAZIL, WORTHY, MILLER. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: LARKIN. THE MOTION CARRIED. ('1.nMMTgST01TTFT? T,A'PVTI\T- 8:13 P. N. and assumed his duties. AREA -VARIANCE NO. 66-5 Applicant - Philip Shumaker Commissioner Larkin arrived at To allow elimination of the required 42 inch high masonry wall in the C-4'Highway Commercial District. Located on the west side of'Edwards Street, approximately 175 feet north of McFadden Street and legally described as all of Lot 296; Except a parcel 135 ft x 135 ft., located at the southeast corner of Lot 296 of Tract No. 3846. The Staff Report was read by the Secretary. The hearing was opened to the audience. - Robert Crouse, representing the Page No. 4 Minutes: H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 15, 1966 applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that the required 42 inch high block wall would be hazardous for pedestrians, particularly for small children walking along the sidewalk. 4 Robert Potter, owner of commercial buildings on Beach Blvd, addressed the Commission and stated that he is in favor of eliminating the block wall. George McCracken, 1021 Park Street, Huntington Beach, addressed the Commission and ,stated that a block wall would cause additional, maintenance problems. There being no other comment the hearing was closed. John Mandrell, Design Engineer, informed the Commission that the Public Works Department, presently requires a 35 ft. wide driveway for large commercial developments and a 30 ft. wide driveway for smaller commercial developments. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KAUFMAN AND SECONDED BY LAWSON TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-5 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The block wall may be reduced to 36 inches. 2. The wall opening shall be widened,to 30 feet. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Increased, safety. 2. Improved site distance. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: LAWSON, CRABB, KAUFMAN, BAZIL, WORTHY, MILLER, LARKIN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. THE MOTION CARRIED. USE VARIANCE NO. 66-6 Arrlicant - George Neishi To permit the waiver of certain , requirements of Article 979. Said request pertains to property in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Newman Street and Beach Blvd., and legally described as the W'ly 150 feet of a portion of Lots 9 and 10 of Tract No. 405. The Staff Report was read by the Secretary. The hearing was opened to the Page , No . 5. Minutes:, H.,B.;Planning Commission :,'Tuesday, 'February,,l5, 1966 „audience. Orin,Terry, representing the applicant �addressed the Commission and,stated.that the,applicant had,hi,s plans in ,.,the,Building Department for plan check-and.they.were originally approved in,November,,1965. He.stated-that in the.meantime,the applicant had to .change.,his.pl,ans and was„unaware,of,_,the proposed ordinance. When :the. ; plans, were „through with ,plan check -the, second, time the Off-S,tr,eet.:Parking Ordinance, was in ,effect and ,they were then .subject, to. -its .r,equirements. There. being no other comment the �hearing,was closed. A MOTION -WAS MADE BY CRABB AND. - SECONDED BY KAUFMAN TO APPROVE.USE VARIANCE NO. 66-6,WITH-THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. .,-,The,- block wall may, be reduced, to ,36,.inches. -2. Landscaping need not be,provided between -.the wall,and the property line ,3. The wall setback shall,be 5 ft. from either,side.of,the driveway on Beach Blvd. 4. All, other provisions of- thei l�untington, Beach. ,Ordinance Code that are applicable shall be- complied -with. .,AND FOR.THE FOLLOWING,REASON: 1. The plans were in for checking -;prior, to: -the, effective, date of Article-979. ROLL , CALL. VOTE : AYES: LAWSON,,CRABB, KAUFMAN;,BAZIL,,WORTHY,,MILLER, LARKIN. NOES: 'NONE. ;ABSENT: NONE. THE MOTION CARRIED. IUSE, VARIANCE NO. 66-7 Applicant- Deane Brothers To,,allow a helicopter "Heli-Stop" -,landing.,for -pick-up and discharge,,of,persons„of;,freight only. (No gas- ,oline tanks and/or rental or service of helicopters). Located on the ,east side of ,Beach. Blvd., approximately.,1,090 �feet,,north of Atlanta Avenue and, legally described as being a..portion .of , the W�f2, SW/4, SE/4, ,of Section 12-6-11. Further legal-deScription:,on:file.i_n,,the Planning .Department. The Secretary informed the Page No. 6 Minutes: H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 15, 1966 Commission that an error was made in, --the legal description on this item and the Planning Department has re -advertised the matter for March 1, 1966. ZONE CASE NO. 66-6 Applicant - Milton G. Schley Change of Zone from R-2 Two Family Residence District to R-3 Limited Multiple Family Residence District. Located on the east side of Florida Street, 300 feet south of Yorktown Avenue and legally described as the N/2 of Block 2307, East Side Villa Tract. The Secretary read a letter sub- mitted by the applicant explaining his reasons for the request. Secretary. audience. The Staff report was read by the The hearing was opened to the The applicant addressed the Commission and stated his reasons for the request. hearing was closed. There being no other comment the It was noted that the property included in this application is master planned for medium density residential use, and that the subject parcel and all surrounding residential property is zoned R-2. The'Planning Director pointed out that the applicant hascon.structed '24 dwelling units on his property which has 49,500 sq. ft. He informed the Commission that the R-2 Zone permit 16 units and the R-3 Zone permits 39 units. It was the consensus that the request for R-3 would constitute "spot.zoning." RESOLUTION NO. 66-6 .A, Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending Denial of Zone Case No. 66-6 to the City Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KA.UFMAN AND SECONDED BY CRABB TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 66-6 Recommending Denial of Page, No,,., 7, Minutes,:: H.--B�,., Planning Commission Tue.sday:,, February- 1501 1966 Zone: Case No, 66-6, W,, THE: CITY- COUNCIL, FOR. THE, ITIQLLOWIP�,q,REASONS,:, 1., The- -gubj:ect, property is master, planned fox, medium; density residential use., 21. This, zone change would create a sport, zone,. R01L, CALL NOTE:� AYES:. LAWSON-- GRABB, KAUFMAN, BAZIL,, WQRTHY,�,, MILLER,, LARKIN. NOES, NONE., ABSENT: , NONE. THE; MOTION CARRIED.' ZONE'"GASE: NO. 66�7 Applicant Benton R,,,Hutcheson Change of- Z,,pnp, from Suburban Residential Distxict, to R-3 Limited- Mu.1-tt),Iq Family Residence District. Loc.ated on the north side of Liberty Street,, approxima tely 1000 feet west of Beach Blvd., and legally described, as the 91, .q W!� of the P� of Lot. I Tract,No. 411. Secretary, The Staff- Report Was read by the The hearing Was opened to the audience there being no comment the hearing was closed, The Planning Director informed the Commission that the property included in this change qf zone application has a total lot area of 9240 sq. ft, and the Qurrent zon ing permits one dwelling unit for, each 3000 a'q, ft, He pointed out that the subject property and surrounding area is master planned for medium density residential use and zoned R-4-X? thus, projected population densities and existing zoning are in harmony with one another. RESOLUTION NO. 66- A Regqolution'of the City Planning Commission Recommending ApprovAl,for an R-2 tp the City Council. A NOTION WAS MADE BY CRABB AND SECONDED BY LARKIN TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO, 65!­7 REQOMM%DING APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO. 66-7 FOR AN R-2.RATHER THAN _R­3,1TQ THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1, The property and surrounding area -is z,onea zounty R-4.-LX which is comparable to the -City R-2 Zone,- thus., an R-2 Zone w, be appropriate. would 2. The property and surrounding I -area is master planned for medium density residential use, Page No. 8 Minutes: H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 15, 1966 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: LAWSON, ORABB, KAUFMAN, BAZIL, WORTHY, MILLER, LARKIN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED. } ZONE CASE NO. 66-8 Applicant - Essex Land Co. Change of Zone from R-2 Two Family Residence District to R-1 Single Family Residence District and C-2 Community Business District with setback provisions. Located on the ea side of Brookhurst Street approximately 1586 feet south of Indianapolis Avenue and legally described -as follows: Parcel I being a part of the J. A. Day Tracteying in the SW/4 of Section 8-6-10. Parcel II being a part of Lot 5, J. A. Day Tract being the V% of the WY2 of Section 8-6-10. Further legal on file in the Planning Department Office. The Secretary informed the Commission that this change of zone is a routine adjustment in zone boundaries and the change from R-2 to R-1 was a condition of approval on Tentative Map 5978• The hearing was opened to the audience, there,being no comment the hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO.'66-8 A Resolution of the City Planning Commission Recommending Approval of Zone Case No. 66-8 to the City Council,. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WORTHY AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO ADOPT,,RESOLUTION NO. 66-8 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ,,- OF ZONE CASE NO. 66-8 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. A condition of approval on Tentative Tract 5978 was that the subjec property be rezoned to R-1 Single Family Residence District. 2. The change to C-2 Community Business District involves a minor boundary adjustment of the existing C-2 Zone. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: LAWSON, CRABB, KAUFMAN, BAZIL, WORTHY, MILLER, LARKIN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED, ZONE CASE NO. 66-9 Applicant - Doyle Development Change of Zone from M-1-A Restricted Page No. Minutes: H. B. Planning -Commission Tuesday, February 15, 1966 Manufacturing District to R-1 Single Family Rebi'a'bh"6b Di­s'trict and C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Disttildt with ijetba'6i provisions. Located on the west side of Springdale Street, between Ediijjg­iar ani'd 1q6Fadden' Avenue and legally described as follows: Pdrdei 1 being a poriti6iii of the south/2of Section 1`6-5-­11- -'Parcel 2 being ap"o-'rtion of the south Y2 of Section 16-5-11. Further legal on. Lie in the ft-an-in"ing bdpa'rtment: Thd Secretary read a communication submitted by H. Roger Howell; b6preseiitaiivue- of tiie,- abbii-,6a,n_'t, requesting a continuance to March lj 1%61, tid S66:66-taxiy read an''6.th e'r 16tter, submitted by J. R. Parker, Vi6e-Prbs'ident and s Officer Bank of America of' Loa Axige'les,� r,eq-Lie'siling' tii-At t,h'6 subject property be rezoned t,o R-1 and C-1, �'he Staff Report' w`as r,'66A by the y Secretary, tY!& hbd±fiwas ' a`66V63i6d- t,6' the audi enc e'.. 5642 Hummingbird Julie Lob ih -dr,� Lane-, addressed- the Commission and asked for' ciar-if i6'at!_1*6n! of the type of development, that-, could, be' c'onstbubted';.- o 46, the Home"' owners, Association: addressed' 6bjed_ted' t6'thb, request' n great burden on and,. stated' that. iJf'an R'11- is gr'diited, tl�E&& will' schools;, parks, and' al,1 City, services: , thd:�_bomieht the' e, -_n6'.0 fiddriilg"wad- c1oqdd': A' MbT±dk'!A8--MADE ,BY, -WORTHY" AND T W , - SECONDED! BY; MILL ER'TO CONTIiqUE - THE' HEARfi�G ZbWkCkSBN 01 66 -9 TO MARCH 1),, 19166_,. ATI'THE ,REQUEST OF'THE ,A1ttid"t.- ROLL , CALL' VOTE -'' AWES LAWSON; CRABB.'. KAUFhAN BAZ It,, MILLER; , WORTHY-, LARkIN.", NOES NONE AtSENT'-.NONE,.' THE•'MOTIONCARRIED s RECESS CALLEV:' - Chairman",- Baz il cal-lbd'a-r6'0"68":af* 9:00 Pe", M, COMMISSION" RECONVENED:: DTSCTJSSIOX-'-.' Proposed 'co'ae - Am'en&iehts',_,'- Di'_`vi81_bif9:` Page No. 10 Minutes: H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 15, 1966 The Commission reviewed -several proposed Code Amendments to Division 9 which would change requirements in the residential and commercial zones. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KAUFMAN AND SECONDED BY CRABB TO'INSTRUCT-.THE SECRETARY TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENTS 66-3 FOR MARCH 15, 1966. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: LAWSON, CRABB, BAZIL, KAUFMAN, MILLER, WORTHY, LARKIN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION: Floyd G. Belsito, Associate Planner, addressed the Commission and presented the results of a service station survey. He stated that out of 81 service stations in 'the City. 74 are occupied, 4 are vacant and 3 are under construction. Mr. , Belsito further informed the Commission of various sign violations, the number of stations landscaped and the number of service stations located at intersections. He stated that in two cases the service station is a secondary use in conjunction with a grocery store and in conjunction with an auto tire shop (Firestone). He further pointed out that in two cases the gasoline station has a dual purpose; for marine service as well as automobile service. It was the consensus of the Commission to give further study to service stations within the City. DISCUSSION: THE COMMISSION reviewed the proposed additions to Article 973 and Article 993 which would require payment of a fee for park and recreation purposes as a condition of a final subdivision map and/or building permit. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KAUFMAN, AND SECONDED BY CRABB TO INSTRUCT THE SECRETARY TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AFOREMENTIONED CODE AMENDMENTS FOR MARCH 15, 1966. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: LAWSON, CRABS, KAUFMAN, BAZIL, MILLER, WORTHY, LARKIN. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. THE MOTION CARRIED. Page No. 11 Minutes: H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday, February 15, 1966 COMMUNICATION: The Secretary read a communication submitted by the Assistant City Attorney, George Shibata, regarding a Standard Condition of Approval for Tentative Tract Maps that requires a retaining wall when there is a difference in elevation of 1 ft. between adjoining lots -or lots abutting, City right-of-way. It was the consensus of the Commission that this condition was superfluous in view of the adopted grading ordinance and need not be retained on the list of Standard Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Maps... COMMUNICATION: The Secretary read a communication submitted by Samuel Ferguson, Assistant Building Director., regarding re- location of dwelling units. The Commission held a lengthy dis- cussion regarding move -in houses and it was their consensus that such relocations should be sT.bject to more stringent regulations than those presently in effect. PLANNING DIRECTOR: The Planning Director informed the Commission that the Fountain Valley Planning Commission has asked for a joint meeting of the two Commisai-ons at the convenience of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission. The purpose of the meeting would be to discuss move -in houses. He further informed the Commission that the City Council referred the problem of move -in houses to the Commission at ti.eir February 7, 1966 meeting. Commissioner Kaufman suggested that the Planning Director contact the Fountain Valley Planning Commission and schedule a meeting for March 8, 1966. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING ADJOURN D. eynolds Robert D. Bazil Secretary Chairman