Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-01-31MINUTES OF . THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council. Chambers, 'Civic Center Huntington Beach, California NOTE:, -A TAPE RECORDING,OV THIS MEETING IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE.` TUESDAt, JANUARY 31., ' 1967 - STUDY'•SESSYON-_ ­ - COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miller, Worthy, Lawson; Larkin, Royer, Bazil, Tom. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. DISCUSSION'- HUNTINGTON BEACH FREEWAY The -Acting Secretary,informed the Commission that this item was•referred:to the Commission by the City .Council, for study and report. The following members of the Hunting- ton Beach Citizen's Freeway -Association addressed the Commission and stated the position of their Association regarding alignment of -the Route 39 Freeway: Ron Deeble', B'. F•. Jones and George Wells. James Wheeler, Director of Public ,Works, addressed the Commission and presented a report pertaining to traffic service, interchange facilities, freeway spacing and community effects of the various freeway routes'. Included in this report was a recommendation that -the Planning Commission recommend adoption of.the Green-5-Dashed Red Route by the City Council. Mr. William.•Wren, ,addressed the Commission and stated that he was concerned with the elimination of industrial zoned.land if the Red Route is adopted. .'The Commission.discussed the various alignments. A•MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY LAWSON TO REc&M END.ADOPTION OF THE GREEN-5-DASHED RED ROUTE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. It is the least expensive alignment. 2. It provides the best traffic service to the local users in the City of Huntington Beach. 3. It allows access to Golden West College and•the Huntington Shopping Center. It is erroneous to claim that from the traffic viewpoint the:lack of an interchange on the Red route is advantageous. 4. It allows the best direct access route to the beach areas. 5. It is most logically spaced with respect to adjacent north - south .freeways. 1/31/67. Minutes: H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday, January 31, 1967 - Study Session Page No. 2 6. It would provide incentive for the development of adjacent land. 7. It would complement the rail service to industrially zoned lands. 8. It could permit expansion of the existing college site rather than require it to be reduced sizeably. 9. It would promote and enhance a greater total residential growth within the City, as indicated by the increased ramp volumes. ROLL CALL VOTE: , AYES: Miller, Worthy, Lawson, Larkin, Royer, Bazil, Tom. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION: LAGUNA BEACH PARKING PROGRAM Assistant City Attorney, George Shibata made a presentation to the Commission regarding establish- ment of a parking district in the old town commercial area. He informed the Commission of the procedure used by Laguna Beach to establish,their parking district. Mr. Shibata suggested that the Commission invite Mr. Autry, Assistant Planner for the City of Laguan Beach and a representative from Melvin A. Meyer and Associates to attend the study session meeting on February 28, 1967, to discuss formation of a parking district. RECESS CALLED: Chairman Worthy called a recess at 9:25 P.M. COMMISSION RECONVENED: The Commission reconvened at 9:45 P.M. DISCUSSION: STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRACTS WITH REDUCED STREET WIDTHS AND LOT SIZES. The Acting Secretary presented a list of suggested conditions of approval for subdivisions having reduced street widths, reduced setbacks and variations in lot widths and areas. The Commission reviewed the proposal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO APPROVE THE SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS HAVING REDUCED STREET WIDTHS, REDUCED SET- BACKS AND VARIATIONS IN LOT WIDTHS AND AREAS AS FOLLOWS: 1. All streets shall comply with standards proposed by the Department of Public Works and approved by both the Plan- ning Commission (August 3, 1965) and City Council (Sept. 7, 196 2. The minimum front yard shall be 10 ft. except the minimum front yard for garages entered directly from the street shall be 22 ft. This condition of approval is not general in nature and a precise plan shall be submitted to the Plan- ning Department for approval prior to issuance of any building permits. Said plan shall delineate the house location on each lot. -2- 1/31/67. Minutes: H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday, January 3.1; 1967 " Study'Session Page No. 3 3. A tree, equivalent to a 3Q inch box tree, as approved by the Park Supervisor, shall be planted in the front yard of each lot and in the exterior side yard of each corner lot. 4. The minimum lot frontage shall not be less than 50 ft. wide with 5000 sq, ft. of lot area. An average lot width of 60 ft. of frontage with 6000 sq..ft. of lot area shall be provided for each six contiguous lots in a block. 5. The minimum lot depth shall not be less than 100 ft., except for cul-de-sac and knuckle -lots. 6. The maximum density shall not exceed 4.85 units per gross acre. For the.purpose of this condition, gross acreage shall be computed as all, the area contained within -the blue border of the subdivision. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Miller, Worth-y;",Bazil,,.Lawson, Larkin', Royer, Tom. NOES: None. ABSENT: Nbn.e. THE MOTION CARRIED.. . A FURTHER MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING:POLICY STATEMENT RELATIVE TO PROPOSALS FOR SUBDIVISIONS HAVING REDUCED STREET WIDTHS, REDUCED SETBACKS AND VARIATIONS IN'LOT WIDTHS AND AREAS. " The intent in granting such exceptions is to produce developments with variations in subdivision design and failure to do so may result in denial of the request. Also, each map shall be considered on its own.merits and in no way shall the decision on any map effect a decision on another map." ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Miller, Worthy, Lawson, Larkin, Royer, Bazil, Tom. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION: Zone Case No., 66-65 Applicant - Andrew Holtz -The Commission discussed Zone Case No. 66-65 which proposes to rezone the northwest corner of Indianapolis Avenue and Bushard Street from R-A Residential Agricultural District to C-1 Neighborhood Comm6rcial District. Robert Raab, representing the applicant, addressed the commission and gave his reasons for the request. It was.the consensus of the Commission that the staff make a study and report back to the Commission regarding the -possibility of establishing neighborhood type shopping centers at the 1/2 mile intersection of secondary highways. It was further recommended that the Staff revise the C-1 Zone to be more restrictive to serve as a zone for neighborhood shopping centers. DISCUSSION: The Acting Secretary distributed copies of proposed code amendments pertaining to: -3- 1/31/67 Minutes: H. B. Planning Commission Tuesday, January 312 1967 - Study Session Page No. 4 1. Dedication and Improvement of Right-of-way for uses abutting any highway, street or alley; 2. Applications for Use Variances after a zone change on the same parcel has been denied; 3. Minimum lot widths and frontages; and 4. Amendments to Article 979 Parking and Recreational Facilities, clarifying the intent -of Section 9744.3, Exceptions, also adding a severability clause to said Article. The Commission reviewed the proposed code amendments. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY TOM TO INSTRUCT THE SECRETARY TO -SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID CODE AMENDMENTS FOR FEBRUARY 21, 1967. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Miller, Bazil, Lawson, Larkin, Worthy, Royer, Tom. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION: The Acting Secretary asked the Com- mission for clarification of the intent of the moritorium on variances similar to the one requested by Use Variance No. 66-69, Deane Brothers. He stated that the reason for asking was because the Board of Zoning Adjustments will consider a request for a variance to allow a zero side yard setback on one side _ of :a lot having ' at :'least 10 ' ft: si'de yard setback on the opposite side at their February 8, 1967 meeting. Stanley Sampson and Paul Bruns, representing the developer, addressed the Commission and explained the project. The Commission reviewed the proposal and it was their consensus that the applicant should submit a precise plot plan and elevation to the Commission for review prior to the public hearing by the Board of Zoning Adjustmen4. ichard Harlow Acting Secretary THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING ADJOURNED. xz, T omas A. Worthy Chairman -4- 1/31/67.