Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-03-09MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1971 - STUDY SESSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bazil, Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None DISCUSSION: APARTMENT STUDY The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Apartment Develop- ment Standards. The Commissioner made the following comments: Commissioner Higgins suggested that the maximum lot coverage be reduced to 40 per cent for all roofed structures; delete that section pertaining to setback of buildings on an angle to property line; not allow tandum parking; permit carport to be located on quip and rear property line when not facing an arterial highway; street trees to be located 45 ft. on center; trash collection area to be enclosed with masonry or durable material subject to approval by the Board of Zoning Adjustments; and, appearance standards of apartment projects should be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Commissioner Bazil stated that he is opposed to a standard 5 ft. sideyard setback stating that such setback should be based on the size and length of the building; the minimum of driveway width, should be 28 ft.; trash areas should be enclosed with masonry wall; and, exclude properties from the proposed standards which consist of less than 1/3 acre. Commissioner Porter concurred with Commissioner Higgins and Bazil except he suggested that the average front yard setback be 20 ft. with 15 ft. minimum from all public streets. Commissioner Miller agreed with all of the suggestions presented by Commissioners Higgins, Bazil, and Porter. Commissioner Kerins agreed on the average 20 ft. front yard setback with a minimum of 15 ft. Chairman Slates stated that he was concerned with the proposed reduction of density with these standards and felt that the Planning Commission should hold a public hearing on these development standards prior to adoption. COMMISSIONER DUKE: Commissioner Duke arrived at 2:15 p.m. and assumed his duties. Mr. Duke discussed the various suggestions made by the Commission on said standards. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS AND SECONDED BY DUKE TO APPROVE THE APARTMENT STANDARDS AS REVISED AND INSTRUCT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A CODE AMENDMENT ON SAID STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND ADVISE DEVELOPERS OF SUCH AMENDMENT. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: _None THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Kerins discussed with the Commission - projects which had been previously approved and such approval has since expired. Mr. Kerins stated that an apartment project proposed by Frank Clendenen has expired and is now up for re -approval before the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Mr. Kerins questioned if the applicant should conform with the newest apartment standards or if the old standards should apply. Commission discussion followed. MINUTES: H. B. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MARCH 9, 1971 It was the consensus of the Commission that a policy should be established regarding re - approval of any applications. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO INSTRUCT THE STAFF TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE CODE, WHEREBY AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR USE PERMITS AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS BY BE GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 6 MONTHS' PERIOD. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE: The Commission iscusse revisions to the Master Plan of Lan Use. Commissioner Duke suggested that a public hearing should be held on individual study areas as soon as possible. Mr. Duke suggested that those areas with the most changes, should be scheduled first. It was the consensus of the Com- mission that the staff should proceed with said matter and that any owner within the proposed revision of Master Plan of Land Use that will be affected by a change should be notified of the changes and public hearing. ZONE CASE NO. 70-20 (Continued) Change of zone from M1 Light Industrial District to MH - Mobilehome District. The subject property is located on the south side of Slater Avenue, approximately 660 f t. east of Gothard Street. In Conjunction With CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.-70-52 (Continued) Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. David Meredith To permit the construction of a 137 space mobilehome park on a 20 acre parcel of land in the M1 Light Industial District. The subject property is located on the south side of Slater Avenue, approximately 660 ft. east of Gothard Street. The Acting Secretary read a letter submitted by Joe Evans, agent for the applicant, re- questing continuance of Zone Case No. 70-20 and Conditional - Exception No. 70-52 to April 6, 1971. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO CONTINUE ZONE CASE NO. 70-20 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 70-52 TO APRIL 63, 19715% AT THE APPLI- CANT'S REQUEST. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: None -ABSTAINED: Bazil THE MOTION CARRIED. -2- 3/9/71 PC MINUTES: 11. B. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MARCH 9, 1971 DISCUSSION: Signal Oil and Gas Company's development plan. The Acxing Secretary informed the Com- mission that representatives from Signal Oil and Gas Company have requested time to discuss a proposed plan for their property located northeast of the Coast Freeway. Bob James, Vice7President of property management for Signal Oil and Gas Company explained the proposal. Mr. James stated that the R1 portion Mill provide a good buffer to the north and west and the proposed layout lends itself to good design along the future freeway. Mr. James informed the Commission that the plan has approximately 107 acres of multiple development which is proposed to have a density of 15 units per acre and 143 acres of land proposed for R1 development. The Commission reviewed the plan. Commissioner Porter stated that he would like to see an industrial area adjacent to the freeway inter- change at Talbert Avenue. Also, that the commercial area should be around such freeway interchange. Mr. Porter further suggested that a service road should be provided adjacent to the freeway. Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Bazil stated that the plan as presented was done very well. Chairman Slates stated that he was concerned with the amount of traffic that would be_generated_ along Talbert Avenue -from the --industrial area. Commissioner Duke stated that he would prefer R1 on both sides of Talbert Avenue along the park or an industrial area with a service road along the free- way. The.Commission endorsed the proposed development plan and requested that the developer and staff check into the possibility of industrial and commercial uses at Talbert and Springdale. DISCUSSION: OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMMITTEE REPORT Bob Sutake, representing the Outdoor Advertising Committee made a presentation pertaining to the existing subdivision directional signs and outdoor advertising signs along Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard. -- The Commission reviewed the third draft of the Standards for Outdoor Advertising Signs as proposed by the committee. A lengthy.discussion followed. Commis- sioner Kerins stated that -all signs should be removed in accordance with the present ordinance. Commissioner Miller stated that he feels signs are very important to business people. Commissioner Higgins stated that he would like to see off -site signs eli- minated, but feels it is important to business people to retain their advertising. Commissioner Porter stated that he would like to go ahead with the removal_ of existing signs. Commissioner Bazil stated that most peope d lo not want signs but that the Commission should carefully study the control of signs. By majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council not allow erection of new outdoor advertising signs anywhere within the city and that every effort should be made to bring about removal -of existing outdoor advertising signs. -3- 3/9/71 PC MINUTES: H. B. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MARCH 91, 1971 The following reasons were given for this action: 1. Such signs are a blight on the environment. 2. Such signs are not beneficial to the health, safety and general welfare of -the citizens of Huntington Beach. 3.-Such-signs obstruct the view of pedestrians and motorists. 4. It is contrary to the cities objective to develop and maintain -high standards of visual beauty within all areas --of the city. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. Chairman Ij F Ken Reynolds Secretary r - -4-; 3/9/71 PC_