Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-03-16MINUTES ' HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1971 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:-Bazil. Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins. - -- COMMISSIONERSABSENT: ZONE CASE NO.-71-1 RESOLUTION OF INTENT None NOTE: A TAPE RECORDING OF -THIS MEETING IS ON FILE IN'THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE. Change of Zone from RA-01 Residential Agricultural District combined'with oil production to RA-0 Res1i dential Agricultural District combined with oil production. The subject property is located: a) west side of Brookhurst Street, north of the intersection of Brookhurst and Bushard Streets; b) 660.ft. north -of --the intersection of Brookhurst and Bushard Streets. Change of Zone-from-M2-02 Heavy Indus- trial District combined with oil,production.to M2-01 Heavy - ` Industrial District combined with oil production. The subject property.is located on the west side of Goldenwest Street and south of the westerly extension of Acacia Avenue. Change of Zone from R1-0 Single FAmily Residence District combined with oil production to R1-01 Single Family Residence District combined with oil production. The subject property is located approximately 200 ft. north and east`T, of -the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Palm Avenue. The -hearing was opened to the audience.' There being no comment the'hearing was closed. , Commission discussion followed. Jim Palin, Associate Planner informed the Commission that Proposal A - is a -proposal -to--rezone two _oil operation sites from 1101" back to,the original -110" designa- tion. Mr.,Palin stated that both sites are situated on the same parcel.of °land and that this action to rezone -these parcels back to the original 110" disignation was-initiated,by_the_City Council at the time -a Resolution of Intent to rezone numerous oil opera- tion sites was -first heard by -the -City Council; Proposal B - is a proposal -to rezone two -parcels of 'sand from M2-02 to M2-01. Mr.:Palin stated that this zone change was initiated because the minimum lease area for an oil -operation site in the 1102" district, is 40 acres and the, minimum lease area for the two drilling is- -lands in question is slightly over 25`acres and therefore, below -the minimum .requirements ; -Proposal C - is a proposal to change the 'ibne on a _parcel of land -from R1-0 to-Rl-01. - Mr. Palin pointed out that action to - rezone this parcel 1101" was initiates by the City because it was inadvertently left off the original proposal to establisli numerous oil operation sites throughout the City at the time Article 968 was adopted. T, A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY-BAZIL TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE -NO. 71-1 - RESOLU- TION OF INTENT TO THE -CITY -COUNCIL. MINUTES: H. B. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 _ MARCH 16, 1971 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Higgins, ,NOES: None ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins ZONE CASE NO. 70-13,(Continued from September 10 1970) Applicant: Gulf Oil Corporation A change of zone from R1 Single Family Residence District and C4 Highway Commercial District to R1 Single Family -Residence District and R3—Limited,Multiple Family Residence District, R4 Multiple Family Residence District and C4 Highway Commercial'District with a SO f t. setback from the ulti- mate right-of-way line. The subject property is located on the northwesterly corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Admiralty Drive. The hearing was opened to the audience. Mike Miller, Nputy Assistant City Attorney, addressed the Commission and informed them that there is a court case pending regarding this property; therefore, con- tinuance of this case is recommended. There being no other comment, the hearing was closed. v A MOTION WAS MADE BY DUKE AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO CONTINUE ZONE CASE NO, 70-13 TO AWL 62* 1971, ON THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: ig igig ns THE MOTION CARRIED. ,. ZONE CASE NO. 71-4 Applicant: Shapell Industries, Inc. Change of zone from RA Resi- dentiil-Agricultural District to R1 Single Family Residence District. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Bushard Street and Indianapolis Avenue. The hearing was opened to the audience. There being to comment, the hearing was.'closed.` Commission discussion follow6d. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DUKE AND SECONDED BY BAZIL TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZONE CASE NO. 71-14 TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The Planning Commission recently approved a tentative map =� for this property to permit construction of 94 single family homes. t ,t, 2. A condition of approval of the tentative map'required.that the applicant submit a zone change•to R1. - -2- 11_3/16/71 PC " t ' " 4 efi MINUTES: H. B. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MARQU 16 , 1971 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins, NOES: _ None ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. PRECISE PLAN NO. 70-6 Said plan will establish access to and circulation within that property bounded by Beach Boulevard on — the east, Southern California Edison Company right-of-way on the south, Gothard Street on the west, McFadden Avenue on the north and -the San Diego Freeway on the northeast. The hearing was opened to the audience. Charles Browning, representing the church, _asked if this precise plan will take any property from the church site for future right-of-way. Mr. Hartge, City Engineer, in- formed Mr. Browning that. the proposed plan will require the church to dedicate 24 ft. 'from the north property line for-, future right-of-way. Mr. Browning stated that he was opposed to additional dedication. There being no other"comment, the hearing was closed. t - Commission discussion followed. Commissioner Porter asked Mr. Hartge if the school trustees would dedicate if the street was entirely on sct,00l property. Mx, Hartga stated that he feels the City would have to condemn it if the street was entirely on either property. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue Precise Plan No. 70-6 to April 6, 1971 meeting, in order for the Planning and Engineering Department to meet with the representative of the church to work out a compromise. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO CONTINUE PRECISE PLAN NO. 70-6 TO APRIL 6, 1971 FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED_,REASON. 1 J ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: - Bazil; Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller,,Duke, Kerins -NOES: None` ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 71-10 Applicant: William and Jo Ann Rader -To permit eight (8) non -related persons plus the owner and -spouse -in a single family residence in lieu of the permitted five (S) non -related persons per family as defined in Section 9700 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The subject property is located at 1819 Lake Street, Huntington Beach, in the R2 Two Family Resi- dence District. Slides of the subject property were shown. Y � The hearing was opened to the audience. -3• 3/16/71 PC MINUTES: H. B. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 4 MARCH 16, 1971 Five adjacent property owners addressed the Commission and spoke in opposition. A,'.4Y petition signed by 34 property owners opposing the request was submitted. Mr. Hays, 2620 Cliff Drive, `Newport -`Beach,__ California, original owner of the subject home, spoke'in favor:" -- Mrs: - Rader, applicant, -explained the request - There being.no-other comment, the hearing was closed. ` Commission discussion followed. A.letter submitted by the Building Department recommending.denial because of the changes necessary to bring the building into compliance with code requirements for a number of charges requested and suggested that the applicant seek approval under the provisions of the proposed care of non -related persons ordinance which has been approved by the Planning Commis- sion was reviewed-.-- __ - __ A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES AND SECONDED BY KERINS_TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 71-10. ROLL CALL VOTE: - AYES: Slates, Kerins NOES: Bazil, Porter, Miller, Duke, Higgins ABSENT: None - THE MOTION DID NOT CARRY. f A FURTHER MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY DUKE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 71-10 UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No more than 5 non -related persons shall be permitted and the maximum number of -related and non -related persons re- siding in this residence shall not exceed 8. If at any time the Planning Commission determines that the application is violating this condition, Conditional Exception No. 71-10 shall become null and void. 2. The City Attorney shall investigate and determine whether the city may place restrictions on the mental condition of non -related persons and if the appropriate agencies of the County and State may issue a report on,the mental con- dition of -the -se persons. If this is possible, no non - related person requiring special treatment or cure for a mental condition shall reside at this residence. 3. Conditional Exception No. 71-10 shall be null and void _on _ March 15,- 1972. If the City Attorney finds that a certifi� cate may_be;required`from the County Health Department on the mental -condition of patients, such certificate shall be submitted-io-the Planning Department. _AND FOR THE FOLLOWING,REASONS: 1. The Planning Department is preparing an,ordinance whereby eight non -related persons may be permitted. 2. The Commission --has granted similar =uses -in -the past. RdLL CALL VOTE:__ AYES: Bazil, Porter'; Higgins; =Miller, Duke,,,,Kerins�_, NOES: Slates h s, ABSENT: None ' ut THE MOTION CARRIED. 4- 3/16/71 PC a MINUTES: H. B. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MARCH 16, 1971 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION.NO. 71-11 Applicant: B. G. Williams - To permit the construction of 3 dweiling units on a lot having 5875 sq. ft. or 1958 sq. ft. of lot area per unit in lieu of the required_2000 sq. ft. of lot area per unit. Also, to allow garages to,set-back 3-ft. from the interior property line in lieu of the required 5 ft., and 9 ft. from the exterior side property line in lieu of the -required 10 ft. The -subject property is located on the southwest -corner of loth Street and -Palm Avenue.in the R2 Two Family Residence -District. The hearing was opened to the audience. Mr. Johnson, 623-10th Street, addressed the Commission and opposed the -request. A petition signed by 20 property owners opposing the request was submitted to the Secretary. B. G. Williams, applicant, explained the request. Mrs. Gifford, 621-10th Street, and Mrs. Merritt Nevies, 701-10th Street, opposed the request. Mrs. Sopha 618-10th Street, stated that an additional setback for the proposed units -should be provided. There being no other comment, the hearing was closed. Commission discussion followed. Commissioner Bazil stated that he feels this case should be continued and that the applicant should re- vise the plot plan to show that the required open space will be provided. Also, that the Building Department investigate the setback of the adjacent residence and report back to the Com- mission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY KERINS TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 71-11 TO APRIL 6, 1971, FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 71-13 Applicant: Vancie E. Coffey To permit the expansion of an existing ­ lumber _ _ lumber yard _by,adding additional storage -for (umber iithout_ pefmdnent on -site or off -site improvements for -a period of_ years in —lieu of thQ requirements in S. 0730.159 S. 9730.16 and S. 9730.17 which require righif-of-way�iedication, installa- tion of improvements and walls_ _'The�subjgct_property__is__1Qcated_ on--the west side of Beach Boulevard, approximately S00 ft. nort1L-af Utica Avenue in the C2 Community^ Business District.-__.______.__ The hearing was opened to the audience. -S- 3/16/71 PC MINUTES: H. B. PLANNING COMMISSION s PAGE 6 MARCH 16, 1971 Robert Chrisman, attorney for Mrs. Coffey, addressed the Commission and stated the reason fora- -- requesting this conditional exception was that the use will be on interim basis -only and that improvements on the subject property would not be justified due to short-term investments. Mr. Chrisman submitted a letter from the -Division of Highways stating that improvements are not required'at this time. Mr.— Hartge, City Engineer; stated that improvements o--u-F Be required--- because all developments on Beach Boulevard either put improve- ments in or post a_bond to cover the costs. - There being no other comment, the hearing -was , closed. Commission discussion followed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS AND SECONDED BY BAZIL-TO APPR_OVE_CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 71-13 UPON THE FOLLUW.ING CONDITIONS: 1. Beach Boulevard shall be fully improved to City and -State standards._ .Improvements shall inclfide`street trees, street ------lights ' ---lights, fire hydrants, sewer and water main extensions, curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Improvements shall also include screen masonry walls and the required landscaping. 2. The Board of Zoning Adjustments in their review of the plot plan and masonry wall along front property line shall establish additional conditions as deemed necessary. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. Expansions -of -this existing non-conforming_use per the conditional approval will upgrade Beach Boulevard. 2. The use is similar to uses permitted in the C2 zone. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Kerins;_Bazil, Miller, Duke, Higgins NOES: Porter, Slates ABSENT: None THE MOTION'CARRIED. MINORITY REPORT: -:_COMMISSIONER PORTER Commissioner Porter stated ;_„- the following: City policy has been to permit non -conforming uses to continue with their present operation but -to prohibit an expansion thereof. Also, on or about July ll,_1970, Mr. Coffey was advised by the Building Department at that time that no expansion of his use could be allowed without a conditional exception as his existing use was non -conforming:, -Conditional Exception -No. 71-13 should be denied as a deterrent -Ito --the practi-:e of expanding non -conforming uses o,- establishing-uses"unlawfully and then seeking a conditional exception to make them legal. Unless -a firm stand is taken -on this matter, I feel it _will jeopardize further code - enforcement work in this area. The}expansion in question progressed with full, knowledge that any expansion would violate city ordinances i1nd_warnings`that legal action would follow any attempt to expand the non -conforming use. CONDITIONAL,EXCEPTION NO. 73-14 Applicant: Wm. and Dorothy Kloeckner'- To permit a 14 ft. by 46 ft. warehouse addition to a non --:.conforming industrial building in the R3 Limited Multiple Family Residence Dis-rict and, to permit waiver of the required off-street parking roquirements for such addition. r -6- 3/16/71 PC MINI1'rL'S: 11. 11. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MARCH 16t 1971 The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Joliet Avenue and Florida Street. The hearing was opened to the audience. Mr. Kloeckner, applicant, addressed the Commission and explained the request. He stated that he purchased the property in late 1950, when the property was -zoned M2-0. Video tape of the subject property was shown. Pete Peterson, 8191 Guilders Drive, stated that he has built this building several years ago. Mr. Peterson stated that there are no problems with trucks de- livering merchandise to said premises. Chairman Slates stated that he was concerned with the setback from the alley and that sufficient turning radius is provided. Commissioner Bazil stated that he feels the entire lot is taken up with the building and no off-street parking facilities for this use are provided nor is there sufficient room to provide parking on -site. There being no other comment, the hearing was closed. Commission discussion followed. - A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 71-14 UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. The Board of Zoning Adjustments shall review said appli- cation for additional conditions as deemed necessary and require the installation of sidewalk; and, study alley width to maintain adequate turning radius. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Slates, Miller NOES: Bazil, Porter, Kerins, Duke, Higgins ABSENT: None THE MOTION DID NOT CARRY. A FURTHER MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY KERINS TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 71-14 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. It is the policy of the City not to allow expansion of non- conforming uses. 2. The applicant cannot provide sufficient off-street parking. 3. The surrounding property is zoned R3 and R2 and developed with single family and multiple family residences. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Porter, Kerins, Duke, Higgins NOES: Slates, Miller ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 71-15 Applicant: Standard Oil Company -7-3/16/71 !fit [MINUTES: 11. B. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 8 MARCH 16, 1971 To permit the waiver of: 1) Sect. 9730.15 - required dedication of street abutting pro- perty used for any purpose; 2) Sect. 9730.16 - required instal- lation of improvements for any use abutting any street; 3) Sect. 9730.17 - required separation wall between industrial and any property zoned or used for residential purpose. Said request pertains to the redrilling of an oil well from an established oil operation'site. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Garfield Avneue and Goldenwest Street, in the M2-02 Heavy Industrial District combined with oil pro- duction. The hearing was opened to the audience. Baxter Brown, representing Standard Oil Company, explained the proposal. Mr. Brown stated that this request pertains to well #101. He stated that he feels the requirements are over and above requirements of the oil code - and that the only added traffic to the streets would be during redrilling operations. Mr. Brown informed the Commission that there are approximately 120 existing wells with this oil operation site. There being no other comment, the hearing was closed. Commission discussion followed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES AND SECONDED BY MILLER TO APPROVE COND-ITIONAL EXUPTZON NO. __71-15 FOR WELL # 101 ONLY. AND FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON. 1. The entire area is an existing oil field. 2. The proposed redrilling does not constitute any major changes in present conditions. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Higgins, NOES: Duke ABSENT: THE MOTION CARRIED. Porter, Slates, Miller, Kerins CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 71-16 Applicant: Christie Marie Carter To permit boarding of 10 horses in the M1 Light Industrial District. -The--subject -property-is- located - nor-th- of Slater-Av-dnue -and-- 2-70 ft-: -mast--of -Gothard-Street: — ---- -- - ---- - the Bearing was opened -to the audience-.. Mr. Wallace, brother of the " applicant, stated that these stables have been there for a number of years and other stables exist in the area. hearing was closed. There being no other comment, the Commission discussion followed. -8- 3/16/71 PC MINUTES: H. B. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 9 MARCH 16, 1971 Commissioner Kerins stated that he feels there may be a conflict between the horses and --traffic on Slater Avenue and that the Commission should look into future requests for stables in developed areas. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES AND SECONDED BY DUKE TO APPROVE CON_DIT_IO_NAL_ EXCEPTION NO. 71-16 UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Conditional Exception No. 71-16 shall become null and void on January 1, 1976. 2. No more than 10 horses shall be boarded on the premises at any time. 3. Horse rentals shall not be allowed. 4. Slater Avenue shall be dedicated to Department of Public Works requirements. 5. The riding stable and accessory uses shall be kept in a neat and clean manner at all times. 6. The stable shall comply with all rules and regulations for horse stables of Orange County Health Department for fly and rodent control. AM -FOR -THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. There is no zone which would allow horse stables. 2. Said approval is consistent with previous actions taken by the Commission. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke NOES: Kerins ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 71-4 Said amendment proposes to: 1) Repeal Section 9730.5 (Residence Use of Existing Lots); 2) Amend Sections 9163.3.1.1 (R2 zone), 9203.3.1.1 (R3 zone) and 9233.3.1.1 (R5 zone) to allow a portion of the required open space to be within the front 1/3 of the lot; 3) Amend Sections 9163.4.1 (R2 zone) and 9203.3.1(a)(R3 zone); 4) Amend Section 9233.4.1(a) (R4 zone) to increase to 10 ft. for the front yard setback; 5) Amend Section 9203.4.1(b) (R3 zone) and 9233.4.1(b) (R4 zone) to allow car- ports to be constructed at zero setback where abutting the interior property line. All the above -amendments in the R2, R3 and R4 zones are proposed--for-the area bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the southwest, Goldenwest Street on the north- west, Palm Avenue on the north and northeast and Lake and First Streets on the east and southeast. This amendment also proposes to amend Section 9232.6 (R4 zone) to allow three (3) story construction subject to a 100 ft. setback where abutting any single family residential development. The hearing was opened to the audence- There being no comment the hearing was closed. Commission discussion followed. -9- 3/16/71 PC MINUTES: H. B. PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 10 MARCH 16, 1971 Mr. Palin, Associate Planner, 4 explained the proposal.- He further stated that 25 ft. wide lots will need a variance to meet most requirements. Dan McFarland, Building Department, commented on interior side yard setbacks and the area between such wall on property line and building. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES AND SECONDED BY BAZIL__TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 71-4 AS AMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ROLL CALL VOTE: — -- AYES: Bazil, Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins NOES: None _ ABSENT: None - THE MOTION CARRIED. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 71-5 -_Said amendment proposes to re- number the following Section of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to read as follows: Renumbered: Section 9921.3 to Section 9921.2.1 Said amendment proposes to amend the following section of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to read as follows: Amended: Section 9921.2.1 - Filin : Twenty-five (25) copies of a tentative map and a statement of the proposed subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning Department. The filing fee shall be a minimum of $100.00 plus $2.00 per lot for each lot over fifty (50) lots. - Amended: Section 9921.8 Planning Commission Action: (a) The Planning Commission s all determine whether the tentative map is in conformity with the provisions of law and of this ordinance. A subsequent decision on such map shall be approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved within the time and manner prescribed by the Subdivision Map.Act. A notice of this deci- sion shall be reported directly to the subdivider. Also, a memo shall be transmitted to the City Engineer setting forth this action with a copy of -the tentative map. Amended: Section 9941.10 Lots: (c) Lots without an approved access to a street will not be permitted. The hearing was opened°$to the audience:_ There being no comment, the hearing was closed. - -: Commission discussion followed. A MOTION ^WAS MADE BY KERINS AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 71-5 TO THE CITY -COUNCIL. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins NOES: None ' ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. CODE -AMENDMENT NO. 71-6 -10- 3/16/71 PC MINUTES: H. B. PLANNING COMMISSION.. PAGE 11 MARCH 16, 1971 Said amendment proposes to 1) Amend Article 973 Miscellaneous Provisions by adding Section 9730.15.1 which shall read as follows: "Right-of-way dedication for oil operation sites shall comply with all the requirements of Article 96811, and 2) Amend Article 968 Combining Oil Districts by adding certain Sections that will provide for dedication and improvements for oil operation sites. The hearing was openedo the audience. Baxter Brown, representing Standard Oil Company, submitted a letter suggesting various changes to the proposed code amendment. Jerry Shea, representing Huntington Beach Company, suggested that the 02 Zone be excluded from improve- ment requirements and that he will submit a letter of agreement for dedication on Goldenwest Street and Garfield Avenue. He further suggested that the Board of Zoning Adjustments be allowed to review all applications. There being no other comment, the hearing was closed. Commission discussion followed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES -AND -SECONDED BY MILLER TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 71-6 TO APRIL 6,"1971, TO ALLOW SUGGESTED CHANGES BE MADE AND FOR REVIEW OF AN AGREE-_,__ MENT FOR DEDICATION BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY-.' ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Bazil, Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 71-7 Said amendment proposes to amen._ Section 9862 (Rejection of faulty petition to read as follows: "The Planning Director or his representative shall refuse to accept for filing any application required to be filed with the Planning Department, when said application does not contain information required to be provided, is improperly filled out, or on its face, does not meet the requirements of this code." - - - -The -hearing was -opened to--the—audience-: -- There being no comment, the hearing Was closed. Commission discussion followed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES AND SECONDED BY HIGGINS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 71-7 TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Basil, Higgins, Porter, Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION: The Commission discussed the possibility of allowing temporary dwellings for horse stables to provide added security for horses and also, to permit portable building for caretaker's quarter. -11- 3/16/71 PC MINUTES: _H. B. PLANNING COMMISSION " PAGE 12 MARCH 16, 1971 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED -BY-MILLER TO INSTRUCT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A CODE AMENDMENT TO -ALLOW PORTABLE BUILDING_AS CARETAKERS -DWELLINGS AT HORSE STABLES. -- - ROLL CALL VOTE: - AYES: Bazil,Higgins,-Porter; Slates, Miller, Duke, Kerins NOES: None ABSENT: None THE MOTION CARRIED._ USE PERMIT N0. 71-8 - Applicant: Frank Clendenen Jim Patin, Associate Planner, re- viewed with the. Commission Use Permit No. 71-8 which was up for renewal -before the Board -of -Zoning -Adjustments. -Mr. Palin stated that it was determined -by -the Board level that the plan complies with existing apartment standards,as adopted --on October 21, 1969. Mr. Palin further -informed --the Commission that the plan has a - total of 65,000 sq.-ft.- of usable -open space which is 18,400 sq. ft. more than required by said standards, and therefore recommended approval. - The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Palin's information and recommendations. USE PERMIT NO. 71-10 _ Applicant: Harold Klein Jim Palin, Associate Planner, in- formed the Commission that the applicant proposes a renewal of their proposed 286 unit apartment complex which was previously approved on October 16, 1969. It was the Commission's consensus to review this project at their March 23rd Study Session. MASTER PLAN REVISIONS Mr. -Reynolds, Planning Director, discussed wit t e Commission the-staff's ideas on how to proceed with re- vision to the Master Plan. Mr. Reynolds suggested that the staff should take over -from the appointed committee and submit to the Commission for -review. - - PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT FOR 1971 The Commission reviewed their projects, or 1971. INFORMATION The Planning Director reminded the Commission of the joint meeting with the City Council and the_Design Review Board.- _ Mr. Reynolds"further-reported-to the Commission on the City Council's actions regarding Planning Commission's transmittals. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, - THE -MEETING ADJOURNED TO MARCH 23, 1971, STUDY SESSION. " - r u.,•.�. z eyno 1 d1s Secretary, -12_ 3/16/71, PC E