Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-04-22. . R r_1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1975 - 7 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Council Chambers, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Geiger, Bazil, Higgins, Kerins, Finley, Slates, Porter COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None NOTE: A TAPE RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE. TOWNLOT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA #2 Ed Selich stated that the Townlot Specific Plan Area #2 staff report was the same as presented at the April 15, 1975 meeting and was brought back for further review at the request of the Commission. He advised the Commission that the City Council has set May 19, 1975 as the date for public hearing on the Assess- ment District. There will be a joint study session on Monday, April 28, 1975, with City Council, Planning Staff, and Department of Public Works, at which time Public Works will be presenting information on the Assessment District. Mr. Bob Jarrard, representing the Huntington Beach Landowners Association, was present and addressed the Commission regarding development standards relating to front yard setback, landscaping, trash enclosures, and development intensity. Commissioner Slates felt that a 10 foot setback on the alley was too much, and preferred a 7 1/2 foot setback. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY KERINS TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT SETBACK ON ALLEY RATHER THAN 10 FOOT. VOTE: AYES: Geiger, Bazi1, Higgins, Kerins, Finley, Porter NOES: Slates ABSENT: None A discussion ensued regarding landscaping requirements. Land- scaping standards were referred back to staff for study,with possibility of graduating requirements for trees as number of units go up. f . . Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, April 22, 1975 Page 2 Discussion ensued regarding trash enclosures. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY BAZIL TRASH ENCLOSURES ARE TO BE ALLOWED WITHIN SETBACK AREAS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Geiger, Bazil, Higgins, Kerins, Slates, Finley, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: None The Planning Commission discussed lowering density and alternatives to the development intensity table. Ed Selich advised the Commission that an alternative chart will be prepared which provides density incentive with analysis for comparison. These will be prepared for May 6th meeting. Chairman Kerins requested that:Staff prepare viable alternatives which serves both needs. Commissioner Porter stated that the Planning Commission should review capital improvements under state law. He stated that the staff should prepare a memorandum expressing viewpoint and recommendation regarding comments received at public hearings and the four or five years of history. Commissioner Bazil felt that the report should contain costs to builders of putting in improvements, with the frills trimmed. Commissioner Slates felt that the cost of the assessment district far outweighs the benefits. Mr. L. Lindborg addressed the commission concerning the cost and stated that street lights, curb, gutters and paving streets cost $3,300 for some lots and $4,800 for corner lots two years ago. He noted that it would cost the City money to eliminate some existing improvements. He questioned why owner should not have to pay for drainage. Ed Selich stated that the Staff is working on "bare bones" Assessment District. Chairman Kerins noted that the majority of people who spoke at public hearings were against parking court concept and keeping cars outside on account of vandalism. TOWNLOT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 Dave Eadie presented the concepts of Townlot Specific Plan No. 1. There was a discussion on landscaping and trash enclosure. Commissioner Bazil requested that trash receptacle should be changed as in Specific Plan No. 2. 1 Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, April 22, 1975 Page 3 Commissioner Slates discussed legal wording of S.9363 with John O'Connor. Mr. Jarrard briefly addressed similar points raised in Specific Plan No. 2. Mr. Bucella discussed open space requirements. Commission discussed cantilevering on second floor on rear yard setback. Chairman Kerins was opposed to cantilevering into rear yard setback. Further discussion ensued on cantilevering over garage. Chairman Kerins felt that to avoid conflict in public hearings the intent of the Specific Plan No. 1 should be shown as low density. ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY BAZIL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 20, 1975 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Geiger, Bazil, Higgins, Kerins, Finley, Slates, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: None PROPOSED COASTAL PLAN Monica Florian addressed the Commission and stated that the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions' Preliminary Coastal Plan was completed in March, 1975.• This document condenses and amends the several separate plan elements adopted by the regional commissions and submits them to local agencies and the public for review. The State Coastal Commission is requesting input on two aspects of the plan: 1) the recommendations it contains, and 2) an effective means of plan implementation. The plan is scheduled for adoption by fall for presentation to the State Legislature in December. A public hearing on the Preliminary Coastal Plan is scheduled for May 9, 1975 in Huntington Beach. It was the majority opinion of the Commission members that the Coastal Plan is a useful and valuable policy guide for development of coastal resources. While some'aspects of the plan might be contrary to City policy, the Commission felt that on the whole, the plan represented a constructive attempt to deal with the difficult problems of the coastal area. After reviewing the implementation alternatives for the plan offered by the State and by the Planning Staff, it was the con- sensus of the Commission that the most desirable method to execute the plan would vest implementation authority in the cities. City activities would be coordinated on an areawide basis by established regional governmental structures. The Commission was opposed to continuation of the existing State -Regional Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, April 22, 1975 Page 4 Commission system as well as the staff recommendation of coordinating councils. It was the feeling of the members that no additional layers of government should be established to supervise the Coastal Plan and that local initiative and flexibility should be insured. The Commission was also concerned that continued public participation in coastal planning be guaranteed. It was recommended that, in addition to normal channels of public input -and public hearings, a public representative or public member be included in the implementing structure for the Coastal Plan. In summary, it was the recommendation of the Commission that the City Council: (1) Support the policies of the Preliminary Coastal Plan, and (2) Recommend to the State Coastal Commission that the plan be implemented by local agencies coordinated on an area -wide basis by established regional agencies. PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE ON "ISLAND R" Monica Florian addressed the Commission and gave the following back- ground information: In March of 1975, an informal zone change petition was submitted to the City Council. The petition requested that a change of zoning from R4-01 to R1-0 be considered on an oil island located in the Seacliff area approximately 100 feet north of Quiet Surf Circle and Scenic Bay Drive. The petition evolved as a result of the Board of Zoning Adjustments approval of a use permit to redrill an oil well located in the subject Oil Island "R". During, -the process of reviewing the use permit application, a written protest was submitted to -the Board of Zoning Adjustments requesting denial of the permit. Initiated by homeowners located within close proximity to Oil Island "R", the protest was based on the contention that the noise,.dirt and odors generated from redrilling presented a nuisance to surrounding residents. In an effort to attain a compromise between all those concerned, the Board of Zoning Adjustments conditionally approved Use Permit No. 74-56 on March 5, 1975. After the Board of Zoning Adjustments' action, the homeowners desired to pursue the matter further. As mentioned earlier, a request was submitted to the City Council to consider rezoning Oil island "R". On March 18, 1975, the Planning Commission was informed that the City Council referred the item to the Commission and Staff for study and recommendation. Ms. Florian stated that the Staff recommended that no action be taken to change the existing R4-01 zone until a comprehensive Master Plan of the Seacliff area,is conducted. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, April 22, 1975 Page 5 COMMISSIONER SLATES MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Further discussion ensued. A. MOTION WAS MADE BY BAZIL AND SECONDED BY GEIGER TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND BRING BACK IN NOVEMBER, 1975. VOTE: AYES: Geiger, Bazil, Kerins, Finley, Slates, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins THE MOTION PASSED. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY/BEACH BOULEVARD STUDY AREA Monica Florian addressed the Commission and presented general information and zoning history. She reviewed the land use history and noted that there are only two landowners within the study area, the State of California and Mills Land and Water Company. The Commission discussed the four alternatives suggested by Staff. Commission further discussed -Zone Case 72-42 filed in November, 1972 by Mr. Ray Guy, a petition to rezone property from RA-0 to C3 located on the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast -Highway. 'It was noted ---that the City has not processed this zone change based on the uncertainty of the area. Commission questioned the validity of the zone case and noted that a letter from the landowner granting authorization must be on file before a zone change can be initiated. ON MOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY BAZIL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO DETERMINE IF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS AUTHORIZED IN,A LETTER PERMISSION FOR ZONE CHANGE TO BE INITIATED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Geiger, Bazil, Higgins, Kerins, Finley, Slates, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: None PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE PROCEDURE Ed Selich discussed a proposed zone change procedure and discussed the problems in processing of Zone Changes under the present system. Minutes: H.B. Planning Commission Tuesday, April 22, 1975 Page 6 Commission discussed the proposed plan and felt that a zone change was either consistent or inconsistent with the General Plan and it was their consensus that no zone change could be considered indeterminate. Commissioner Slates suggested that the Staff should set three definite dates per year when General Plan Amendments should be considered with cutoff dates being thirty days prior to date of hearing. All Commissioners concurred. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Chairman Kerins directed Staff to furnish recent copies of transmittals to the City Council from Planning Commission for their review. STAFF'S COMMENTS Acting Secretary Selich reviewed the action of City Council at their April 21, 1975 meeting. ADJOURNMENT ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY SLATES THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:57 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Geiger, Bazil, Higgins, Kerins, Finley, Slates, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: None y , s Edward D. Selich Frank P. Higgins Acting Secretary Acting Chairman