Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-03Approved February 18, 1981 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Greer, Bauer Schumacher ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY GREER THE CONSENT CALEN- DAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 1981, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Porter, Greer, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-16 (Cont. from December 2, 1980) Applicant: Donald A. Weir To permit a change of zone from R2 to R2-0 for a .495 acre parcel of property located on the west side of Holly approxi- mately 100 feet north of Clay. Savoy Bellavia explained that the applicant on this particular petition has withdrawn his consent to further continuance and asked that the application be scheduled for review. He also suggested that the wording on the staff's recommendation for ap- plying the "0" suffix be.changed to more clearly delineate the size and number of areas to be rezoned. The public hearing was reopened. Don Weir addressed the Commission to indicate'that he is not in agreement to the 110" designation being applied only to the Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 2 smaller areas as suggested by staff but would prefer the application to be approved as per the request on the whole parcel. Virgil Radcliff, representing an oil drilling company, informed the Commission that the 60 by 25 foot areas recommended by sta°f are inadequate to allow proper operations to take place. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the workability of the proposed smaller sized area and the method by which staff -had determined that parti- cular size. Secretary Palin reported that it was made as a result of various recommendations received during work on the Energy Conserva- tion phase of the LCP and was the minimum size which staff feels is feasible for maintenance operations on a well; he pointed out, how- ever, that the area would not be adequate to allow drilling. Mr. Palin noted further that the staff's principal concern had been that allowing the "0" designation to be applied to the total proposed site would also allow installation of certain adjunct uses, such as storage facilities, which seem undesirable so close to existing and planned nearby residential development. Also discussed by.the Commission and staff were the recommendations presented in the prior staff report and whether or not conditions on the site had changed since that recommendation. Staff pointed out that it had been due to the concern for obtaining a report from the Oil Committee expressed at the December 2 meeting which had led to a 90-day continuance of this request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY GREER TO ADOPT ZONE CHANGE 80-16 AS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED, BASED UPON PAST ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Porter, Greer NOES: Kenefick, Winchell, Bauer ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION ADOPTED ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-16 AS AMENDED TO APPLY THE "0" DESIGNATION TO AN AREA MEASURING 25 BY 60 FEET ONLY AROUND EACH OIL WELL EXISTING ON THE SUBJECT SITE, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE, FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL: FINDINGS: l.. The proposed zone change as amended is compatible with surround- ing land uses and zoning designations because they are similar in nature to those found on the subject property. 2. The addition of the "O" suffix to the designated areas is con- sistent with the City's General Plan: -2- 2-3-81 - P.-C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 3 AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Bauer NOES: Bannister, Greer ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-18 (Cont. from January 6, 1981) Applicant: Lindborg/Dahl Investors To permit a change of zone on a 10.13 acre parcel of land from A-1 and R-1 to R-5"Q" on property located on the west side of Magnolia Street approximately 500 feet north of Warner Avenue. Savoy Bellavia reported that this zone change had been readver- tised to reflect the conditions the Commission wished imposed upon the "Q" suffix. The public hearing was reopened. Sylvia Grosweld, resident of a neighboring R1 property, addressed the Commission to discuss the traffic impacts which might occur if access to the project is permitted to be taken through the residential tract. She urged that the traffic from this pro- ject not be added to the existing traffic on Asari, which is the only exit to Warner Avenue for the residents. Wade Boyle, also an adjacent resident, spoke in regard to the types of uses which will be allowed in the project. Staff ex- plained that the project will be office/professional, with no retail or commercial uses. The public hearing was closed. Bruce Gilmer from Public Works reviewed the traffic consider,-- tions. He.said that no signal is planned at Magnolia and Asari; also, Mr. Gilmer indicated that access onto the site from Magnolia could be by left turn but no left turn should be per- mitted from the site onto Magnolia. It is planned at present to allow right turn in, right turn out access to the subject site from Warner Avenue. Commissioner Winchell stressed that the dev- eloper should address the neighbors' concerns on traffic in the design of the ultimate project. Savoy Bellavia reported that the City has received a letter from the Director of Planning and the Planning Commission of the City of Fountain Valley requesting that this matter be continued until after February 11, 1981 to allow them to make additional traffic analysis. The applicant has been contacted and does not concur with that proposal, although the Commission may continue to the next regular meeting without such concurrence without passing the mandatory processing date for the application. -3- 2-3-81- P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 4 A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO CONTINUE ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-18 TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 18, 1981. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Bannister, Porter, Greer ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND'BY BAUER ZONE CHANGE 80-18 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan desig- nation on the property, which is General Commercial. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A 50-foot building setback from the ultimate right-of-way of Magnolia Avenue and from any of,the adjacent residentially zoned property is hereby established'on the subject property. 2. No access shall be taken to or from the site from the R1 single- family residential property located'to the west of the subject property. 3. A reciprocal driveway easement shall be required on Magnolia Street for the driveway approach located between the subject prop- erty and the commercially developed property to the south. This easement shall be recorded with the County of Orange prior to issu- ance of building permits on the proposed development. 4. The permitted uses on the subject site shall be limited to those uses contained in Article 940, R5 Office Professional District. No medical offices shall be permitted without adequate parking, and retail commercial uses shall'be'prohibited. 5. A conditional use permit application shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission for the entire project prior to the issuance of building permits. AYES: Bannister, Porter, Greer, Bauer NOES: Kenefick, Winchell ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Both Commissioner Winchell and Commissioner Kenefick wished the rec- ord to reflect that their "no" -votes were cast because they believed that a neighboring jurisdiction should have been granted the courtesy to provide input into this project per its written request. -4- 2-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981. Page 5 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-8/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 80-580 Applicant: Dick Kelter (Cont. from 1-20-81) To permit the creation of one 55 foot lot and one 60 foot lot in lieu of the code imposed 60 foot lot minimum requi_ement on property located on the north side of Glencoe Avenue approximately 370 feet west of Beach Boulevard. Savoy Bellavia reported on the results of the research done in the area: There were originally 40 parcels having the 115-foot frontage. Twelve of those parcels have been divided into the 55/60 feet requested by the subject applicant; of these, three were accomplished by a recorded parcel map. An additional 12 of the original parcels were divided into the equal (57.5 foot) frontages recommended by the Planning staff. The public hearing was reopened. John Cowles, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission to urge approval in the requested configuration, citing the other parcels in the area which were so divided. Dick Kelter spoke to say that a precedent has already been set in the area, that land there is very expensive, and denial of the request as submitted would jeopardize the sale of the prop- erty. There were no other persons present to address the Commission, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the prior divisions in the area in regard to the timing and the building density which would re- sult. Staff informed them that if the entire area of 40 lots were split as proposed the resulting construction would be over the intensity allowed in the medium density provisions. The density allowed on this particular parcel of undivided land is 6.5 units, and split as requested by the applicant would yield a total of 7 units. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY BAUER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-8 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. Granting of the conditional exception as modified will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of resi- dents of neighboring properties or injurious to improvement of property in the vicinity. 2. Granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. -5- 2-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 6 3. Granting of this conditional exception does not constitute a grant of special privilege from other properties in the vicinity. 4. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject topo- graphy, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Department of Dev- elopment Services reflecting two (2) 57.5 foot parcels, which will become the approved layout. 2. All trees existing on the site at the present time, with a trunk size of six (6) inches or larger, shall be retained if possible. If trees must be removed, each tree removed shall be replaced by two (2) 24-inch box trees on site which -shall be approved by the superintendent of Parks, Trees, -and Landscaping. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Bauer NOES: Greer ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY WINCHELL.AND SECOND BY BAUER TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 80-580 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision of -this .35 acre lot into two parcels (as modified by the Commission) for the purpose of developing two three -unit apartments is in compliance with the size and shape of property necessary for that type of construction. 2. The General Plari has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. 3. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for medium density resi- dential was placed on this site. 4. The size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifica- tions on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City Subdivision ordinance. -6- 2-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 7 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised parcel map shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services reflecting two (2) 57.5 fcit parcels, which will become the approved layout. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with, and approved by, the De- partment of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 3. Glencoe Avenue shall be dedicated to City standards at the time said parcels are developed. 4. A copy of the recorded parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Department.' AYES: Bannister-, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Bauer NOES: Greer ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at-8:05 and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PRESENTATION Bolsa Chica Planning Efforts June Catalano introduced Bob Rende and Ken Winter of the County EMA staff, who made a presentation on the status of the County's planning efforts for the Bolsa Chica. Mr. Rendd briefly reviewed the history of the Bolsa Chica Gnp and the negotiations which had taken place between the major landowner and the State in regard to the area. He outlined the division into units which the County has made of the coastline over which it has jurisdiction and described the major issues to be addressed in,the County's LCP for the Bolsa Chica unit. These include the status of the wetland and its potential for restoration, the settlement of the property ownership and the question of whether or not the 1973 agreement between the State of California and the Signal Landmark Properties should be con- sidered, and how that agreement may influence the Local Coastal Plan. Ken Winter described the eight alternative plans which are under consideration. The areas of concern addressed in these plans are the matter of the 1973 agreement, the provision of a navigable channel to the'sea and to the neighboring Huntington Harbor channels, the restoration of the marsh area, the routing of. Pacific Coast Highway, and the provision of marinas and residen- tial units within the area. Not every alternative addresses all issues or treats them in the same manner; the first five are contained in the staff report distributed to the Commission and -7- 2-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 8 the last three have been added by staff since that document was prepared. Mr. Rende summed up the report by noting that there are many re- finements which need to be made in the alternatives. A spLcial meeting of the County Planning Commission will be held in the Hunt- ington.Beach Council Chambers on Tuesday, February 10, 1981, to receive public input; it is hoped to present the alternatives to the County Commission for direction on its preferred land use by the 24th of the month, but it is not expected that the full Local Coastal Plan will be before the County Commission soon. Chairman Porter left the meeting at 9:15 p.m. after turning the chair over to Vice Chairman Winchell. The Commission briefly discussed the alternatives with the County representatives. Commissioner Kenefick requested that a copy of the fiscal impact report for the Bolsa Chica be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach when it is available and that the City be kept informed of the County's decisions, since it is the area which will be, most heavily impacted by those decisions. Mr. Winter indi- cated that the fiscal report should be available by February 24 and will cover Alternatives 1 through.3; he added that efforts are now under way to include the other alternatives in the report as well. It is planned to schedule the matter for the Board of Supervisors meeting of March 25 for the selection of an alternative and their goal is to have it before the Regional Commission by July 1, 1981. The Commission recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-1- Applicant: M. Hora Enterprises, Inc. To permit an amusement center to be established at the Southeast corner of Center Drive and Gothard Street. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Hora addressed the Commission to describe his operation and urge approval of the request. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. The provision. of bicycle racks was discussed and the consensus was that staff would analyze how they could be provided on the site. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BAUER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-1 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS -AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -78- 2-3-81'I P.C. a Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 9 FINDINGS: 1. The location of the proposed use is generally compatible with surrounding land uses if the recommended conditions of approval are imposed on the applicant. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated January 6, 1981 shall be the approved layout. 2. The hours of operation shall be limited to 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thrusday, and 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday through Sunday. 3. A sound system shall be prohibited within the amusement center. 4. The facility shall be supervised at all times during operating hours by at least one attendant. 5. The proposed use shall comply with all Building and Fire Department regulations. 6. Some provision shall be made for bicycle racks for the use of the customers of the subject project. Planning Division staff will review and determine the number and placement of such facilities. 7. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this conditional use Permit approval in the event of any violations of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be pre- ceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing, and shall be based upon specific findings. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Greer, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-2 Applicant: Warren Lortie Associates To permit the construction of a three-story general office building on property located at the southwest corner of Main Street and Florida Street. Savoy Bellavia reviewed the history of this parcel of land and suggested an additional condition of approval regarding Fire Department requirements. The public -hearing was opened: -9= 2-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 10 Warren Lortie addressed the Commission.* He indicated agreement with the suggested conditions of approval. There were no other persons present to speak in regard to the request, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECONd By GREER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-2 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Greer, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY GREER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-2 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses in the general area. 2. The proposed project complies with all provisions set forth in the Pacifica Community Plan. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element and provisions set forth in the City's General Plan. - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plan, and elevations dated January 28, !q81 shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to the.issuance of building permits, a landscaped plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for approval. The 40 eucalyptus trees previously removed from the site shall be replaced'in accordance with the recommendations of the Department of Public Works as stated in its March 30, 1979 memorandum. 3. A transportation transfer facility shall be provided in accord- ance with Department of Public Works standards. If the facility is provided by the applicant, a public easement for maintenance of the transportation facility shall be dedicated to the City. 4. The applicant shall participate in the cost of providing a traffic signal at the intersection of Florida and Main Streets in'the ratio of 12 and 1/2 percent of the estimated cost if determined necessary by the Department of Public Works. -10- '2-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 11 5. Low -volume heads shall be used on all indoor water faucets. 6. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material shall be disposed of at an offsite landfill facility equipped to handle them. 7. If lighting is included in the parking lot, energy -efficient lamps shall be used (e.g.,,high-pressure sodium vapor, metal halide). All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. 8. A hydrology study shall be submitted in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. 9. Offsite improvements shall be constructed in accordance with Department of Public Works standards. 10. All Fire Department requirements shall be met. 11. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this conditional use permit approval in the event of any viola- tion of the terms of this approval or violation of the appli- cable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based upon specific findings. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Greer, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None TENTATIVE TRACT 10719 Applicant: F. W. Development To permit a 51-lot residential subdivision on property located on the east side of Lake Street, south of Adams Avenue to 1320 feet north of Indianapolis Avenue. TENTATIVE TRACT 10753 Applicant: F. W. Development To permit a 16-lot single-family subdivision located on the east side of Lake Street between Utica and Springfield Avenues. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that these tracts are covered under the same staff report because they are very simi- lar in nature. _Both were approved in 1979 by the Commission, but failure to record prior to the expiration of the tentative tract has necessitated re -approval action. Both tracts have been reviewed again by the Subdivision Committee, whose recommendation is again for approval. Secretary Palin reported that an attorney's opinion dated Novem- ber 17, 1980 has indicated that the condition for quit claim of -11- 2-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 12 any possible future interest in the railroad right-of-way adjacent to the east is illegal and should be stricken from the recommended conditions of approval. The only way the City could be successful in obtaining said property would be if the -developer would voluntarily offer to quit claim his future interest; upon being questiined on the matter, Mr. Frank Woolsey, representing the applicant, said he would not be willing to voluntarily quitclaim the strip of right-of- way at this time. The Commission discussed the transportation corridor and the trail concepts with the staff and the developer. Commissioner Kenefick requested that the Commission be provided with a copy of the last deliberation by the City Council'in regard to the corridor. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BAUER TENTATIVE TRACTS NOS. 10719 AND 10753 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDI- TIONS, BY THE'FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision of these parcels of land zoned 01d Town Specific Plan, District 2', is in compliance with the City's General Plan. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth•objectives for implementation of this type of"housing. 3. The lot size, width, frontage, alley width, and all other design and improvement"features of the proposed subdivisions are pro- posed"to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the�Cityas well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative tracts received and dated January 30, 1981 shall be the approved•layouts. 2. Drainage for the subdivision shall be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the recordation of a final map. This system shall be designed to provide for siltation and erosion control both during and after construction of the project. - 3. All vehicular access right's"along Lake Street except at approved street intersections shall be dedicated to the City of Hunting- ton Beach. 4. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall -be stubbed in at the loca- tion of clothes dryers. 5. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the location of cooking facilities. -12- 2-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 13 6. Low -volume heads shall be used on all shower heads. 7. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus and unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 8. All structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with State acoustical standards set forth for all units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. 9. A chemical analysis, as well as tests for physical proper- ties of the soil on the subject property, shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. 10. The eucalyptus trees along Lake Street shall be preserved if possible. This determination shall be made after a profes- sional horitculturist has been retained by the developer to survey each of the trees and has provided a report to the Planning Commission for its determination on whether or not the trees should be removed. All trees removed by the determination of the Planning Commission shall be replaced at a ratio of two 30-inch box trees for each tree so removed. These replacement trees shall be located in the front yard setback and shall be planted in addition to the standard street tree requirements imposed by code on the project. All trees which the Planning Commission determines are not to be removed shall be fully top- and root -pruned by a professional certified by the City. Any of the eucalyptus trees which is inadvertently removed without the approval of the Planning Commission shall be re- placed with a tree of the same size as that which was so removed. 11. A tentative map shall identify the proposed alley along the east property line as a private alley. This alley shall be constructed to City standards and a private maintenance agreement shall be prepared by the developer and approved by the City which will require the maintenance of this private alley to be the responsibility of each of the property owners located within this subdivision. Said alley shall be con- structed with a rolled asphalt curb along the east side. 12. The Real Estate Report issued for the project and distributed to each buyer shall contain notification of the possibility that the adjacent easterly strip of property may in the future be used as some type of transportation corridor. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Greer, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None -13- 2-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 3, 1981 Page 14 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Elmer Olsen and Myra Lindsay addressed the Commission to discuss the possibility of obtaining a variance for the placement of a mobilehome on a temporary basis on their property on Ellis Avenue between Goldenwest and Edwards Streets. The Commission discussed the present zoning in the area and what uses would be allowed by code. The speakers were advised to take their request to the De- partment of Development Services for a review of the proper proce- dure. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the City Council meeting of February 2, 1981, for the Commission's information. Of particular note was the action taken on the closure of Taylor Street, which had been to concur with the Public Works recommendation for temporary closure to be reviewed after six months to ascertain the degree of disruption to traffic resulting from that closure before permanent closure is undertaken. Mr. Palin also informed the Commission of the proposed agenda for a joint study session to be held next week with the City Council and asked if the Commission had any other items it would like to con- sider. It was agreed that the Sign Ordinance should be a topic of discussion. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None The Commission adjourned at 10:25 p.m. to a joint study session -ith the City Council to be held on Monday, February 9, 1981, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. :at Marcus M. Porter, C an 1 -14= 2-3-81 - P.C. McAllister Mandic Kelly ' Finley Bailey Bannister Kenefick Schumacher Winchell J Catalano Holman Frank Palin Joint Study Session - February 9, 1981 - 6:30 p.m. McAllister: All we need is a revision of Division 9. Thomas: BZA shouldn't hear conditional exceptions. Bring Council statistics on whether parcel maps should go to Planning Commission and if BZA should be limited to conditional exceptions of only 10 percent. How about definitions of duites of BZA in Division 9. Hutton: No standards in Division 9 for what is administrative review. Presently it is ministerial - only question asked is does it conform to codes? g y Sec. 9815.4 request Planning Commission to consider decision of BZA (only parcel maps can't be appealed to P.C. - must go to City Council/State subdivision law allows only one body for appeal). Palin: Kenef ick : Thomas: Winchell: McAllister: Design Review Board review should run concurrently with other development review. Design Review Board should be made up of people with technical expertise - architects, planners, etc. Maybe one public member. Need Design Review Board and should expand it and give it more power. Maybe have a board composed of staff, Planning Commission member, and public member. We should give direction to the staff to reactivate the DRB. Show us what areas they currently have jurisdiction over and tell us how we might give them authority for the rest of the City. Mandic: They should look at the composition of the DRB too. McAllister: So move. Finley:_What kind of ordinances do cities that successfully use DRB's have? MOTION PASSES. Page 2 Baile : Can you give us a time line, Jim Palin? Palin: We'll get a report on it to you in the CA Thursday. McAllister: Need for revision in Division 9 is causing delays and high costs. Lack of consistency in approving plans. We should do it a section at a time. Needs to be simpli- fied and put in layman's language. Need to set a philosophy for the next 10 to 20 years. Holman: Presents density bonus information. Mandic: Concerned about making affordable housing available to qualified people only and not speculators. Thomas: Moves for an all day study session with P.C. and C.C. as suggested by Kenefick with staff. SECONDED BY KELLY AND PASSED. L_� MINUTES Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, February 9, 1981 A tape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office As a quorum of the City Council was.not present, members of the Council and Planning Commission met informally until 6:30 P.M..when a quorum was -present. Mayor Bailey called the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council to order at 6:30 P.M. Mayor Bailey stated that this meeting was a joint study session with the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL Council Present: Finley, Bailey, MacAllister, Mandic Thomas arrived 6:35 P.M.; Kelly arrived 6:50 P.M. r � Absent: Pattinson Planning Commission Present: Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher, Bannister Absent: Bauer, Porter, Greer The Director of Development Services distributed a draft report of new developments scheduled in the coastal zone. He strongly urged Council to retain the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA). He requested direction from Council regarding retention of the BZA or another board that would serve the same function such as a Coastal Administrator, Zoning Administrator, or the possibility of two Planning Commissions - one for long range planning and one to review projects and entitlements. Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council that direction be given to Development Services staff to retain the BZA, gather statistics regarding parcel maps and report back to Council. The City Attorney suggested that the Administra- tive process be reviewed. The role of the Design Review Board (DRB) was discussed by the Council and the Planning Commission. Discussion was held regarding creating a theme for the City and the possibility that the DRB could be the vehicle through which this could be realized. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Mandic, to reactivate the DRB and to direct staff to bring back a map with overlays showing current jurisdiction of the board; explore methods to implement the DRB over the whole City and examine membership of the board as to number of members and the expertise of members. The motion carried unanimously. 93 Page #2 - Council Minutes - 2/9/81 • Division 9 - Planning Code was discussed and it was generally agreed that it needed to be cleaned up. It was suggested that one section could be reviewed >> each month and reworked. June Catalano, Senior Planner, introduced Bill Holman, Assistant Planner. Mr. (Holman spoke regarding the density bonus. There was extensive discussion re- �,garding the issue of density bonuses and affordable housing. On motion by Thomas, second Kelly, Council"agreed to have an all day retreat on a Saturday, with the Planning Commission and planning staff, for the purpose of clarifying philosophy. The motion carried unanimously._ Bill Holman presented a synopsis of new laws affecting planning, zoning, develop- ment and subdivisions. The definition of low and moderate income was discussed. Dick Harlow suggested a study session with builders as they are concerned in the issues. It was the consensus of opinion that the issue of affordable housing needs further discussion. Mayor Bailey directed that the matter of a Council retreat be placed on the agenda of the next meeting. IAOLA LAND FILL EXCAVATION PROJECT Savoy Bellavia, Senior Planner, presented a copy of a letter from BCL Associates, x;s Inc., Consultants in Environmental Sciences, dated February 6, 1981. The letter pertained to the Mola landfill excavation project. The Director of Development Services suggested that Council draft a Resolution requesting the State to contact the South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding the matter. �1 y' .5 DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING/BUILDING DIVISION - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - CATALANO/VOGELSANG The Director of Development Services named June Catalano Deputy Director of Planning Division, Development Services and John Vogelsang, Deputy Director of Building Division, Development Services. PAST POSTMASTER GOENS - TO BE RECOGNIZED Councilman Kelly suggested that Council recognize the past Postmaster Wendell Goens. He stated that Mr. Goens had been Postmaster for Huntington Beach since 1976 and has been in postal service for thirty-two years. It was the consensus of Council that a plaque stating their appreciation be prepared for Mr. Goens. Page #3 - Council Minutes - 2/9/81 Afl.101IRNMFNT The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adjourned to February 17, 1981 at 6:30 P.M. in Room B-8 of the Civic Center for the purpose of meeting with the Library Board. ATTEST: 1; City Clerk City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 01, Mayor ` 9�;