Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-07r� MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1981 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Porter requested that the minutes of March 17, 1981, be withdrawn from the consent agenda. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE REMAINING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, CONFORMANCES WITH GENERAL PLAN NOS. 81-2 AND 81-3 WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 17, 1981, WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: Porter ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-7 (APPEAL) Cont. from March 17, 1981 Applicant: Cole Construction Corporation To permit the second floor of a dwelling to encroach five (5) feet into the required front yard setback on property located on the south side of Venture Drive approximately 800 feet east of Typhoon Lane. Minutes, K.B.. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 2 Savoy Bellavia reported that the staff recommendation for denial of this request has not changed. The public hearing was reopened. James Cole addressed the Commission to request a continuance of the matter, saying that the appellant intends to withdraw his appeal. There were no other persons to speak for or against the subject pro- posal, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kenefick pointed out that additional investigation of the setback situation in the City is needed to give the Commission better criteria on which to base future decisions. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BAUER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-7 (APPEAL) WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1981, AND STAFF DIRECTED TO CONDUCT FURTHER STUDY AND REPORT BACK TO THE COM- MISSION AS NOTED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11351/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-32/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-74 Applicant: 'Anthony Bartoli To permit the construction of a 16-unit condominium project on prop- erty located on the east side of Green Street approximately 513 feet south of Warner Avenue. Savoy Bellavia reported that a letter has been received from the applicant requesting a continuance to allow him to resolve prob- lems in the site plan. There were no persons in the audience to ad- dress this matter, and the public hearing was not opened. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK TT 11351, C.U.P. 80-32, AND N.D. 80-74 WERE CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-10 Applicant: Mrs. Patricia Kilby/Mr. Richard D. Kilby Jr. To permit an expansion of a non -conforming building without the pro- vision of code -required parking spaces on property located on the north side of Hartford Avenue approximately 140 feet west of Hunting- ton Street. -2- 4-7-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 3 Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that the project is non- conforming because of lack of sufficient parking spaces. The public hearing was opened. Richard Kilby addressed the Commission in favor of his proposal. There were no other persons to speak on the project, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion followed, taking into account the avail- ability of area upon which the additional parking could be pro- vided on the site and the intent of the onsite parking require- ments in the code. It was determined that the additional spaces could be provided by removal of a fence between units. Commis- sioner Kenefick discussed the rehabilitation loan program and the difficulty people are having in meeting code requirements under this program, saying that a way should be found to make it easier to comply so that properties can be upgraded. Staff re- viewed the various options which could be written into the code to attain this objective, and the Commission directed that research be done to try to bring the requirements of HCD and the City more closely into line with each other. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL EX- CEPTION NO. 80-10 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Since the subject site is similar in size, shape, topography, and location to many other properties surrounding this site, there is no exceptional circumstance applicable to this prop- erty which deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in this vicinity under the identical zoning classification. 2. Allowing this 183 square foot addition to a development which does not comply with all provisions of the Old Town Specific Plan would constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bannister (Arrived in meeting at end of discussion of this item) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-10/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.-81-10 Applicant: Donald Peart & Associates, Inc. To permit the construction of a church with chapel and related offices, meeting rooms, cultural hall, and various miscellaneous -3- 4-7-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 4 spaces on property located at the northeast corner of McFadden Avenue and Edwards Street. Savoy Bellavia discussed the project and suggested an additional condition of approval relating to trash area location. The public hearing was opened. Donald Peart addressed the Commission to describe the project. The church structure will be heavily stuccoed with a Spanish tile roof, which he noted would be very compatible with its surroundings. Mr. Peart indicated his agreement with all the suggested conditions of approval except for the deletion of the two drives closest to the intersection of McFadden and Edwards, saying that this closure would seriously alter the interior traffic circulation and cause the loss of parking spaces and possibly landscaping as well. There were no other persons to speak regarding the proposed project, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the traffic situation in the area and how this project would affect it, noting that there are five curb breaks across the street within the same distance as that from the corner to the two nearest project drives. The time of heaviest use by the church as opposed to the normal street traffic was also considered to be a factor. In response to a question on signing, Mr. Peart indicated that two signs were planned, one on each arterial near the first driveway. Each sign will be 12 square feet, and the signs will be of dark bronze with gold lettering; no illumination will be used. The tower as shown on the rendering of the plan was also discussed. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-10 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-10 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed church facility is in conformance with the Hunting- ton Beach Ordinance Code. 2. The subject site is suitable for the proposed use and will generally be compatible with surrounding commercial and residen- tial land uses. -4- 4-7-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.S. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 5 3. The proposed church facility will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community because of adequate landscaping, onsite parking, architectural design, and site layout. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated February 27, 1981, shall be the approved plan, subject to changes hereinafter stated. 2. The applicant shall provide "right turn only" signs at the exits of the two drives located closest to the intersection of McFadden Avenue and Edwards Street, and all four drive approaches shall be increased in width from 25 feet to 30 feet. 3. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services for review and approval. 5. If lighting is included in the parking lot and/or recreation area, 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. 6. All signing for the church facility shall conform to Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and shall be approved by a separate building permit. 7. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recom- mendations regarding chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 8. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during construction and during initial operation of the project shall be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board staff for its review prior to the issuance of grading permits. 9. The applicant shall submit a grading plan to the Department of Development Services for review and approval to ensure that storm runoff will not adversely impact adjacent residential properties. 10. The applicant shall submit a plan to the Department of Devel- opment Services for review and approval depicting the finished grade elevations of all proposed walls in relationship to the subject site and the surrounding properties. -5- 4-7-81 - P.C. Minutes,R.B. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 6 11. The trash area that is now depicted on the site plan shall be relocated to another area no closer than fifty (50) feet to any boundary of the subject site. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-1 Applicant: Bernard L. Samson To permit the erection of one freestanding 8 by 12 foot monument sign within a shopping center located on the south side of Warner Avenue approximately 400 feet west of Goldenwest Street. The public hearing was opened. Bernard Samson, one of the owners of the shopping center, and three tenants addressed the Commission to cite the extreme economic hard- ship which is caused by lack of adequate identification for the businesses located in the central portion of the center and partially screened by larger buildings between them and the street. The location of these shops would be most benefited by a sign on Warner Avenue, as the distance from their shops to Goldenwest Street is too great to make a sign feasible at that location. They also informed the Commission that efforts have been made to gain partial use of the market's large sign; these efforts met with no success. There were no other persons to address the Commission on this matter, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-1 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Strict compliance with the Ordinance Code will not result in a substantial economic hardship because of options available to the applicant for additional signing to the center that do not require approval of a special sign permit. 2. There is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that does not apply generally to other shopping centers located within commercial districts. 3. The granting of this special sign permit request will constitute the granting of a special privilege because an additional sign would be permitted along Goldenwest Street. 4. The existing freestanding sign is sufficient in meeting the identification needs of the shopping center if a portion of -6- 4-7-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 7 this sign were used for identifying other tenants within the shopping center and if an additional freestanding sign were constructed along Goldenwest Street. AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Bannister ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-2 Applicant: Huish Family Fun Centers, Inc. To permit a change of zone from Rl (Low Density Residential Dis- trict) to RA (Residential Agriculture District) for property located on the south side of Center Drive between Gothard Street and Beach Boulevard. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that two letters have been included with the material distributed at the meeting. He also said that staff is suggesting a continuance to allow the designation on the proposed zone change to be ROS (Recreational Open Space), which staff considers a more appropriate zoning. Both applicant and the property owner have agreed to this suggestion. The public hearing on the zone change was opened, and closed when no one was present to speak for or against the matter. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1981, TO PERMIT RE - ADVERTISING FOR THE ROS DESIGNATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO.81-8 (APPEAL? Applicant: Pacific Vacation Vehicles (dba R Family Dodge) To permit a 50 foot encroachment of a 5 foot high fence into the required 50 foot front setback and sight angle on property located on the west side of Beach Boulevard between Heil Avenue and Chrysler Drive. The public hearing was opened. A representative of the appli- cant addressed the Commission to request an extension of time to allow accumulation of further data. There were no other per- sons to sepak in regard to this matter, and the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY BANNISTER, CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-8 WAS CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLI- -7- 4-7-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 8 CANT TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-17 (Referred from BZA) Applicant: Corona Development Company, Inc. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-18 (Referred from BZA) Applicant: Corona Development Company, Inc. The above requests are to permit a portion of a main residential building to be constructed with zero side yard on both sides on properties located at the southeast corner of llth Street and Olive Avenue (C.E. 81-17) and on the southeast corner of 18th Street and Orange Avenue (C.E. 81-18). Savoy Bellavia described the proposals, which in each instance con- sist of four contiguous lots with the two interior lots both built at zero, in effect creating four -unit, side -by -side complexes. He pointed out that both Specific Plan districts allow for zero setback on two contiguous parcels, but only with an increase in setback on the opposite side. The proposal would result in no more density than is presently allowed by code, but would be 6 to 8 percent over the lot coverage allowed and would entail some increase in building square footage; however, the plan can achieve the required open space through ground floor areas and balconies. The public hearing on Conditional Exception No. 81-17 was opened. Fleetwood Joiner, architect for the projects, spoke in favor of approval, citing the creation of more usable open space, the better utilization of the property, and the increased aesthetic quality which would result from the plan. He noted that the connection occurs 50 feet back from the front property lines and will not be readily apparent from the street. Bob Corona also addressed the Commission in support of his projects. Mona Kanabalow, 220 llth Street, Elsa Green, 218 llth Street, Evelyn Cochran, 225 llth Street, and the immediately adjacent property owner all addressed the Commission in opposition to approval. These people objected to the monolithic effect they felt would result from these structures and the adverse impact they would have on the surrounding single-family neighborhood. One of the speakers also commented that the only reason for the request seems to be an economic one - an effort to achieve a larger size house on each lot than would otherwise be possible. The public hearing on C.E. 81-17 was closed. -8- 4-7-81 - P.C. 1 F� Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 9 Commissioner Kenefick questioned the conditional exception pro- cedure and noted that it had been her understanding that some type of study was to be done in regard to possible code changes. After extensive discussion with the staff and the developer, it was the consensus of the Commission that staff should research the specific plan districts and re-evaluate the standards therein for the purpose of a possible code amendment, taking into con- sideration the implications opened up by this concept proposed in these projects. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-17 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-18 TO PERMIT A CODE AMENDMENT TO BE PROCESSED. Savoy Bellavia reported that it would be 6 to 8 weeks at the least before staff could have a proposal back to the Commission on this matter. Mr. Corona indicated that financing commitments would make such a long delay difficult for him, and June Catalano pointed out that the mandatory processing date on these applications will not permit a continuance without the concur- rence of the applicant. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL EXCEP- TION NO. 81-17 WAS DENIED WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Kenefick ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The public hearing on Conditional Exception No. 81-18 was opened. Margareta Volker, owner of the directly adjacent property, spoke to oppose the project, saying that the architectural drawings are very deceptive and the connection between the buildings would be much more apparent than depicted. It was her feeling that the sturctures would really give the appearance of apart- ment buildings rather than single-family houses. There were no other persons to speak for or against this pro- posal and the public hearing was closed. The discussion outlined above for Conditional Exception No. 81-17 covered both that application and C.E. 81-18. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL EX- CEPTION NO. 81-18 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -9- 4-7-81 - P.C. Minutes, R.B, Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 10 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS 81-17 AND 81-18: 1. Since the Townlot Specific Plan allows for individual detached units on separate parcels or units developed with zero lot line concept on two contiguous 25-foot parcels, there are no exceptional circumstances unique to the petitioned properties that deprive them of privileges normally enjoyed. 2. Since the Townlot Specific Plan allows for zero lot line dev- elopment with a minimum of five (5) foot separation between every other unit, the granting of these conditional exceptions would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with normal limitations. 3. The Townlot Specific Plan allows for the development of these individual 25-foot lots; therefore, these conditional exceptions are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Kenefick ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 80-6 (Cont. from March 17, 1981) Applicant: Initiated by Development Services Ordinance for the creation of an -FP1 suffix prohibiting permanent structures and other non -open -space uses in a designated floodway. Hal Simmons of the Planning staff made a presentation on the proposed code amendment, outlining its purpose and scope. Commission review followed. (Commissioner Porter left the meeting at this point, 10:45 p.m., turn- ing the chair over to Vice Chairman Winchell.) ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CODE AMENDMENT NO. 80-6 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister,'Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None -10- 4-7-81 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 11 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 (Cont. from March 17, 1981) Applicant: Initiated by Development Services Code amendment to Article 953 which will allow outside storage and special criteria for establishing said uses within the industrial district. Savoy Bellavia reviewed the intent and provisions in the pro- posed ordinance change. He informed the Commission that in addition to the original approach of regulating outside storage the Article was revised in its entirety in order to provide a better and more efficient format. Legal counsel Jim Georges pointed out that there have been some very minor changes in wording and format between the Planning staff's original draft and the legislative copy prepared by the Attorney's office. After review, Secretary Palin said that some of the changes appear to be quite substantive and he could not endorse the amendment as' presently structured; he therefore recommended a continuance to allow clarification. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BAUER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-3 (Cont. from March 17, 1981) Applicant: Initiated by Department of Public Works To permit amendment to Article 970•by adding a definition of private roadways and amendment to Article 973 by requiring street improvements pursuant to Department of Public Works standard plans for private roadways. Savoy Bellavia outlined the three portions of the proposed code amendment, which will result in application of standard plans and current setback and development requirements to private streets in the City. The public hearing was opened. No one was present to discuss the amendment, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY BAUER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-3 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -11- 4-7-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 12 PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 80-1 Applicant: Initiated by Development Services A proposal to precise plan private streets over existing easements to provide access to interior properties located in an area north of Pearce Street and west of Green Street. Savoy Bellavia described the proposed alignment of Hideaway Circle, Sandy Lane, and an unnamed street in the southerly portion of the subject area. These are now proposed to be designed as overlays on already existing private easements; this layout is considered to be the most feasible to implement and will take less of any one owner's property than any of the alternatives previously presented. The minimum private street width would be 33 feet, adding only six and one-half feet on each side of the 20-foot easements, which will pro- vide reasonable access into all the properties. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Thomas Kardos addressed the Commission to state that in his opinion the streets would take too much of his property, as he would be required to dedicate on either end of his lot. He also asked if there could be some way to form an assessment district so that all benefiting property owners would share in the improvements of Green Street, on which the length of his property fronts. Michael Grant informed the Commission that the present easements are off -center - they do not take 10 feet from either side but 6 from some lots and 4 from others. Therefore, the additional taking of 6 and 1/2 feet from either side will result in some owners being left with unbuildable lots. He added also that some projects are now built very close to the easement lines and the streets would run too close to the houses. Marvia Ekedal , a resident on Hideaway Circle, expressed concern. with how additional width for the street could be taken from already developed properties. Staff responded that in most cases present construction is set back far enough to allow the extra width to be taken. Eva Kardos asked for clarification on the amount of property she and her husband would be required to dedicate and who would be expected to improve the streets to the north and south of her lot. James Neal stated that he did not think the precise plan will solve the problems in the area and perhaps the City should be considering some kind of redevelopment activity for the properties involved. The public hearing was closed. -12- 4-7-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 13 Commission discussed the number of unusable lots which would be left as a result of the precise plan. Staff informed them that there would be only four such lots, which would probably then have to go to consolidation. The possibility of the City making some efforts toward consolidation instead of implementing the precise plan was reviewed, and Mr. Bellavia noted that the only way the City could get involved would be some type of redevelop- ment procedure, which would require action by the City Council. After extensive discussion it was the general consensus that the present plan provides far better access with less damage to property owners than any other alternative, and inaction would only further compound the problem because additional units may be built if the plan is continued for further study. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BAUER AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL TO APPROVE PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 81-1 FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Commissioner Schumacher pointed out that the plan has a particu- larly adverse impact on Parcel 38, leaving part of the lot above and part below Sandy Lane. After review, it was suggested that the plan could be amended to provide that if the parcels at the westerly end of the area now under the same ownership package with Parcel 38 are developed as a single project the street could be terminated at Parcel 38; this would provide access to that par- cel and all others. It could be further conditioned that if those lots are separated by sale Sandy Lane would have to penetrate to the western boundary of the area as depicted on the diagram in the staff report reviewed at this meeting. THE MAKER OF THE MOTION AND THE SECOND BOTH AGREED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE TWO CONDITIONS OUTLINED ABOVE, AND THE PRECISE PLAN WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT Prepared by Planning Staff Carol Inge made a presentation on the Element for the Commission's information. She presented an overview description of the systems serving, the City - what condition they are in, what improvements are made, what funds are available, if funds will be sufficient, and what general kinds of project should be funded first. She reviewed the recommended policy package and pointed out changes to the text which have resulted from preliminary review of the docu- ment. -13- 4-7-81 P.C. Minutes, H.B..Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 14 ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BAUER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-8 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION, BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1272, APPROVED THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-7 (Proposed Sign) Applicant: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange Submittal of a proposed sign per the conditions of approval imposed upon the construction of a church facility located on the north side of Talbert Avenue approximately 440 feet west of Newland Avenue. Staff reviewed the proposed sign with the'Commission. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE SIGN AS SUBMITTED AS THIS MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-1 Initiated by Planning Division June Catalano requested that the Commission continue this item. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY BAUER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None -14- 4-7-81 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 15 June Catalano asked if the Commission would be interested in a tour of the areas contained in the General Plan Amendment. Staff was requested by the Commission to consider setting up such a tour just prior to the public hearing on the amendment. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the City Council meeting of April 6, 1981, for the information of the Commission. He announced that Commissioner Bauer had submitted his resig- nation from the Commission at that meeting, to become effective April 20, 1981. The Commission expressed its regret and commended Mr. Bauer for his service. Commissioner Kenefick also requested that a letter of commendation be sent to Bruce Greer for his participation on the Commission. Staff will draft a letter for the Chairman's signature. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Savoy Bellavia announced that Westminster is processing a zone change on a piece of property abutting the City boundary. This zone change is from R2 (8 to 12 units per acre) to R5 (19 to 24 units per acre). The area abuts a residential area in Huntington Beach, and the staff would like to know if the Com- mission wishes to.take any position on the change of zone. After discussion of the possible impact on the City and what services Huntington Beach provides to the area, staff was dir- ected to communicate with the City of Westminster to request that care be taken in the approval of any ultimate project on the subject property that sufficient setbacks are provided to protect the privacy of the adjoining single-family residences in the City. COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Schumacher asked for a legal opinion as to whether or not she should abstain from voting on the code amendment affecting the M1-A-District. Commissioner Bauer -expressed his appreciation at the opportunity to serve with his fellow Commissioners and his regret that business obligations have made it impossible to continue. Commissioner Winchell discussed the two conditional exceptions filed by the Corona Company and asked that the staff prepare a list of any similar projects in the City and their locations so that the Commissioners may view them. Ms. Schumacher also requested permission to be absent from the next meeting. -15- 4-7-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 7, 1981 Page 16 STAFF ITEM: June Catalano announced that the tentative public hearing date before the Regional Coastal Commission for the Local Coastal Plan is May 11. The staff hopes to have the Coastal staff's comments in hand by April 25 or 26 and will transmit them to the Commission as soon as they are received. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 11:35 to a joint study session with the City Council on Monday, April 13, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. Purpose of this study session is to review the report of the Condominium Conversion_ Committee. Marcus M. o ter, ai an 1 -16- 4-7-81 - P.C.