Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-21Approved May 5, 1981 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington{Beach, California TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1981 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Schumacher CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BANNISTER THE CONSENT AGENDA, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 7, 1981, AND A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR C.U.P. 78-13 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10414, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Paone (Paone voted only on NOES: Winchell the extension of time) ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Paone (in regard to the minutes only) Chairman Porter and the Commission welcomed new Commissioner Tim Paone. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-7 - APPEAL '(Cont. from April 7, 1981) Applicant: Cole Construction Corporation To permit a 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. The public hearing had been continued from the prior meeting. Savoy Bellavia reported that, although the applicant had indicated that the appellant intended to withdraw his appeal, no letter of withdrawal has been received by the staff. There were no persons present to speak for or against this proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 21, 1981 Page 2 Commissioner Kenefick repeated her previous concern about denying a project of this nature when many similar projects have been allowed in the Harbour; she also asked again that some type of ord- inance change should be contemplated to handle situations of this sort. Legal counsel Georges advised that past actions should not be a consideration in reaching a decision on any specific request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO DENY CON- DITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-7 WITH THE FINDINGS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Further discussion ensued, following which Porter withdrew his second because he had not been present at the prior public hearing nor reviewed the tapes. Since Commissioner Paone had not heard the prior testimony either, the required four affirmative votes can- not be obtained.on the motion. Motion died for lack of a second. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-7 WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 5, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-8 - APPEAL (Cont. from April 7, 1981) 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 yard setback and sight angle on property located on the west side of Beach Boulevard between Heil Avenue and Chrysler Drive. The public hearing was reopened. Ray Soto, president of R Family Dodge, addressed the Commission in support of his request, citing the danger to persons on the site and the pressing need for site security from theft and vandalism. He described his proposed fence and presented pictures of similar fences around facilities similar to his in other cities in the area, and expressed the opinion that the fence will not detract aestheti- cally from the property. There were no other persons to speak for or against the project, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the safety aspects, as well as the need to continue to provide landscaping on Beach Boulevard. In response to Commission questioning, staff reported that a fence of the height requested could legally be put 25 feet back from the property line. -2- 4-21-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 21, 1981 Page 3 It was the consensus of the Commission that allowing the fence at the property line would establish a very undesirable preced- ent but that some flexibility was advisable to provide the businesses along Beach Boulevard with site security. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-8 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Based on the size, shape, configuration, and location of the subject property, there is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance which does not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same district. 2. A five (5) foot high wrought iron fence within the front and side yard setbacks and within the sight angle is not nec- essary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. There is not sufficient hardship demonstrated to justify approval of this proposal. Approval of this exception would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent upon other sim- ilar uses in the area and would set an undesirable precedent. 4. The granting of this exception would create a hazardous traffic problem. AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PURSUE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDRESSING THE SECURITY NEEDS OF BUSINESSES SUCH AS THE AUTO DEALERS AND THE NEED FOR SUFFICIENT LANDSCAPING ALONG THE BEACH BOULEVARD CORRIDOR, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81=2 (Cont. from April 7, 1981) Applicant: Huish Family Fun Centers, Inc. To permit a change of zone from R1 (Low Density Residential) to ROS (Recreational Open Space) district on property located on the south side of Center Drive between Gothard Street and Beach Boulevard. -3- 4-21-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 21, 1981 Page 4 Savoy Bellavia reported that no public testimony had been taken at the April 7th meeting because staff had requested a continuance to readvertise the request for a change to ROS, recreational open space. He also noted that there have been three letters submitted to the Commission in opposition to the change of zone. The public hearing was opened. James Troxel, employee of one of the owners of Huntington Center, addressed the Commission to oppose the proposed zone change. He de- scribed the plans for renovating the center, which he felt would be put in jeopardy by approval of this request. It was his feeling that the ultimate use proposed for this property would have an adverse effect on Huntington Center and the Old World complex to the north, would add to the crowded conditions of the parking lot, and would impact the surrounding arterial traffic. Mr. Huish, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the request, saying that there is a very large demand for outdoor recreation facilities in the City and the proposed location is an ideal site. He informed the Commission that his family operates a recreation facility in Fountain Valley on Magnolia Street, and in their experience the parking problem would be minimal, as there is space for 120 parking places on the subject site. Another -factor is that the peak hours of operation for the recreational facility and the surrounding commercial uses will not be the same. Richard Bibee, property manager for Huntington Center, spoke against the proposal, saying it is an inconsistent use to place in the middle of a heavy commercial zone and would have an adverse impact on security, traffic, and parking problems. There were no other persons to speak for or against the zone change, and the public hearing was closed. Extensive discussion took place on the uses allowed in the ROS and RA zoning designations, with legal counsel Jim Georges noting that the significant difference between the two seemed to be that detached, single-family dwellings are permitted under the RA zone. It'was the consensus of the Commission that, although the present R1 zoning is both an undesirable designation for the property and is"inconsistent with the General Plan, the ROS is not an appropriate designation be- cause of the mix of the immediately adjacent uses. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-11 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None -4- 4-21-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 21, 1981 Page 5 ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-2 WAS DENIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11351/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-32/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-64 Applicant: Anthony Bartoli (Cont. from April 7, 1981) A request to construct a 16-unit condominium development on property located on the east side of Green Street approximately 515 feet south of Warner Avenue. Savoy Bellavia pointed out to the Commission that the plan has been amended to provide some additional open space and is now conforming except for two areas which will require a special permit: 1) common open space, and 2) common recreational area. The public hearing was opened. John Cowles, representing the applicant, spoke to the Commission to urge approval of his request, citing a prior approval for a similar type development. He noted that although the open space is some- what deficient it is functional and relates well to the units it is intended to serve; he also pointed out the difficulty in meeting the PRD requirements on a small parcel such as the subject property. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. The difficulty the small lot developers are having meeting the code requirements was reviewed, and the general opinion was that there should be different requirements for small parcels as opposed to the large developments envisioned when the code was written. Commissioner Porter discussed the desirability of the construction of the apartment project which has also been approved for this property, which he said might be a welcome addition to the rental stock in the City; however, the consensus of the Com- mission was that the size of the lot does provide justification for lowering the open space requirements for the condominium pro- ject. Savoy Bellavia pointed out that no findings or conditions of approval have been submitted and staff will require time to pre- pare them. After an unseconded motion to continue the proposal to the next meeting to allow findings and -conditions to be pre- pared, Chairman Porter ruled the motion out of order because the mandatory processing date will not permit a continuance without the consent of the applicant. -5- 4-21-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.S. Planning Commission April 21, 1981 Page 6 The procedural problem was explained to John Cowles, the appli- cant's representative, and he concurred with a continuance. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-64 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None, ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY BANNISTER TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11351 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-32 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MAY 5, 1981, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE APPLICANT, AND THE STAFF DIR- ECTED TO PREPARE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONSWHICHWOULD PERMIT THE COM- MISSION TO APPROVE SUBJECT PROJECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PRE- PARE A SMALL LOT CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 (Cont. from April 7, 1981) Initiated by the.City An amendment to Article 953 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to allow outside storage and special criteria for establishing said uses within this district. Savoy Bellavia reported that the ordinance has not been completed and asked for a continuance. There were no persons in the audience who wished to address this matter, and the public hearing was not re- opened. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MAY 5, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None -6- 4-21-81 - P:C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 21, 1981 Page 7 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-4 Initiated by the City An amendment to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code adding new Article 968 (Oil Districts) and effecting several major revisions including the elimination of the 0-2 district. June Catalano briefly reviewed the background on the amendment for the Commission's information and informed them that Mike Multari, who has headed the research during its preparation, will be at the next hearing to review the oil code in detail. The public hearing was opened. There were no persons present to speak for or against the amendment, and the public hearing was closed. Hal Simmons gave a presentation on the amendment. In response to questioning from the Commission, he noted that the code specifi- cally addresses the maintenance of landscaping around oil wells and the use of temporary storage as needed for the duration of drilling operations, after which such facilities would have to be removed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-4 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY KENEFICK STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO IDENTIFY ALL ACTIVE OIL WELLS WHICH ARE ON PROPERTIES WHICH ARE NOT NOW IN AN OIL DISTRICT, AND TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO ADD THE "0" SUFFIX TO THOSE PROPERTIES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Porter DISCUSSION ITEMS: SPECIFIC PLAN FOR SOUTH SIDE OF TALBERT, WEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD Savoy Bellavia outlined the history of the specific plan which has been submitted for review as an effort to comply with a condition placed on a previously approved zone change in this area. The staff has reviewed both the specific plan and a pre- -7- 4-21-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 21, 1981 Page 8 liminary site plan prepared by one of the four major landowners in this 12 acre parcel, and finds that there is some merit in the pro- posal. If the Commission concurs with this approach, staff will meet again with the proposed developer and set a precise plan for the 40-foot street through the area, designate the properties as planned residential development, and institute a specific plan for the total area. The proposal was reviewed by the Commission. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT AND INITIATE A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE AREA IN QUESTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Mr. Bellavia indicated that this should be on the agenda for the first or second Commission meeting in May. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-1 Initiated by Development Services Mike Adams outlined each of the areas of concern contained in the proposed General Plan amendment, describing the changes requested, the existing conditions on the sites, the anticipated impacts on the surrounding areas, the major land use and environmental issues involved, and the consistency of the proposed changes with adopted City goals and policies. On Area of Concern 2.1, east of Beach and south of Ellis, the Com- mission's principal concern was with the traffic impacts which would result from taking access off Ellis Avenue so near the corner of Beach and Ellis. Commissioner Bannister suggested that a traffic study be done prior to any decision being made, as continuing devel- opment on Ellis on the west side of Beach Boulevard will result in a heavily impacted intersection. Commissioner Porter discussed the viability of utilizing this site for residential units, consider- ing the access problem and the developed commercial site directly to the west. Area of Concern 2.3 at Adams and Beach was seen by the Commission to have concerns in the areas of relationship of the ultimate project to the adjacent developed properties and access and traffic genera- tion. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SET GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT THE MEETING OF MAY 19, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None -8- 4-21-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 21, 1981 Page 9 REVISIONS TO THE CITY OIL CODE Initiated by the City June Catalano indicated to the Commission that the draft oil code submitted to them in their packets will not be submitted to them on a formal basis, but has been distributed for their review and comment. If any Commissioner has any input or com- ment on the proposed revisions the staff will forward those to the City Council when it considers the amendment. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Secretary Palin reviewed the actions taken at the City Council meeting of April 20, 1981, for the Commission's information. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Savoy Bellavia announced the Subcommittee Meeting scheduled for Friday April 24, at 8:30 a.m. COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS: Commissioner Kenefick again discussed the apparent dilemma of one division in the City urging persons to apply for rehabilita- tion loans while another division enforces regulations which make it almost impossible for them to upgrade their properties. Staff explained the legal ramifications and informed the Commis- sion that meetings have been held with the Housing and Community Development staff to coordinate their activites with the code re- quirements. Staff will submit information at the next Commission meeting explaining the HCD process and the meetings which have' been held; Ms. Catalano also said it could be arranged to have Steve Kohler present at a study session in the near future to go over his operation with the Commission. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY WINCHELL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO FIND ALTERNATIVES TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO BRING HCD LOANS INTO .TARGET AREAS OF THE CITY FOR POSSIBLE REHABILITATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Kenefick discussed the zone change which had been denied on property on the south side of Center Drive between Gothard Street and Beach Boulevard, asking if the Commission would want to rezone this property to bring it into consistency with the General Plan. -9- 4-21-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 21, 1981 Page 10 ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO STUDY THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE DENIED ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-2 FOR A ZONING DESIGNATION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None STAFF ITEMS: Legal counsel Jim Georges reported informally to the Commission in regard to Commissioner'Schumacher's request to know whether or not she should disqualify herself from voting on a matter involving the industrial district when her family's business is located in such district. He informed them that if a Commissioner feels a project will have a material financial effect on his or her personal business the decision is theirs alone to make. Commissioner Bannister then asked for a definition of what the Attorney's office would consider a "material" financial effect. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT A FORMAL REQUEST FOR WRITTEN LEGAL OPINIONS ON REASONS FOR ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A PROJECT AND WHAT CONSTITUTES -MATERIAL FINANCIAL EFFECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES:. None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None There being no further business the Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m. :df Marcus M. Porter, rman 1 -10- 4-21-81 - P.C.