Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-19Approved June 16, 1981 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1981 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: - Civic Center California Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 5, 1981, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: LAND USE ELEMENT 81-1/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-2 Applicant: Initiated by Department of Development Services and Housing Dynamic, R & R Investment Company, and the Mola Development Corporation Land Use Element 81-1/General Plan Amendment requests for changes in land use designations as shown on the General Plan for four areas of concern within the City. Mike Adams of the Planning staff presented a brief overview of the proposed land use amendments, outlining the locations and re- quested changes for each area of concern. It was the determination of the Commission to open the public hearings and take public testimony on each area separately, taking a straw vote on each before progressing to the next portion of the amendment. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 2 AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 Applicant: Housing Dynamic, Inc. A request for a change of general plan designation from general com- mercial to high density residential for a 1.89 acre parcel of land located south of Ellis Avenue approximately 400 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Mike Adams informed the Commission.that the request is made for the purpose of constructing a 27-unit condominium project on the subject parcel; this would be consistent with the medium density residential developments to the east and south, but might not be compatible with the existing commercial to the west. Staff is recommending denial of the request and retention of the general commercial classification on the property. The Commission discussed the compatibility of the proposal with the existing uses in the area, the feasibility of future highrise con- struction on the properties, and the access easement between the sub- ject property and the existing commercial development to the west. Traffic problems which might result from a residential project on the property exiting onto Ellis Avenue were also reviewed. The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.1 was opened. Jeff Echert, representing Housing Dynamics, addressed the Commission to urge approval of the request. He informed them that the 40-foot easement separating the Town and Country shopping center from the proposed project site is on the subject property and is not an alley- way. Negotiations with the owners can reduce it anywhere from its present width to zero and there is no requirement imposed by the City for the use of that easement as access to the shopping center. He also noted that a commercial development on this property could not access directly from Beach Boulevard as there is no public access through the shopping center; therefore, a commercial as well as a resi- dential development would have to access off Ellis Avenue. It was Mr. Echert!s,opinion that the traffic count from a commercial devel- opment would be higher than that which could be expected from the residential project, and the two-story condominiums would have less impact upon the neighboring uses than would a three- or four-story commercial project. Charles Sheppard, resident of the area, addressed the Commission to ask how the excess traffic could be handled on an already over -burdened street. Gerald Kohn, operator of a school presently occupying the subject property, spoke to the Commission to urge approval of the redesigna- tion, saying that it would provide needed low-cost housing for young families. Gene Lassers, real estate broker, spoke to the Commission to describe the attempts made first to develop the property as office professional and then to obtain the requested residential designation. -2- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 3 The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.1 was closed. The Commission again discussed the proposal, considering the recycling possibilities on the Town and Country site. Commis- sioner Paone questioned whether or not that site would be adequate alone to accommodate highrise in the future, and was told that staff felt it would support such development without the property to the east. The aspect of the subject property's availability for buffering such a future development from the existing residential was also considered. Commissioner Kenefick expressed her opposition to the redesignation, citing the City's prior experiences resulting from placing residential and commercial properties in such close proximity, which had resulted in noise, traffic, and intrusion of privacy problems. A MOTION WAS MADE FOR A STRAW VOTE DENYING THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FOR AREA OF CONCERN 2.1 AND DELETING IT FROM RESOLUTION NO. 1273. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ■ ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 2.2 Applicant: R & R Investment Company Request for a change of general plan designation from medium density residential to high density residential on a 2.5 acre parcel of land located north of Newman Avenue approximately 630 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Mike Adams outlined the applicant's intention to build 54 units on the property if the designation and zoning are changed to allow it. Staff is recommending approval because of the generally high density character of the neighborhood, the indication from the traffic analysis that the streets are adequate, and because the proposal provides an opportunity to add to the housing stock of the community in a fashion which will be compatible with the surrounding area. The Commission discussed access via Newman Avenue and the possibility of installation of a traffic signal at Newman and Beach. Bruce Gilmer of Public Works reported that all they have from CalTrans on that intersection is an indication that the signal is being con- sidered, but no date for installation. The signal, however, is about fifth on the City's priority list. The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.2 was opened. -3- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 4 Dick Schwartz, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission to concur with staff's recommendations. He informed the Commission that easement rights have been obtained across the adjoining prop- erty to Michael Drive for sewer and storm drain installation. Dr. Steven Goldberger spoke on the increased traffic counts which would result from the redesignation and ultimate project, saying that the minimum number of units should be approved and a signal actively pursued for the intersection of Beach and Newman. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed land use designation, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission and staff reviewed the anticipated vehicle trips per day from the ultimate project; Bruce Gilmer explained how Pub- lic Works had arrived at its conclusion that the street network in the area is sufficient for the increase in traffic such a project will entail. In response to questioning from the Commission regarding the effect of a possible affordable housing bonus request, staff reviewed the applicable State law. It was pointed out that, although the present City code forbids any project from exceeding the density allowdd under the General Plan, State law has mandated that if a density bonus cannot be granted an applicant is entitled to his choice of two other alternative write -downs for the provision of low cost housing within his development; these alternatives might prove costly to the City. However, there is some leeway in the zoning category and the low end of the High Density designation could be applied to provide the City some protection if this portion of the Element is approved. The Commission reviewed the desirability of leaving the area medium den- sity to allow flexibility for the density bonus, and the suggestion was made that the Commission again consider a code amendment to remove the constraints in working with the State law in this regard. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL FOR A STRAW VOTE TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR REDESIGNATION OF AREA OF CONCERN NO. 2.2. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that the zone change which is being processed concurrently with the General Plan Amendment has been advertised as R3-22, which is less than the 25 units allowed by the normal R3 designation. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY KENEFICK FOR A STRAW VOTE APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR REDESIGNATION OF AREA OF CONCERN NO. 2.2. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -4- Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 5 AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Paone NOES: Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 2.3 Applicant: Mola Development Corporation To permit redesignation of a 59.55 acre parcel of land located on the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue from Resource Production, Commercial, and Low Density Residential to Planned Community. Mike Adams described the area and the surrounding uses. He noted that approval of the redesignation request will then require that a Specific Plan be processed for any ultimate development of the site. The public hearing on Area of Concern 2.3 was opened. Frank Mola, applicant, addressed the Commission in support of his request, describing the constraints on the property and the efforts he has made to mitigate them in his conceptual plans. Street layouts and design of the units will be directly influenced by the need to buffer the existing residential developments to the east and south, with the higher density development taking place on the west side of the flood control channel abutting Beach Boulevard. Commissioner Paone cautioned the audience that the Commission is not addressing the plans shown by the applicant, but only whether or not Mr. Mola is to be given the opportunity to present a Specific Plan for a planned development project, and that comments to the Commission should not concentrate on the conceptual plan before them. The following persons spoke against the proposed redesignation: Michael MacDonald, 20072 Cape Cottage Lane; Dorothy Gruleck; Ed Kuhlmann, 8232 Munster Drive; Jim Lees, Summerfield Homes; D. Lolla; Mike Moler, 20332 Lighthouse Land; and John Cogorne, 20302 Sea Circle. The speakers cited increased crime rates, in- creased traffic and noise impacts, earthquake hazard in the area, the possibility that speculators would purchase the dwellings and turn the project into rental units, the impact on school and City services, and the general incompatibility of the high density with the existing residential in the vicinity. Of particular con- cern was the traffic circulation for the project, with the general opinion being that there should be no circulation between the proposed acreage and the existing neighborhoods. Also emphasized was the cumulative impact on the intersection of Adams Avenue and Coldwater Drive, with the suggestion made that signalization of that intersection should occur, with or without the high -5 - 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 6 density designation. It was the unanimous conclusion of those who addressed the Commission that the construction of a planned develop= ment on the subject property would place high density, high rise structures in too close proximity to their homes and would be totally incompatible with their neighborhoods. Andrew Suziki and Will Haynes, who will be employed by Mola Corpora- tion in the design and construction of the proposed development, spoke to the Commission to answer some of the concerns of the neigh- boring residents. They pointed out that in their opinion low density would bring in more people than the higher density proposed, as the units in the planned development would be designed for one or two per- son occupancy. The also said that single-family construction would result in higher traffic counts and might lead to traffic circulation through adjacent tracts; that no school impacts would result from the planned development designation; and that increased crime as feared by the neighboring residents is not necessarily a question of pure density, but more accurately a function of demographics. There were no other persons to speak to the Commission on this area of concern, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. Staff was asked to respond to the alleged earthquake hazard which had been addressed in the public comments. Secretary Palin noted that the informtion submitted in support of the allegation is dated, and the Special Study Zone has been moved back to the bluffline in the Bolsa Chica; the other known earthquake fault zones underlying the City show no surface traces and there is no re- quirement under the Alquist-Priolo Act that surface structures must be set back a specific distance from those fault lines. He also ex- plained the building requirements (such as shear panels, connections, and bearings) which are required in the design of structures to ensure that such structures can withstand identified g-factors. A lengthy discussion on the densities proposed was held. It was em- phasized by staff that although the staff report does contain some references to density these references were intended to be used in the processing of the Specific Plan for the area if one is submitted, and it is the Specific Plan itself which will set the density on the parcel. At this point in the process, the planned development desig- nation could mean any number of units per acre, and could provide the City more flexibility in obtaining an overall quality project, what- ever the density which is ultimately placed on the property. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY KENEFICK FOR A STRAW VOTE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR REDESIGNATION OF AREA OF CONCERN NO. 2.3. Further discussion followed on the inclusion in the Land Use Element 81-1 of any ref_e_rence to b the numer^o_f units or nature of the future specific plan. Discussion also took place on the contents of the transmittal to the City Council aid the notification procedures for the ultimate project on the property. -6- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 7 A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION, SAID AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE LAST LINE OF PAGE 42 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5 ON PAGE 43 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT REFERRING TO DENSITIES AND LOCATIONS OF UNITS WITHIN A FUTURE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON AREA OF CONCERN NO. 2.3. MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Kenefick, Paone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None THE ORIGINAL MOTION FOR THE STRAW VOTE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR AREA OF CONCERN NO. 2.3, AS AMENDED ABOVE, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick.Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened at 10:05 p.m. AREA OF CONCERN NO. 3.1 Applicant: Initiated by the City Council A proposal to redesignate 116.15 acres of land in the Townlot Specific Plan, Area "A" from low density residential to medium density residential. The public hearing on Area of Concern No. 3.1 was opened and closed when no one was present to address the Commission either for or against the proposal. Staff reported that approval of this proposal will bring the land use designation and the zoning for the area into consistency. Brief Commission discussion took place. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY BANNISTER FOR A STRAW VOTE TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED REDESIGNATION FOR AREA OF CONCERN NO. 3.1. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY BANNISTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-2 WAS ADOPTED AS AMENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: Kenefick ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -7- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 8 ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-1 FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 1273, SAID RESOLUTION AMENDED TO DELETE AREA OF CONCERN 2.1, TO MODIFY AREA OF CONCERN 2.3 AS REFLECTED BY THE AMENDED STRAW VOTE ON THAT ITEM, AND TO INCLUDE THE FULL COMMISSION ROLL CALL VOTE ON EACH OF THE STRAW VOTES TAKEN ON EACH AREA OF CONCERN. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-7 Applicant: R. R. Investment Company A request to change the zoning from R2 (Medium Density Residential) to R3-22 (Medium -High Density Residential allowing 22 units per gross acre) on 2.5 acres of property located on the north side of Newman Ave- nue approximately 850 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Staff pointed out that this is a new approach in processing a zone change concurrently with the requested General Plan redesignation (this request had been addressed as Area of Concern 2.2 in the Land , Use Element amendment). Ths public hearing was opened. Dan Salceda, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the zone change. In response to the Commission's concern about the den- sity bonus when the General Plan had been discussed, Mr. Salceda indicated that they would not ask later for the density bonus, as it is their intention to build only 54 units on the site. This type of development, he said, would be the most compatible with the sur- rounding residential areas. There were no other persons to speak for or against the proposed change of zone, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission briefly discussed how access would be taken to the ultimate development on the site. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BANNISTER ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-7 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING: The applicant's request for Zone Change No. 81-8 will be consistent with the General Plan only after approval of Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-1. - 8 - 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 9 AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Paone NOES: Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-12 (APPEAL) Applicant & Appellant: Jerry Janowski To permit a six (6) foot high block wall to encroach five (5) feet into the front yard setback on property located on the west side of Marina View Street and north of Los Patos. Savoy Bellavia reported that the applicant has requested a con- tinuance to the next meeting. The public hearing was opened and closed. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CONDITIONAL EXCEP- TION NO. 81-12 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1981 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-15/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11498 Applicant: Robert D. Mickelson To permit the conversion of 120 apartment units located on the east side of Magnolia Street approximately 520 feet south of Garfield Avenue into condominiums. Savoy Bellavia reported that the applicant has also requested a special permit on this project. The public hearing was opened. Robert Mickelson addressed the Commission to ask for approval of his project, explaining why the request had been filed ahead of the condominium conversion ordinance, which he said was due to a financial situation which allows him to make commitments now that he might not be able to make later on. He pointed out that it is planned to provide 25 percent of the units as affordable housing within a $40,000 to $60,000 price range, and that although the project cannot meet the development standards of the current PRD ordinance the quality of the project is high, particularly in the type of open space provided. In response to questioning from the Commission, Mr.Mickelson said that he had personally hand -delivered the required notices to his tenants on May 12, 1981. The public hearing was closed. -9- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 10 In the following Commission discussion the Commission considered whether or not such a project would really be able to provide afford- able housing and whether or not retaining the rental stock might not be a more effective way of providing that lower cost housing. It was the consensus of the Commission that the request is premature and should be delayed until after processing of the condominium ordinance. Jim Georges, legal counsel, estimated that the ordin- ance will take from four to seven weeks to prepare for Commission's consideration. Mr. Mickelson then requested a two month's continu- ance of his request. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY PORTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-15 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11498 WERE CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 21, 1981, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-5 Applicant: Max S. Schreiber/James A. Thomas To permit a change of zone from C3 to Rl, Townlot Specific Plan, on property located on the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and llth Street. The public hearing was opened,and closed when no one was present to speak to the matter. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-5 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. A change of zone from C3, General Business District, to Townlot Specific Plan Area One, Section A is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential. 2. The proposed zone change is compatible with surrounding land uses because they are generally residential. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -10- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 11 ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-6 Applicant: David E. Miller A request to permit a change of zone from C4 to R2 on .34 acres of land on the west side of Beach Boulevard north of Adams Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Jay Truax, representing the applicant, explained the need to extend the residential zoning over this small parcel in order to provide housing for Wycliffe employees who are unable to obtain housing in this area. There were no other persons to speak for or against the matter, and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-6 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING: The proposed zone change for this property of less than one acre in size is consistent with the General Plan designation of medium density residential. AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: Bannister ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-05/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81-562 Applicant: Billy Neal Lavinger A request to create one lot from two existing parcels of land and to permit a reduction in lot width from the required sixty (60) feet to 58.5 feet and a reduction in lot area from the re- quired 6,000 square feet to 2,676 square feet on property located on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway approximately 425 feet southeast of Admiralty Drive. The public hearing was opened. Billy Neal Lavinger addressed the Commission to comment upon the proposal, saying that he has the support of the neighboring residents, that construction upon the lot would be of benefit to the neighborhood by removing a present eyesore in the community, and that there are many other lots in the immediate vicinity which do not meet the code requirements. In response to questioning from the Commission about the possibility of acquiring a portion of the adjacent Bank of America property to enlarge his site, he informed the Commission that he has contacted the bank and they are not in- -11- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 12 terested either in selling him a portion of their property or pur- chasing his lot to add to their site. There were no other persons present to speak on the matter, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed what plans the Bank of America may have for their parcel, as those plans might render any dwelling on the sub- ject parcel incompatible with what occurs next door. Also reviewed was the precedent -setting nature which any approval of the request would probably have in the City. Secretary Palin briefly reviewed how this small remnant parcel might have been created and what legal remedies are available to the City under the State Map Act and to the present owner to attempt to recoup his costs. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO DENY CONDI- TIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-05 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81-562 WITH THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Paone NOES: Bannister, Kenefick, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant should make one more effort to work out something with the Bank of America, and Mr. Lavinger agreed to do this. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-05 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81-562 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-16 Applicant: Maxwell's To permit establishment of an amusement arcade located on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway at the head of the Huntington Beach pier. The public hearing was opened. Paul Wimmon, 2012 Sea Drift, Corona del Mar, addressed the Commis- sion as a representative of the applicant, He concurred with the suggested conditions of approval except for the restriction on the hours of operation, which he requested be amended to 12:00 midnight, at least through the summer months. -12- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 13 There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. Savoy Bellavia reported that the restriction suggested by the staff for the hours of operation had been the result of its discussions with the Police Department. The project was re- viewed by the Commission. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-16 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed use is in conformance with the land use desig- nation on the General Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plan received and dated April 21, 1981, 'shall be the approved layout. 2. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight during the months of June, July, August, and September and to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. during the remainder of the year; these hours shall apply seven (7) days per week. The conditional use permit shall automatically return to the Planning Commission within 90 days of the commencement of its operation, at which time the hours of operation shall be subject to review and possible amendment by the Commission. 3. The facilities shall be supervised at all times during oper- ating hours by at least one adult attendant. 4. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable Building and Fire Department regulations. 5. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violation of the applicable zoning laws or of these conditions of approval. Such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based upon specific findings. AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: Bannister ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -13- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-13/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-19 Applicant: Fred Burkett To permit the construction of additional stables on property loc- ated on the east side of the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street. Staff reported that the applicant has requested a two -week contin- uance of this request. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-13 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-19 WERE CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO THE JUNE 2, 1981 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 81-1 Initiated by the Department of Development Services A request to align a private street for the purpose of providing access to a 12-acre site located on the south side of Talbert Avenue approximately 450 feet west of Beach Boulevard. Staff informed the Commission that material necessary for the prep- aration of the precise plan had not arrived in time for this meeting; however, staff has received the material and work is pro- gressing. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 81-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 Initiated by the Department of Development Services 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. It was the consensus of the Commission that there was insufficient time allowed for the review of this code amendment and the modifica- tions which had been made; a continuation was therefore directed. -14- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 15 ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-5 Initiated by Development Services An amendment to Article 915, Oldtown Specific Plan, and 935, Townlot Specific Plan. This amendment is to clarify and illus- trate specific zoning requirements pertaining to street visibility, sight angle, setback, and yard requirements. A copy of said amendment is on file in the Department of Development Services office. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-5 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1981 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: -Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bannister CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-6 Initiated by Development Services An amendment to Article 979, Off -Street Parking. This amendment will establish a provision to allow compact parking spaces as a portion of the required off-street parking. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-6 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS 81-17 AND 81-18 Applicant: Corona Construction Savoy Bellavia explained that these two conditional exceptions had been referred back to the Planning Commission from the City Council after its hearing on Mr. Corona's appeal of the Commis- -15- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 16 sion's denial. It had been intended to hear them in conjunction with Code Amendment 81-5, which contains provisions for the double zero lot line concept; however, the continuance of the code amend- ment will make it advisable to also continue the conditional excep- tion applications. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY WINCHELL CONDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS 81-17 and 81-18 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REVIEW OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Don Noble of the Department of Public Works discussed the format of the program and outlined the areas addressed by each section. The Department of Public Works is asking the Commission to review the pro- gram and offer any comments or suggestions it may have about the document. George Tindall informed the Commission that future programs will be prepared in sufficient time for each proposed project to be reviewed by the Commission for conformance with the General Plan; however, time constraints on this first annual program require that it go to Council to be approved with the regular budget. Commissioner Porter asked Public Works staff to prepare a summary form of the proposed projects with space for comments and suggestions; Mr. Tindall assured the Commission that such a form would be prepared. He also suggested areas to which comments might be addressed, such as whether the specific project is in conformance with the General Plan and does the Commission agree with the assigned priority. Don Noble added that comments of a broader nature would also be appreciated, perhaps addressing the manner in which the information has been presented and projects not identified in the document which the Commission might feel are important. Mr. Noble distributed supplemental information to add to the document, which is comprised of projects that will be carried over from the current fiscal year and which should be inserted in the FY 80-81 project list. June Catalano pointed out that the Community Facilities Element con- tains a listing of policies, and review of those policies would pro- vide a good orientation to the entire capital improvement process. REVIEW OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT ON SMALL LOT PRD: By Commission consensus this review was postponed to a future meeting. -16- 5-19-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 17 REVIEW OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT ON GASOLINE STATIONS/CONVENIENCE MARKETS: Sam Blake, an attorney representing the applicant who had first approached the staff with a proposal for a combined gas station/ mini -market use, addressed the Commission to discuss the pro- posed ordinance and urge Commission approval at its public hear- ing on June 2. The Commission discussed the concept; Commissioner Porter indicated that his only concern with such uses would be the size and type of signage permitted. Mr. Blake informed the Commission that in cities which have instituted this type of use such details are usually left to the conditional use permit pro- cess and not directly spelled out in the ordinance itself - all the ordinance would provide an applicant would be the right to come to the City and request the combined use. June Catalano in- formed the Commission that the ordinance prepared by staff had attempted to set up some of the parameters which an applicant could expect to have to meet in applying for the subject use, in order to expedite review and approval of future projects. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY BANNISTER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A CODE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE COMBINED GASOLINE STATION/CONVENIENCE MARKET USES AND SET THE ITEM FOR PUBLIC HEARING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Paone, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None _DISCUSSION OF THE "Q" C-3 ZONING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 17TH STREET AND OLIVE AVENUE: Commissioner Paone announced his intention to abstain from the review and determination, if any, on this item. Susan Haldeman, attorney for Foxx Development, addressed the Com- mission to state the case of Mr. Foxx, owner of two of the four lots in question under this "Q" zoning designation. She reviewed the history of the zoning and development on the property and stated that she can find no condition in any of the approvals for these four lots to be developed as one project. Therefore, she asked that her client be permitted to improve his existing struc- ture on the interior lots as requested in a use permit applica- tion filed earlier in the year and rejected by staff. Secretary Palin explained the staff's position that the zoning has expired because of failure to demonstrate substantial progress; however, an ordinance does not automatically expire and action must be taken to replace the zoning that was on the property prior to the application of the "Q" C3 designation. He noted that the con- dition for dedication of vehicular access on 17th Street has not been complied with and that it would be necessary to have recip- -17- 5-19-81 - p.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 19, 1981 Page 18 rocal use of one parking space (as originally approved) for each parcel to be able to comply with code parking requirements. Staff wants two individual use permits filed concurrently so that parking can be coordinated, access rights obtained, and compatibility be- tween the two projects assured. Mr. Palin further noted that at the time the zoning was applied the lots were all owned by Mr. Foxx and the subsequent sale of two of the lots has complicated the prob- lem, as they can no longer be developed as originally agreed to as one integrated project. Legal counsel Jim Georges outlined the pertinent questions which must be resolved: First, did the 18 month period for the "Q" zoning expire? If so, all other questions are irrelevant. Next it must be determined if the demolition permit on the corner properties was a valid permit and if demolition of a structure constitutes "substan- tial progress" per the code requirement for maintaining the "Q" designation. Extensive Commission discussion followed, leading to the consensus that the problem is a legal one which the Commission cannot resolve alone. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY WINCHELL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO REFER THIS MATTER TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR DETERMINA- TION ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE ON A PROPERTY CONSTITUTES THE "SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS" NECESSARY FOR RETENTION OF THE "Q" ZONING DESIGNATION, AND FOR DIRECTION ON LEGAL PROCEDURE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Bannister ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Paone STAFF ITEMS: June CAtalano informed the Commission that the Garfield/ Goldenwest area is to be included in the Land Use Element Amendment No. 81-2, and requested a study session to consider this area prior to further staff work. By consensus, the Commission concurred with this request. The Commission adjourned at 1:20 a.m. to a special study session to be held in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. (prior to the next regu- lar meeting) on June 2, 1981. Mar�cus M. Porter, i man 77 L -18- 5-19-81 - P.C.