Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-01Approved September 15, 1981 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 - 7:10 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Winchell requested that Consent Item A-2 be pulled from the agenda for separate consideration. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE REMAINING CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET- ING OF AUGUST 4, 1981 AND CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN NO. 81-10, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Porter ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Bannister requested that the August 18, 1981 Minutes be amended to reflect that he had voted "no" on the compact parking item and also that Commissioner Porter, not himself, had requested copies of plans from Public Works on driveway accesses. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY BANNISTER THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 18, 1981, WERE APPROVED AS CORRECTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Porter ABSTAIN: Kenefick ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 1, 1981 Page 2 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Chairman Winchell requested that Items C-3 and C-6 be acted on first due to the fact that both applicants had requested con- tinuations. ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-3/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-26 (Continued from May 5, 1981) Applicant: Lindborg/Dahl Investors, Inc. To permit a change of zone from RA-0 to R1. There was no public hearing. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-3 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-26 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1981 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-9 Initiated by Development Services An amendment of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to permit and regulate the conversion of rental properties into condominium owner- ship units. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-9 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-6/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-09/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-32 (Continued from Aug. 18, 1981) Applicant: J. Don Hartfelder To permit the expansion of an existing beach club, including the re- location of one tennis court within the 25 foot front setback and the installation of a six (6) foot high architectural block wall and card control gates, on property located onthe north side of Warner Avenue between Edgewater and Sceptre Lanes. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission that the reason for the con- tinuance to this meeting was to allow the applicant time to meet with various homeowner groups for their imput. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 1, 1981 Page 3 Jim Barnes gave a presentation on the changes that were made on the August 18, 1981 staff report. It was discovered that a portion of the development as proposed under the original concept, encroaches on a parcel dedicated to the City. This requires a revision to the site plan which the applicant agreed to address. The following con- ditions were added to the Conditions of Approval: 1. A fire hydrant will be provided. 2. The parking lot layout shall be in accordance with the Public Works Department. Mr. Barnes also stated that on page 7, item #7, will read as follows: " 7) The design of the proposed security fence shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services, Fire Department and Police Department prior to the issu- ance of building permits." The Commission discussed the meaning of the ROS district, especially the interpretation of the phrase "recreational diversion". Art Folger explained to the Commission that it was up to the Commission to determine the meaning of the term. He added his own interpreta- tion as "anything that draws the mind off of care or study". The public hearing was opened. Don Hartfelder explained to the Commission the changes that were made after he spoke with various homeowner groups in the area. Changes included reducing a two- story unit to one story with underground parking, eliminating stacking problem by moving entry 240 feet east, and eliminating kitchens from the floor plans. Mr. Hartfelder introduced Mr. Wordoff, attorney for the club owners, who explained the reserva- tions.on the dedication for final Tract 4880. Bruce Wordoff said the -reason he cited this was to show that the property owners had the right to build on the property. The following persons spoke in opposition to the project: Cecil Hubbard, representative of Weatherly Bay condos Morris Stone, Weatherly Bay resident Don Miller, Weatherly Bay resident Audrey Klein Mary Litner, Humbolt Island resident Luis Cardenas, Huntington Harbour resident John Bloomfield, Vice -President, Homeowners Association Ken Kirk, Weatherly Bay resident Mark Rugen, 16692 Bolero Lane Pat Coy The major concern was that the Recreational Open Space zone was established so that no further development could add to high density. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 1, 1981 Page 4 Speaking in favor of the project were the following persons: Mel Pierson Sheldon Grossman, Huntington Harbour resident Doris Adhapour, owner of the club Bruce Wordoff Dr. Ben, Huntington Harbour resident Major concern was the rights of the property owner. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion opened with Commissioner Kenefick'who stated that she had listened to the tapes of the meeting of August 4, 1981 and therefore, declared herself eligible to vote on the issue. Commissioner Paone stated that Mr. Hartfelder had sufficiently compromised with the homeowners in the area by eliminating the kitchens from the floor plan, thereby eliminating the fear of the units becoming rentals. He felt that over -night camping was definitely a recreational use. He also felt that the only alternative would be for the owners to "walk away" from the club. Chairman Winchell stated that she has also heard the tapes and will be eligible to vote on the project. At the request of the Deputy City Attorney, Chairman Winchell called for a ten-minute recess to executive session. Commission reconvened at 9:55 PM. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-32 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-6 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASONS FOR DENIAL: 1. The intent of the ROS zone as established did not include uses of this type: i.e. residential development, whether temporary or not. 2. Zoning prior to ROS was R1. If the zoning was as it had been, the use would not be permitted. The proposed use does not con- form to the use of surrounding properties. 3. Lot coverage is doubled over that which currently exists. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 1, 1981 Page 5 4. Competitive and recreational tennis use will be virtually eliminated contrary to the intent of the ROS zone which is to enhance recreation uses. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, NOES: Paone, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Winchell, Porter, Schumacher A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY KENEFICK TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-09 BECAUSE APPLICANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A HARDSHIP PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey, Bannister ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Winchell called for a five minute recess at 10:00 PM. Commission reconvened at 10:05 PM. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-52/USE PERMIT NO. 81-32 (Appeal) Applicant: Michael Lonaley To permit a reduction of the required 27 foot turning radius into a garage from an alley and to permit the expansion of a single- family, nonconforming dwelling on property located on the south side of Indianapolis Avenue approximately 550 feet west of Beach Boulevard. The public hearing was opened. Bill Hightman, attorney for the property owner, spoke on behalf of overruling the BZA denial and granting approval of the application. He stated that there is a hardship as the lot is small and there is no where else to build. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion consisted of questions to staff. Commis- sioner Paone asked if there was any reason why the applicant could not build upward. Savoy Bellavia answered that this would be permissible on the main structure. It was asked if carports were legal; yes, under certain conditions, but there has to be some car covering. What makes this house nonconforming? The setbacks in the yard requirements. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO UPHOLD THE BZA DENIAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: The Planning Commission may grant a conditional exception providing Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 1, 1981 Page 6 for relief from the strict application of the provisions of Section 9830. This standard requires a showing of exceptional cir- cumstances, inability to enjoy property rights, that the exception would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the surrounding area, and that the applicant is willing and able to proceed with the project without unnecessary delay. 1. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed on other properties in the vi- cinity. Other properties under the same zone classification and circumstances have not been granted the privilege of en- croaching into the required turning radius. 2. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 81-52 would con- stitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. The applicant's claim of hardship, is self-imposed, for the garage can be utilized as it previously existed. The subject property was legally subdivided and de- veloped in a manner consistent with applicable zoning laws. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-31/USE PERMIT NO. 81-25 - Appeal Continued from August 18, 1981 Applicant: Bill Ridgeway Design To permit reduction of the front yard setback from 15 feet required to 10 feet; the front entry garage reduced from the required 22 feet from the ultimate right-of-way to 20 feet, and a reduction in the required open space. The use permit is required for a three-story structure in the R1 zone. Property is located on the north side of Bayview Drive, approximately 195 feet east of Broadway Street. The public hearing was opened. Bill Ridgeway spoke in favor of overruling the BZA denial. He stated that the hardship is that it is a small lot; that a roll -up garage door would provide for turning radius; and that the balcony was eliminated. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY PAONE SECOND BY KENEFICK CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-31 AND USE PERMIT NO. 81-25 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING REASONS, CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION: A. The ten (10) foot setback for second and third stories be approved for the following reasons: 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 1, 1981 Page 7 1. As subject parcel is substandard in depth (75 feet), apply- ing the base district's minimum setback requirements would impose an undue hardship inconsistent with what is permis- sible on surrounding properties located within Orange County's jurisdiction. 2. As parcels located on both sides of Bayview Drive are ori- ented twoard channels (waterways) and with Bayview Drive being best compared with an alley accessway, it has been determined that imposing district setback of fifteen (15) feet would serve no useful purpose. 3. The majority of parcels in the area are located within Orange County's jurisdiction where front yard setbacks are allowed at six (6) inches. B. The front entry garage be approved at a reduced setback for the following reasons: 1. Because of subject parcel's depth and the fact that sur- rounding parcels of like dimension within the County are being allowed to provide a twenty (20) foot setback for garages entered directly from Bayview and that a twenty (20) foot setback would accommodate guest parking, imposing base district's setback would create an undue hardship on the subject parcel. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION: 1. The garage door shall be set back a minimum distance of twenty (20) feet from the property line. 2. The garage door shall be provided with an automatic door opener. 3. The roof deck area shall remain uncovered. FINDINGS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION: 1. The granting of this application is found not to constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with what is permissible on surrounding properties. 2. Because of subject property's size and location, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive it of privileges enjoyed by surrounding properties. 3. The granting of this application is found to be necessary in order to preserve basic property rights. 4: The granting of this application is found not to be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties in the same Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 1, 1981 Page 8 zone classification. 5. The granting of this application is found not to adversely affect the City's General Plan. REASON FOR APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT: The construction applied for under this use permit application is not inconsistent with development standards imposed upon surrounding and adjacent properties and will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety, and privacy of persons residing in said surrounding properties. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT: 1. The site plan received and dated August 4, 1981, shall be the approved layout. 2. The request shall be subject to the conditions imposed on Conditional Exception No. 81-31 AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-15/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11498 (Continued from August 18, 1981) Applicant: Robert D. Mickelson To permit a condominium conversion of 120 apartment units into condos on property located on the east side of Magnolia Street approximately 520 feet south of Garfield Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Bob Mickelson, the applicant, in- formed the Commission that he is proposing to establish prices for the project providing two-thirds(80) units at an affordable range. The pricing of these affordable units is based on the assumptions that payments will not exceed 30 percent of monthly income minus $125.00 for taxes and association fees and that the loan will be financed at 12 percent with a 10 percent down payment. He further stated that all appliances would be replaced so that the units will look new and that tenants would be given the first opportunity to purchase the condos with a 5 percent coast break. If the tenants are either unwilling or unable to purchase the units, a relocation assistance payment will be pro- vided plus return of all security and cleaning deposits. He requested approval of the applications. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued with the general concensus that twelve percent was not a realistic figure to use as an interest Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 1, 1981 Page 9 rate, in light of the fact that a 19% rate is more common at the present time and is not likely to come down. The Commissioners also wanted to know how many people would actually be displaced by the conversion. Other considerations were sound -proofing and parking for the units. Commissioner Paone was especially concerned about displacing the elderly. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY BANNISTER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-15 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11498 TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1981, TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH FINANCING TERMS AND TO ALLOW THE STAFF TIME TO COME BACK WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, WITH CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-10 Initiated by Development Services A proposed revision to Articles 933 and 970 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to establish criteria for the permitting and opera- tion of game arcades. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY PORTER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-10 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-11 Initiated by Development Services This is an amendment to Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordi- nance Code relating to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Said code amendment sets forth the purpose of the Board, increases its membership from three to five and outlines required findings of fact for administrative review. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE REVISIONS TO SECTIONS 9810-9819 OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-11 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Porter Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 1, 1981 Page 10 ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE SECTION OF CODE AMENDMENT 81-11 WHICH WOULD APPROVE THE INCREASE OF MEMBERS OF THE BZA FROM THREE TO FIVE WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Kenefick, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: Porter DISCUSSION ITEMS: Land Use Element 81-2 Chuck Clark introduced Carol Inge to the Commission, who gave an oral presentation of the highlights contained in Land Use Element 81-2. She explained that the amendment proposes to add a medium - high density residential category to the existing general plan land use categories and to clarify the criteria used to determine General Plan consistency within the coastal zone. It considers requests by private property owners to change the land use desig- nations in four areas of the City: the Meadowlark Airport located north of Warner Avenue, 700 feet east of Bolsa Chica Street; Com- modore Circle, north of Main Street between Delaware and Huntington Streets; the northeast corner of Newmand Avenue and Van Buren Street; and the area east of Beach Boulevard, 1,022 feet south of Atlanta Avenue. The amendment requests on these four areas will be analyzed in terms of the existing conditions on the site, an- ticipated impact on surrounding areas, major land uses and en- vironmental issues, and consistency with adopted City goals and policies. Commissioner Porter suggested taking a look at the State Planning Law with regards to requirements in the range of units within a general plan designation. Several members of the Commission sug- gested that in the future there should be study sessions conducted on these types of reports. June Catalano added further that if the Commission is interested in a tour of the subject areas, that could be arranged. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE Request to approve patio cover The property owner of property located at 119 Sixth Street re- quested that a resolution be approved to allow construction of a patio cover in the front yard of a single family dwelling which is located in a C3 district. It is nonconforming because it is Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 1, 1981 Page 11 located on property in a C3, General Business District zone. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY KENEFICK TO GRANT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PATIO BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Winchell ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None REQUEST FOR AMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-1 Applicant: Dorothy Cunningham A request to permit internally illuminated wall signs to identify a two-story office building located at the corner of Gothard and Heil. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK REQUEST FOR AMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1981, FOR REVIEW OF SIGNS AT THE SUBJECT LOCATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS Subdivision Committee will meet on September 3, 1981, at 8:30 AM. STAFF ITEMS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-28/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11272 Request for amendment of two conditions for approval Applicant: Donald B. Ayres Jr. A request to remove certain conditions of approval dealing with natural gas from the previously -approved Conditional Use Permit No. 80-28. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY PORTER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WERE REMOVED FROM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-28, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 2. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers. 3. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the location of cooking facilities and central heating units." Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission September 1, 1981 Page 12 AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 12:55 P.M. Grace Winchell, Chairman 1