Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-11-03Approved December 1, 1981 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1981 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter (9:10), Schumacher, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Acting Secretary Catalano asked that Consent Agenda Item A-5 be pulled for action at a later date, and Commissioner Kenefick asked that Item A-3 be separated from the agenda for separate discussion. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY BANNISTER, THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 6 AND 20, 1981, AND CONFORMANCES WITH THE GENERAL PLAN NOS. 81-13 AND 81-15, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTES: OCTOBER 6, 1981 MINUTES; AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Paone, Schumacher OCTOBER 20, 1981 MINUTES: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: Winchell CONFORMANCES WITH GENERAL PLAN NOS. 81-13 AND 81-15: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None Agenda Item A-12, a request to find the vacation of a portion of street right-of-way at Sugar and McFadden Ave- nues, in conformance with the General Plan was discussed. Com- missioner Kenefick expressed deep concern with the creation Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 2 additional residential lots at this location (which is the intent of the adjoining property owner if the street right-of-way is vac- ated) citing traffic, access, and noise problems on the site. She also expressed the opinion that the existing zoning on the adjacent empty lots should be changed to open space to preclude development of residential uses on those lots as well. After review, the staff and the Commission concurred that further information was necessary in order to make a determination on this matter. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN NO. 81-12 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 Land Use Element amendment which includes a staff -initiated proposal to add a medium high density residential category to the General Plan, a staff -initiated proposal to clarify the criteria used to determine General Plan conformance in the coastal zone, a Council -initiated request to add clarifying language to the amendment process description, and a Planning Commission request to analyze a resource production overlay in the Garfield/Goldenwest area. Four requests from private applicants for changes in General Plan land use designations are also under consideration in the amendment request. Ms. Catalano suggested that the Commission handle the amendment by separate review of each separate proposal with a straw vote taken on each portion; the amendment as a whole would then be approved by a formal vote on the adoption of the resolution. The Commission con- curred with this approach. 2.1 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION Carol Inge outlined the proposal, noting that this amendment would provide consistency between the zoning and the General Plan in approxi- mately 44 areas in the City where medium density designation is im- plemented by R3 zoning. Later on staff will point out other areas where the medium high densityiredesignation of other properties would be appropriate. The public hearing on Area 2.1 was opened, and closed when no one was present to address the matter. -2- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 3 r The Commission discussed the proposal. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED THAT AREA 2.1 OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None 2.2 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY IN THE COASTAL ZONE Chuck Clark explained that, because of the very specific nature of the Land Use Plan and the Coastal Plan, staff feels that is is not necessary or desirable to permit any consideration of size criteria within the coastal zone and recommends that the following paragraph be added to Section 4.1 of the General Plan: "Reference to the size.criteria in Figure 3-15 will not be made when making a finding of consistency in the City's coastal zone." The public hearing on Area 2.2 was opened and closed. Brief Commission discussion ensued. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY THE COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED THAT AREA 2.2 OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None 2.3 MODIFICATIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS Mr. Clark explained that the proposed modification would require that all items heard by the Planning Commission in a General Plan Amendment request would automatically be forwarded to the City Council, with the resolution going to Council plainly deline- ating which items were recommended for approval and which for denial. June Catalano further informed the Commission that this proposal is the result of a direct request from the City Council. The public hearing was opened, and closed when no one was pre- sent to speak for or against the matter. Commissioner Schumacher pointed out that State zoning laws seem to refer only to items recommended by the Commission, with no reference made to items not recommended for approval or denied. Commissioner Paone noted that the Commission is only acting in an advisory capacity, not as the final decision maker, and the -3- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 4 public as well as the applicants should know that all matters will go to the Council without the necessity for filing an appeal. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE THE COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED THAT AREA 2.3 OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Mahaffey NOES; Scumacher ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None 2.4 GARFIELD-GOLDENWEST AREA Chuck Clark described the history of the area and the proposal that a resource production overlay be implemented on the properties; he noted, however, that the Attorney's office has some concern that such an overlay might result in precluding development of any new uses except those related to oil production. Mr. Clark outlined the various alternatives suggested in the staff review of the General Plan Amendment proposal, concluding by stating the staff's recommenda- tion that a specific plan be prepared for the total area and that a resource production overlay not be adopted. The public hearing was opened and closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER THAT A SPECIFIC PLAN BE PREPARED FOR THE GARFIELD-GOLDENWEST AREA, WITH SAID SPECIFIC PLAN BEING COMPATIBLE WITH AND CONDUCIVE TO THE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT THAT COMMISSION HAS DIRECTED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE ADJOINING AREA. In the ensuing extensive discussion, the Commission discussed whether or not the existing medium density General Plan designation that now exists on the properties would be retained; the effect of a specific plan on the existing M1 uses in the area (e.g., the Cambro plant); the possibility of splitting the area between the industrial uses to the west and the residential to the east as a means of protecting the interests of existing industrial facilities; a proposed method of spreading the cost of preparation of a specific plan among the area landowners as properties develop, as allowed by State law; and the possibility of combining a specific plan with a Planned Community concept or designation. The last proposal was discussed in detail as being an approach which would provide the highest degree of flexibility and leave the most options open to developers; however, it was pointed out by staff that it would be very difficult to implement, considering the fragmenta- tion of ownerships and the requirement of 50 acres of consolidated area for the planned community designation. It was also pointed out that the densities in a planned community would not be specifically set, and such a designation could result in a higher density devel- opment than anticipated. -4- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 5 THE MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Paone, Mahaffey ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None The Commission, staff, and legal counsel discussed alternative procedure and the scheduling of GPA 81-3. Commissioner Paone, who had been the principal advocate of the planned development concept in the prior discussion, conceded that there seemed to be insufficient support for that designation on the Commission and the specific plan recommended by staff was a good alterna- tive. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION DE- TERMINED TO RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR STRAW VOTE ON THE SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN APPROACH BE RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 3.1 Applicant: Dick Nerio To permit a change of land use designation from low density resi- dential to general commercial and medium density residential on 64 acres of land located on the north side of Warner Avenue approxi- mately 700 feet east of Bolsa Chica Street. Chuck Clark described the history of past action on the site, and noted that 15 acres fronting on Warner are requested to be designated as commercial with the remaining 49 acres to be medium density residential. Staff is recommending that the 15 acre parcel be designated to mixed use, as it is felt that the commercial demand is not sufficient to justify so much commercial area. The public hearing was opened. Dick Nerio, applicant, addressed the Commission to speak in favor of his request, saying that it would be compatible with the sur- -5- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes,, H.B. Planning CQmmission November 3, 1981 Page 6 rounding properties and an asset to the community. He concurred with staff's recommendation for mixed use on the 15 acre commer- cial portion of his request, and informed the Commission that the entire property.will remain under his family's ownership. Chairman Winchell directed that the record show that.the Commission has received petitions in opposition to this area of the General Plan Amendment. The following persons spoke against the granting of the request: Dean Allbright . . . . . 17301 Breda Lane, H.B. Stratton Matenas . . . . 17081 Greentree Lane, H.B. Carl Nelson . . . . . . 5381 Overland Drive, H.B. William Stegemann . . 16951 Agate Circle, H.B. Susan Foote . . . . . . 16871 Canyon Lane, H.B. Ralph Ricks . . . . . . 5362 Old Pirate Lane, H.B. The speakers all opposed any commercial designation on the 'site, saying that the area has already too much commercial for the demand, that it would create traffic, noise, crime and security problems for the surrounding residential communities. Some speakers also objected to the close proximity to their homes ...of. the proposed commercial buildings, citing loss of privacy and the deterioration of the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. The speakers opposed the establishment of the medium density residential designation as well, asking that the airport.property be left at its present R1 designation. Bob McMullan, 17172 Sandra Lane, H.B., spoke in favor of the re- quest, saying that the high vacancy factor in the existing commer- cial could be blamed on the state of the economy rather than an over -supply of commercial zoning and that the medium density resi- dential would be in accord with the type of development presently being built on other properties in that section of Huntington Beach. There were no other persons present wishing to address the Commis- sion either for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL THAT THE COMMIS- SION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FRONTING ON WARNER AVENUE AND THE MOST NORTHERLY PORTION BE REDESIGNATED TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THAT THE CENTER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BE LEFT AT ITS PRESENT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DE- SIGNATION. In the ensuing discussion, the Commission considered the possibility of placing a Planned Development designation with some maximum den- sity on the property, or with some requirement for averaging the density so that the more highly intense use would be on the outer perimeters of the site and the lower density in the center of the project; the possibility of applying the Planned Development designa- tion at the zoning level; the question of whether or not it would be C1 1 -6- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 7 desirable to have the property develop essentially as three separate parcels, as the motion would indicate; and how or if existing streets could be extended to connect with streets inside an R1 project on the property. In response to the last consideration, Bruce Gilmer of Public Works informed the Com- mission that only Pearce Street could be connected without going through existing lots in other developments. THE MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Paone, Winchell NOES: Bannister, Kenefick, Schumacher, Mahaffey ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None A motion was made by Kenefick that the Meadowlark Airport be redesignated as a Planned Development community with a maximum density of nine (9) units per acre. Motion failed for lack of a second. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE EXISTING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BE RETAINED, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Paone, Mahaffey ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: None The Commission meeting recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. AREA OF CONCERN 3.2 - COMMODORE CIRCLE Applicant: Charles MacGregor and Scott Strohbehn To permit a change of General Plan designation from medium density residential to medium -High density residential on 4.5 acres of land located on the west side of Delaware Street north of Main Street. Chuck Clark reviewed the proposed redesignation, noting that in staff's opinion it would be more consistent with the current R3 zoning on the property, would allow a new tract map to be filed to make more efficient use of the -property, and would pro- vide an incentive for redevelopment of the parcel. The public hearing was opened. Scott Strohbehn spoke to the Commission in support of his re- quest and to agree with the condition for cooperation in the relocation of displaced residents as suggested by staff. -7- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commi,ssjon November 3, 1981 Page 8 There were no other persons present to speak regarding this area of concern, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Porter arrived at the meeting at this point. Chairman Winchell noted that this is the first instance facing the Commission in which it must determine if it wishes to bring the General Plan into conformance with the zoning or vice versa, and in her opinion the character of the surrounding neighborhood is such that she would prefer not to place the R3 designation, which would allow up to 25 units per acre, on the parcel. Commissioner Bannister discussed the existing problems in the project and indicated that increasing the density did not seem conducive to solving those prob- lems. In response, Mr. Strohbehn pointed out that the overcrowded situation and resulting difficulties are caused by the number of people living in the project, not by the number of units,_ and accord- ing to staff calculations the redesignation would result in only a very minor increase in the population of the area. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE DESIGNATION ON AREA OF CONCERN 3.2 BE CHANGED TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A PLAN ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ADDRESSING THE RELOCATION OF DISPLACED FAMILIES, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES:, Kenefick, Paone, Portek , Mahaffey NOES: Bannister, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 3.3 - NEWMAN/VAN BUREN Applicant: James Nye To permit the redesignation of one acre of land located at the north- east corner of Newman Avenue and Van Buren Street from medium density residential to office professional. Chuck Clark described the location and explained the staff's recom- mendation that the area not be redesignated because of the availability of office space in the immediate vicinity and the surrounding resi- dential uses. The public hearing was opened. James Nye, applicant, spoke in favor of his request, saying that the property will be shared with a cancer treatment facility subject to Planning Commission approval of the application. Larry Nye, speaking as vice president of the Missionary Baptist Church, owner of the property, described how the proposed buildings on the site will be located and used. He said that the church building -8- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutea, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 9 will act as a buffer between residences and the office build- ing, and described the grade differential in the area which will further serve to separate the uses. There were no other persons to address the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the compatibility of the proposal, the fact that redesignating such a small portion of land could be construed as spot zoning, and the fact that no actual pro- ject is before the Commission on which'to base its action. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY PORTER THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT AREA OF CON- CERN 3.3 BE REDESIGNATED TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, BY THE FOLLOW- ING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister, Kenefick ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AREA OF CONCERN 3.4 - BEACH/ATLANTA AREA Applicant: Bijan Sassounian To permit redesignation of 9.8 acres of land located east of Beach Boulevard approximately 1000 feet south of Atlanta Avenue from general commercial and medium density residential to high density residential. Commissioner Paone announced that he would abstain from consid- eration of this matter because of a potential conflict of interest. Chuck Clark reviewed the proposal and staff's recommendation for high density residential on the whole site, saying that it is an excellent location for high quality housing and that it could provide the demand for the commercial uses anticipated in the area. He added that staff is currently investigating sig- nalled access to the area as well as a frontage road system; in fact, a condition of approval would be suggested to require that a frontage road parallel to Beach Boulevard be provided. The public hearing was opened. Bijan Sassounian spoke to concur with the recommendations of the staff. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Mahaffey to approve the staffs recommenda- tion for high density residential for Area 3.4. Motion failed for lack of a second. -9- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 10 The Commission discussed how access to the site and the general area would be taken and whether or not the question of a frontage road might not more appropriately be addressed in the Circulation Element or the Arterial Streets and Highways. Carol Inge of the Planning staff agreed that the issue would be more appropriately identified at the project level but that staff had wanted the need for the frontage road 'indicated at the time the applicant came into the department for entitlement. Bruce Gilmer said that the intent is to minimize the access points from Beach Boulevard. The wetlands question and the method of obtaining environmental documentation on the site were reviewed. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER THE COMMISSION DETER- MINED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE ENTIRE AREA BE REDESIGNATED TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH THE STIPULATION THAT IN THE PROJECT APPLI- CATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY SPECIAL CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO CONTROL OF THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO BEACH BOULEVARD INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF A FRONTAGE ROAD, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Paone ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE COMMISSION IMPOSED THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS UPON SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS ON THE PROPERTY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: 1. An environmental analysis shall be done sufficient to deal with the wetlands determination. 2. If the determination is made that the area is a wetland, that fact shall be considered in the project design. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Paone A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY WINCHELL THAT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-2, AS ACTED UPON BY THE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS PRIOR STRAW VOTES, BE APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE APPROVAL OF AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 1278. Commissioner Porter indicated that he would abstain from voting because he had not been present to participate in discussion on every area of concern. Staff pointed out that it would be necessary to adopt the EIR pre- pared for the amendment. -10- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 11 ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1278 WAS TABLED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-4 WAS CERTIFIED AS BEING COMPLETE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY BANNISTER THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TAKEN OFF THE TABLE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-2 BY THE ADOPTION OF AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 1278 WAS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher, NOES: Bannister, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Porter CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-58 (Appeal) Cont. from 10-20-81) Applicant: Roger Cole To allow a windscreen to be constructed at a ten (10) foot height in lieu of the code -permitted eight (8) feet, on prop- erty located on Ragtime Circle approximately 300 feet south of Sundancer Lane. Savoy Bellavia noted that the information requested by the Com- mission has been supplied: The applicant has submitted informa- tion on the number and types of similar windscreens in the area, and staff research has determined that no conditional exceptions for those uses were granted by the City, nor were any building permits issued which specified like dimensions or construction. The permits staff did locate were specifically for windscreens only and not for glass or plastic covered solariums or rooms, which the requested construction basically is. The public hearing was opened.and closed on October 20, 1981. -11- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission. November 3, 1981 Page 12 A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY PORTER THAT THE COMMIS- SION SUSTAIN THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS' DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-58 WITH THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Paone, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Kenefick, Winchell The Commission discussed the request with staff and the applicant's architect, taking into account prior lack of code enforcement in this regard; the existence of other similar facilities in the area, whether built-in accordance with code or not; the information on the copies of building permits which were submitted; and the legal question of justification of issuance of a conditional exception. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY TO TABLE THE REQUEST. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Mahaffey NOES: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Kenefick- The request will automatically be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on November 17, 1981, for failure to attain four affirmative votes on any motion for action. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY BANNISTER THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE CODE WITH REGARD TO THIS TYPE,OF WINDSCREEN CONSTRUCTION IN HUNTINGTON HARBOUR, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None In response to Commissioner Mahaffey's inquiry on the timing, staff indicated that the amendment cannot be set for public hearing by the next meeting but a draft can be presented to the Commission for review at that time. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE THE COMMISSION SUSPENDED ITS PROCEDURE OF INTRODUCING NO PUBLIC HEARINGS AFTER 10:30 PM, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Porter, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -12- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 13 The next two agenda items were combined for public hearing by the Commission. ZONE CHANGES 81-3 AND 81-11 (Cont. from 10-6-81) Applicant: Lindborg/Dahl Investors, Inc. ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-3: To permit a change of zone from RA-0 to Q-R1-0-8,000 on property located on the east side of Edwards Street approximately 1000 feet south of Ellis Avenue. ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-11: To permit a change of zone from RA-O-CD to Q-R1-0-CD-15,000 on property located on the south side of Ellis Avenue approximately 800 feet west of Goldenwest Street. Carol Inge briefly reviewed the applications. She pointed out that they are located within an area for which staff is prepar- ing a specific plan which is anticipated to be finished in January of next year. In staff's opinion approval of these zone changes would prejudice that plan and might encourage other property onwers in the area to apply for similar changes in zon- ing in a vicinity which staff feels is not ready for subdivision at this time. Commissioner Porter requested to know how many staff hours are estimated to be put into the plan and what per- centage of the plan is presently completed. Ms. Inge replied that no tally of hours is available at this time, but the plan is approximately 50 percent complete. The public hearing was opened on both requests. David Dahl, applicant, addressed the Commission to urge approval of his requests saying that the delay has already been very costly and further delay could preclude him from being able to meet his planned maximum density of four units to the acre or from including equestrian facilities within his developments, which he now plans to do. He informed the Commission that if his zone changes are approved he will plan a project consistent with the General Plan concept of estate zoning, with clustered housing, low density, narrower streets, less intensive public improvements, etc. In response to Commissioner Porter's request for his reaction to the "Q" prefix on his zoning, Mr. Dahl replied that he wel- comed the qualified zoning designation. Dave Allbright, representing the Environmental Board, spoke to the Commission to say that the Board opposes any changes to the General Plan in this area, which it feels has been adequately covered through other studies. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the zone changes and allow the property to develop according to its existing General Plan designation. Linda Moon, 17161 Goldenwest Street, an attorney representing Equestrian Trails, Inc., spoke in support of the requests and urged their approval. -13- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 14 Al Bell, 20292 Eastwood Circle, Huntington Beach called the proposal of the applicant a unique opportunity for the City to preserve the equestrian uses within the City and also to diversify the residential mix the community can provide. He recommended its approval conditioned to properly integrate the concepts asked for in the forthcoming specific plan. The following persons also spoke in favor of granting the requests, citing the same reasons as previously given: Douglas Griffes, Georgia,Street, Huntington Beach Kim Hunt, 16891 B Street, Huntington Beach June Nash (presenting a speech prepared by Sue Springer) Connie Mandic The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bannister left the meeting at 10:50 p.m. The Commission discussed how best to preserve the characteristics of the existing sites through the allowable conditioning under the "Q" designation, how grade differentials could be retained, and what the equestrian standards in the code required for square footage of lots. Precise wording to accomplish the above goals was extensively dis- cussed. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY PAONE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-26 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ---- AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-3 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The zoning of this property to Q-R1-0-8,000 is consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and is compatible with land use designations for surrounding properties. CONDITIONS OF THE "Q" ZONING: 1. Any future project approved for this parcel of land shall make provisions for equestrian uses within the development. 2. Variation in topography shall,be provided in the, development plan implementing this zoning. In particular, a swale through the property shall be provided which approximates the dimensions of the existing swale. 1 -14- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 15 3. Development of this parcel shall, to as great a degree as prac- tical, be compatible with the proposed specific plan being prepared for the area. 4. Development of this parcel shall allow for innovation in types and placement of housing in the project. 5. Any future project proposed for this property shall be subject to the filing and approval of a conditional use permit. AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT:, Bannister ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-41 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-11 WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The zoning of this property to Q-R1-0-CD-15,000 is consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan and is compatible with land use designations for the surrounding properties. CONDITIONS OF THE "Q" ZONING: 1. Any future project approved for this parcel of land shall make provisions for equestrian uses within the development. 2. Development of this parcel shall, to as great a degree as prac- tical, be compatible with the proposed specific plan being prepared for the area. 3. Development of this parcel shall allow for innovation in types and placement of the housing in the project. 4. Any future project proposed for this property shall be subject to the filing and approval of a conditional use permit. AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None -15- 11-3-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission November 3, 1981 Page 16 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-5 Applicant: Garfield Bank Savoy Bellavia announced that applicant has submitted a letter of withdrawal on this request. By consensus the Commission accepted the applicant's request to withdraw Special Sign Permit No. 81-5. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-15 An amendment to Article 979, Parking Requirements, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Said amendment will amend the requirements per- taining to physical protection of fencing and landscaping. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-15 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1981, BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT. DISCUSSION ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-1 Request for amendment of Conditions of Approval Commissioner Paone expressed his feeling that the response on the question of whether or not the Commission could reconsider an item after action had been taken was not adequate. After discussion, legal counsel was instructed to provide a more definitive opinion to guide the Commission; this opinion was requested for the next meeting. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE THE REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDIITONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick,Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Mahaffey (left the meeting at 11:00) ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER AGENDA ITEM E-2 (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-10) WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF NOVMEBER 17, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES None ABSENT: Bannister, Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. to a study session to be held at 7:00 p.m. November 10, 1981. fl Grace H. Winchell, Chairman 11-3-81 - P.C.