Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-01Approved December 15, 1981 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, TUESDAY,'DECEMBER 1, 1981 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT AGENDA: Civic Center California Bannister, Kenefick, Paone (7:10), Winchell, Porter (7:20), Schumacher, Mahaffey None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY THE CONSENT AGENDA, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 1981, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Porter ABSTAIN: Bannister ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 81-1 (Cont. from 11-17-81) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposal to change the General Plan designation on some 30 acres located south of Huntington Central Park, east of Edwards Street, north of.Ellis Avenue, and 630 feet west of Goldenwest Street from open -space -development to open space recreation. Said hearing will also consider proposed deletion of two undeveloped park sites: Wieder-Park site, located at the northwest corner of Saybrook and Santa Barbara Lanes, and Irby Park site, located south of: Heil Avenue on Dale Vista Lane. Chuck Clark discussed the supplemental information prepared for the Commission and the maps designed to show'the relationship between the proposed realignment of Ellis Avenue to Talbert-ana the topo- graphical configuration of the area north of Ellis and how the Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission December-1, 1981 Page 2 small lot areas in the general location related to the proposed street extension. The proposed extension, it was noted, would run through all three of the small lot areas contained in the 30 acres under con- sideration in the amendment. Secretary Palin explained the staff had recommended that both Irby and Wieder Park sites be pulled out of this amendment at the November' 17 meeting, with Wieder Park to be added to the first amendment in the next year. However, as this amendment could not be set for the Decem- ber 7, 1981 City Council meeting because of the prior continuance, the staff now recommends that Wieder Park site be acted on by the Commis- sion at this time. Irby Park will not return to the Commission as a deletion from the Open Space/Conservation Element, but will be brought back before the Commission as a conformance with the General Plan once the Community Services Commission has made a determination as to how much acreage it may wish to have declared surplus by the City Council. The Community Services Commission is scheduled to review the Irby Park question at its second meeting in January. Chairman Winchell assured the audience that the Planning Commission would pull that conformance item off the consent agenda and give anyone who might wish to address the matter an opportunity to speak at that time. In an ensuing discussion as to whether or not the public hearing should be reopened on Irby Park, considering the staff's recommendations to pull it from the amendment, an unidenti- fied gentleman from the audience spoke on this issue. He stated that those people present who had come in regard to Irby Park should have a right to protect the record by giving public input at this meeting. He contended as well -that the public hearing on the matter had been specifically continued to the present meeting from Novem- ber 17th.' A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO APPROVE BY STRAW VOTE AREA 2.1, THE 30-ACRE AREA LOCATED NORTH OF ELLIS AVENUE FOR A CHANGE OF GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM OPEN SPACE, DE- VELOPMENT, TO OPEN SPACE, RECREATION, FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. Ensuing discussion considered the question of possible "downzoning," how compensation for the properties would be accomplished, and the question of procedure in the event no majority vote could be obtained at this meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY.THAT OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 81-1 BE TABLED. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister NOES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Paone -2- 12-1-81 - P.C. Minutes,, H.B. Planning Commission December 1, 1981 Page 3 THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AREA 2.1 BY STRAW VOTE FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Kenefick, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bannister, Paone, Porter Discussion of Irby Park site followed. It was noted that the delineation of the park site in the Open Space/Conservation Element does not state its size or draw boundaries; and that it is not the intent of the Community Services Commission to delete the entire park, but only a portion thereof. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KENEFICK AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER THAT ALL REFERENCE TO IRBY PARK SITE BE DELETED FROM THE DOCUMENTA- TION FOR OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 81-1. In response to a request from a member of the audience for clarification on subsequent procedure, the Chairman repeated her commitment that the item would be pulled from the consent agenda of whichever meeting it was scheduled for and additional opportunity given the public to speak. Legal counsel Folger indicated that in his opinion it would not be timely to take further public input at this meeting. Suggestions were put forward to ensure that those interested persons would be given a time to speak on the matter, including suggestions for noti- fication, appeal to the City Council, or making the matter a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The member of the audience inquired if the deletion would also include dele- tion of any mention of the park site from the EIR and was assured that all terminology relating to Irby Park site would be deleted totally in the analysis section of the document as well as in the environmental section, thus preserving all rights of the public in regard to said deletion. The gentleman then in- quired as to the finding the Commission is making on Irby Park, expressing the opinion that the deletion of even a portion of the park would require an amendment to the General Plan, not a conformance hearing. it was again explained that the park re- mains in the element after the Commission's action exactly as it has always been, because the element does not deal with the acreage of the site. THE STRAW VOTE FOR DELETION OF IRBY PARK FROM THE AMENDMENT 81-1 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bannister, Paone. Commissioner Kenefick directed that the record show that all persons present at the meeting of November 17, 1981 who spoke in regard to Wieder Park were in favor of having that park site deleted. -3- 12-1-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission December 1, 1981 Page 4 ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND,BY.-MAHAFFEY THE COMMISSION RECOM- MENDED THAT THE WIEDER PARK -=SITE -`BE -DELETED FROM THE --OPEN SPACE/ CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher, Mahaffey------,-, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bannister, Paone,.Porter ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY-SCHUMACHER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-47 WAS APPROVED WITH THE:-DELETZON' OF,.ALL -REFERENCE, TO -IRBY PARK SITE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None, ABSTAIN: Bannister, Paone ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND'BY-PORTER RESOLUTION NO. 1280 WAS APPROVED WITH THE CHANGES AS OUTLINED,BY THE PRIOR STRAW VOTES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None: = ABSTAIN: Bannister, Paone Staff -will amend the resolution to reflect the concerns and votes of the Commission and transmit a record of the action at this meeting to the -City Council. CONDITIONAL -USE -PERMIT NO, 81-25/TENTATI'VE TRACT NO. 11603 (Cont. from Applicant: R & R Investments 10--20-81) To permit a one -lot subdivision for, the -purpose of construction of a 50-unit residential condominium -'development on 2.5 acres of land loc- ated on the north side -of Newman Avenue 660 feet -east of Beach Boulevard. - Savoy.Bellavia reported that the,applicant has considered the Commis- sion's prior request that amendments be made -to the layout for this project, but has chosen to leave -the project -as -originally requested. The Commission discussed the,-four-major.areas in which -the proponent is asking for special permits, and it -was pointed out by Chairman Winchell that even if the small lot planned development ordinance (the draft,of which -has been submitted -to -the Commission) were in place this project could not comply with its modified provisions in regard to the entry drive, setbacks of habitable living quarters from travel lanes, --or garage setbacks. �J -4- 12-1-81 -- P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission December 1, 1981 Page 5 ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-25 WAS APPROVED THROUGH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PERMIT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: SPECIAL PERMIT: The Planning Commission approved special permit requests for the subject project as follows, upon the following findings: 1) Location of habitable portions of some structures closer than fifteen (15) feet to a travel way; 2) Provision of a five (5) foot setback for all garages in lieu of the code -required 50 percent set back twenty (20) feet; 3) Minimum dimension of the main recreation area at fifty-five (55) feet; and 4) The provision of a 40-foot width for the entrance drive with parking provided on either side. FINDINGS - SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST: 1. The project will promote a better living environment insofar as the project has been designed to integrate greenbelt areas throughout the entire project. 2. The project has promoted better land planning techniques with the maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and desing, of which this plan has in- corporated architecture that has created interesting shapes, planes, and areas and which has incorporated landscaping in order to soften and enhance the hardscape design of the buildings, and which has utilized land planning techniques that reduce conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 3. The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety, or convenience of the neighborhood or the City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the values of the property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. This project has been designed as an integrated planned residential development and has been adapted to the ter- rain and is compatible with surrounding land uses. FINDINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-25: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 2.5 acre parcel of land, de- signated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan as high .density residential and zoned R3-221 is proposed to be developed having a density of 20 units per gross acre, which is consis- tent with the City's General Plan and zoning. 2. With the granting of the special permit request, the proposed plan as presented is in substantial compliance with the re- quirements set forth in Article 936, Planned Residential Devel- opment, and will be in keeping with the intent of said ordinance. 3. The lot size, depth, frontage, street widths, and, through the use of the special permit, all other design and implementation -5- 12-1-81 - P.C. Minutes, K.B. F],gnn�Fg Commission December 1, 1981 Page 6 features of the proposed subdivision will be in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State 'Map Act and supplementary City subdivision ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plans, floor plans, and elevations received and dated September 30, 1981 shall be the approved layout, floor plans, and elevations. All items not addressed by the approval of the spec- ial permit for the proposed project shall -comply with.all appli- cable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 2. Natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the loca- tions of clothes dryers. 3. Natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking fac- ilities, water heaters, and central heating units. 4. Low -volume heads shall be used in all showers. 5. All building spoils, such as unused lumber, wire, pipe, or other suprlus or unusable materials, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. 6. Energy -efficient lighting, such as high --pressure sodium vapor lamps, shall be used in the parking lot to prevent spillage onto adjacent areas and for energy convervation. 7. All approved drives shall be considered fire lanes and shall be signed as such to the approval of the Huntington Beach Fire De- partment. 8. A fare sprinkler system, standpipe system, and fire alarm system shall be designed and installed _in those structures deemed nec- essary by the Huntington Beach in Department and shall be in compliance with all applicable provisions of the code. 9. All structures on the subject property, whether attached or det,, ached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of the submittal of an acoustical analysis report prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical -engineering with the application for building permits. 10. If at any time an entrance gate is proposed at the main entrance, location and design of such gate shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Development Services and by the Fire Department. 11. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall contain a pro. - vision which shall prohibit storage of boats, trailers, and/or -6- 12-1-81 - P.C. Minutes, H,B, planning Co=n salon December 1, 1981 Page 7 recreation vehicles onsite, unless an area that is specifically designed for such storage and which is in compliance with the provisions of Article 936 is provided for in the project. AYES: Bannister, Paone, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: Kenefick, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11603 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision of this 2.5 acre parcel of land, des- ignated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan as high density residential and zoned R3-22, is proposed to be developed having a density of 20 units per gross acre, which is consis- tent with the City's General Plan and zoning. 2. With the granting of the special permit requests, the proposed plan as presented is in substantial compliance with the re- quirements set forth in Article 936, Planned Residential Devel- opment, and will be in keeping with the intent of said ordinance. 3. THe lot size, depth, frontage, street widths, and, through the use of the special permit, all other design and implementa- tion features of the proposed subdivision will be in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemen- tary City subdivision ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative .tract received and dated October 1, 1981, shall be the approved layout. 2. The water system shall be through the City of Huntington Beach water system. 3. The sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems shall be designed to City standards. 4. The property shall participate in all local drainage assess- ment district requirements and fees. 5. Drainage for the subject subdivision shall be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the recordation of a final map. This system shall be designed to provide for ero- sion and siltation control both during and after construction of the proposed project. -7; 12-1-81 - P,C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission December 1, 1981 Page 8 6. All access rights along Newman Avenue except for the xntersecr- tion of the private drive shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. AYES: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Mahaffey NOES: Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81,18/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11519/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81--30 Applicant: Huntington Surfside Corporation To permit a 19-lot subdivision for the purpose of construction an 18-unit condominium project on the west side of Florida Street ap- proximately 200 feet south of Clay Avenue. Savoy Bellavia reported that the applicant has requested a continu- ance to the meeting of December 15, 1981. There were no persons present at the meeting to speak in regard to the project. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY KENEFICK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-18, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11519, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-30 WERE CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1981, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-014/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81-582 Applicant: Keith Wichrier (Cont. from 11-17-81) To permit the division on one 50-foot lots into two 25-foot lots in lieu of the 30-foot lot frontage requirement for property located on the east side of 13th Street approximately 150 feet north of Pecan Avenue. Savoy Bellavia reported that the public hearing had been opened and closed at the November 17 meeting; the only public input at that time had been made by the applicant in concurring with the staff recom- mendations. The Commission discussed what legal justification for granting of the conditional exception existed, what possible precedent might be set for other Rl lots.in the City by the granting of this request, and the possibility of a code amendment which would allow 25-foot lots in the two blocks between Acacia and Pecan Avenues and Twelfth and Thirteenth Streets. Secretary Palin suggested that this area might be made a sub -area of the Townlot Specific Plan, bringing those -8- ; 12-1-81-o-'P.C. Minutea, H,R, PlAnning Comm�apa on December 1, 1981 .Page 9 properties into conformance with the Townlot which surrounds them. He explained that allowing 25-foot lots in this instance could be considered as granting parity, not privilege, because of this surrounding land use, and would not establish a precedent for pre- viously unsubdivided blocks of property. 'Extensive discussion took place among the Commission members and staff regarding the equity of the request and the possible pro- cedure and timing of any code amendment which might be processed. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-014 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The two -lot division of land and the development of two single- family dwellings thereon is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Townlot Specific Plan. 2. The subdivision of this parcel into two 25-foot lots is creat- ing parity with what exists in the general area. 3. The proposed subdivision along with its design improvements is consistent with the general and specific plans in the area. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Winchell, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BANNISTER TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 81*-582 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDI- TIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING 'VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. This request will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community, as the development proposed upon the two parcels is proposed at the same intensity as that of surrounding uses. 2. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation of this type of use. 3. The size, depth, and street width, as well as other design and improvement features of the proposed subdivision, are pro- posed to be constructed in compliance with standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Map Act and supplemental City subdivision ordin- ance. -9- 12-1-81 - P,C, Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission December 1, 1981 Page 10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Department of Development Services and dated October 21, 1981, shall be the approved layout. 2. The existing main structure and accessory building shall be re- moved from the site prior to the recordation of Parcel Map No. 81-582. 3. A parcel map shall be filed with and approved by the Department of Public Works and recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 4. Street improvements shall be dedicated and constructed in accord- ance with City standards. 5. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach water system. 6. Sewage and drainage facilities shall be constructed in accordance with City standards. 7. All utilities shall be installed underground at the time said par- cels are developed. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, NOES: Winchell, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Paone, Schumacher, Mahaffey ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO RETURN WITH A DRAFT CODE AMENDMENT WHICH WILL ALLOW DIVISION OF THE 50 FOOT LOTS IN THE BLOCKS BOUNDED BY ACACIA AND PECAN AVENUES AND TWELFTH AND THIRTEENTH STREETS INTO 25 FOOT LOTS AND WHICH WILL INCLUDE WORDING WHICH WILL ENSURE THAT THE SAID PROVISION WILL NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER AREAS IN THE TOWNLOT SPECIFIC PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Paone stated that he had voted to approve the requests just acted upon, even though he still has strong reservations about using the conditional exception process to solve what is essentially a zoning problem, because he felt it would be unfair to ask the appli- cants to wait for the period of time it will require for a code amend- ment to correct the problem in the area. '10- 12-1-81 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission December 1, 1981 Page 11 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-015 Applicant: Eileen & William B. Murphy To permit the construction of two bedrooms and a bath over an existing garage without a connecting walkway to existing dwelling on property located on the northeast corner of Walnut Avenue and 21st Street. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Eileen Murphy addressed the Commission in behalf of her re- quest, saying that two-story garages are not at all unusual in the neighborhood and that to construct a covered walkway over the patio would make it almost unusable, as well as requiring that access to that walkway and the rear bedrooms would have to be taken through one of the existing bedrooms. Mr. William Murphy also spoke to urge approval of the request. There were no other persons in the audience to speak for or against the proposal, and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MAHAFFEY AND SECONDED BY KENEFICK TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81•-015. Discussion followed. The Commission considered the findings of hardship necessary to justify the granting of a conditional ex- ception and the possibility that a later owner might easily con- vert the type of construction the proponents are asking for into a rental unit. It was noted that the law does not preclude the construction of the extra rooms to this dwelling but does regulate the need for connection to the house, and that this regu- lation applies to all properties in the zoning district so it does not deprive the applicants of property rights enjoyed by others. THE MOTION TO APPROVE FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Mahaffey NOES: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY PAONE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-015 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOW- ING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The subject property is a 25 foot by 115 foot standard lot located in the Townlot Specific Plan area. The subject property is the same size and configuration of adjacent prop- erties in the general area and therefore there are no excep- tional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable -11- 12-1-81 - P,C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission December 1, 1981 Page 12 to the land, buildings, or premises involved, or to the intended use of same, that do not apply generally to the properties or class of uses in the same district. 2. Since the Townlot Specific Plan has provisions which will allow additional square footage to a single-family dwelling and, in fact, will allow an increase in square footage over a garage if attached to the main structure, such a conditional exception is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. AYES: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Bannister, Kenefick, Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Commission recessed at 8:55 and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-11(b) (Cont. from 10-20-81) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach An amendment to Division 9 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code re- lating to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Said code -amendment sets forth the purpose of the Board and outlines required findings of fact for processing applications. Savoy Bellavia explained that staff is asking for an indefinite con- tinuance of this item because in its investigation of the changes to be made in Article 981 it had come to light that these would entail changes to other sections of the code as well. Work is progressing and when the revisions have been coordinated and put into draft amend- ment form it will be readvertised and brought back to the Commission. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY PAONE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-11(b9 WAS CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-15 (Cont. from 11-17-81) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Anamendment to Article 979, Parking Requirements, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Said amendment will amend the requirements pertaining to physical protection of fencing and landscaping. Staff reported that this amendment has not been completed at this time but will be ready by the December 15, 1981 meeting. -12- 12-1-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission December 1, 1981 Page 13 Commissioner Porter and staff discussed the scheduling of code amendments on the Commission agenda. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-15 WAS CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1981 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher. Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: Chairman Winchell noted that the Commission has received a City archaeological map and questioned if it would be possible to also receive a recent map prepared by the Environmental Board. After brief discussion, staff was directed to submit copies of the Environmental Board's map to the Commission for its informa, tion. SMALL LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE; Staff noted that a copy of the draft ordinance had been included in the Commission's packets for this meeting, and asked if any comments could be made at this time. It was the consensus of the Commission that further time would be required to review the document and a study session session held in regard to the matter. By consensus it was decided that this study session would be held on January 12, 1982. Commissioner Bannister, however, did question the method of calculating the open space requirement and suggested that the staff review an alternative method which would use a percentage of the total acreage of a site for this calculation. After review, it was tentatively determined that this concept could begin on a percentage scale for a four -acre site down to a to be determined minimum size parcel. Commissioner Porter discussed the desirability of permitting planned developments on parcels of less than an acre in size, and asked that staff study the question of establishing a minimum site area for the lower density developments. Secretary Palin explained that staff has been discussing the formulation of a condominium ordinance to allow some of the smaller, more diffi- cult properties to develop with somewhat different requirements than are established in the planned developments. It is staff's hope that such an ordinance can be prepared to in a sense supplement the small lot ordinance under consideration and allow infilling of four- or five -unit developments. -13- 12-1-81 - P.C. Minutes,'H.B. Planning Commission December 1, 1981 Page 14 Commissiners Schumacher and Winchell asked that the sliding scale suggested for calculation of open space per site acreage also be applied to the calculation for the main recreation area. Dick Harlow spoke in regard to the proposed amendment. He expressed the point of view that the number of units, rather than the actual acreage, determines the size of a project and the calculations really should use a percentage of that number. He asked that the ordinance be structured to take into consideration the difference in living styles between condominiums and townhouses. Another item discussed was that the building bulk regulations should address a maximum dimension instead of the number of units which is presently the cri- terion in the PD ordinance. Mr. Harlow also suggested that the 50 percent requirement for setback of garages to allow additional apron parking be revised and parking provided within a project in some other fashion. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY PORTER THE COMMISSION SET JANUARY 12, 1982, FOR A STUDY SESSION ON THE SMALL LOT PLANNED DEV- ELOPMENT AND DIRECTED STAFF TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE COMMISSION AND BY MR. HARLOW AT THAT MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ■ ABSTAIN: Bannister DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Mr. Palin discussed a joint Planning Commission/City Council study session and tour to bring those bodies up to date on staff's work regarding the downtown areas and the Community Enhancement Program. After discussion of possible scheduling, it was the consensus that such a joint session would be worked out early in January. Staff reported that a Subdivision Committee will be held at 7:00 p.m. on December 8, 1981. When a majority of the Commission indicated interest in attending that meeting it was determined that it would be instead an adjourned Commission meeting. Staff was directed to submit the maps which will be heard at this meeting to those Com- missioners who have not received them in the Subdivision mailing. ON MOTION BY BANNISTER THE COMMISSION ADJOURNED TO DECEMBER 8, 1981 AT 7:00 PM IN ROOM B-8 OF THE CIVIC CENTER, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Schumacher NOES: Kenefick, Porter, Mahaffey ABSENT: None AAIN: None Be ,�. J m. (�7) es W. Pa in, Secretary Grace H. Winchell, Chairman :df -14- 12-1-81 - P.C.-