Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-02Approved February 17, 1982 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers, Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY KENEFICK THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 1982, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 1982, AND AN EXTENSION OF TIME ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-2, WAS AP- PROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Paone**, Kenefick*, Bannister* (**Commissioner Paone abstained from voting on A2) (*Commissioners Kenefick and Bannister abstained from voting on Al) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Commissioners requested an analysis from staff regarding a communi- que from Mr. Leonard Wright which was distributed at the meeting of January 19, 1982. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 81-88 (Appeal) Applicant: Kenneth E. Holmes A request to permit the relocation of a garage door at 15.6 foot setback and a 12 foot high wall at 15.6 foot setback from the front property line and to allow a 2.6± foot encroachment of a struc- ture into the side yard setback on a .13 acre parcel of property located on the west side of Saybrook, approximately 300 feet south of Davenport Lane. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 2, 1982 Page 2 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Holmes, the applicant, presented a whole new conceptual plan to the Commission which still requires the use of a conditional exception. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MAHAFFEY AND SECONDED BY KENEFICK TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION 81-88 TO THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 1982, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO REFER THE APPLICATION BACK TO BZA FOR REVIEW OF THE REVISED SITE PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES, None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-15/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-16/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-3 (Continued from 1-19-82) Applicant: Mola Development Corporation A request to permit a change in zoning on a 60+ acre parcel of pro- perty located on the southeast corner of Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard, from Rl-O, R1-01, RA-O, RA-01 and C2 to Seabridge Spe- cific Plan. Jim Barnes made a brief presentation to the Commission. He informed the Commission that the Environmental Board put their comments re- garding the EIR and that copies were distributed to them for their perusal. Charles Pilcher from EDAW gave a presentation of a supple- mental information packet which was prepared by the firm in answer to questions asked at the last regular meeting. The following areas were addressed: solar access, trails systems, secondary ve- hicular access, cumulative traffic analysis, scenic corridor, sewage line capacity, levee height_ and backwater effects, elevation of resource production areas, energy costs and water consumption, and school district contacts. Commission discussed the above concerns at length. Commissioner Paone stated that he listened to the tape of the public hearing and would be eligible to vote. Chairman Winchell reopened the public hearing asking that the public limit their comments to issues that have not previously been dis- cussed. Speaking against the adequacy of the EIR were Dan Lisby, Steve Olburger, and Mike McDonald. Speaking in favor, was Richard Harlow. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion ensued. Discussed in detail was the question of accumulative effects of the sewer system. George Tindall, of Public Works, stated that the coast trunk line will more than ade- quately handle the excess. He further stated that any problems occurring would probably arise from the treatment facilities, however, this is an ongoing problem which the County of Orange is well aware of. Discussion took place regarding what determines adequacy or inadequacy of the EIR. Secretary Palin reminded the Commissioners that the EIR is a disclosure document and that specific mitigation measures need not be discussed to determine the adequacy of the EIR. 1 -2- 2-2-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 2, 1982 Page 3 Commissioners Schumacher and Bannister believe that the increased density and traffic impacts on Beach Boulevard would cause them to question the adequacy of the EIR and stated that they would vote against it. Commissioner Schumacher also noted that she did not feel that the study contained in the EIR on the ponding area was adequate to address that issue. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 81-3 WAS CERTIFIED AS BEING ADEQUATE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The following items were discussed by the Commission in relation to the Specific Plan: 1. Paae 1, Items 1 & 2, under "City Council Direction" Clarify City Council direction regarding density in Areas A and B. 2. Page 2, Item 4, under "City Council Direction" Clarify direction given by City Council regarding preservation of the ponding area. 3. Page 4, Item F, under "Site Plan" Item F should say: "Type and Location of Outside Lighting". 4. Page 8, Item G, under "Traffic Control" Revise this section so that approval of traffic control device is subject to the review of the Planning Commission. 5. Page 4, Item D, under "Application Procedure" Add a statement under "Application Procedure" requiring that all development standards in the Specific Plan be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 6. Page 8, Item G, under "Traffic Control" In lieu of requirement that the installation of traffic signals be on a fair share participation agreement - this section should be revised to require that cost of the signals on Beach Boule- vard and Adams Avenue be financed 100% by the developer. 7. Page 9, Section K, under "Noise" -3- 2-2-82 - P.C. Minutes, H. B. Planning Commission February 2, 1982 Page 4 First sentence to be revised to read, ". the Development Services Department for review and approval . .". 8. Page 10, Section M, under "Resource Production Areas" Clarify subsection 1 to indicate that property will be deeded to the homeowner's association(s) immediately. 9. Paae 11, Section M, "Resource Production Areas", Subsection 5-A This section shall be revised as follows: "The area east of the flood control channel (Area A) shall be improved according to the preliminary landscape plans which are to be submitted with the application for development". 10. Paae 11, Subsection 5-B Clarify location of the restored marsh and direction given by City Council pursuant to discussion presented in Item #2, above. 11. Paae 12, Section O, "Development Standards", Subsection 1-A This section shall be revised to read, "Attached or detached units and related recreational facility". 12. Paae 12, "Density Standards", Area B Add standards pertaining to total number of bedrooms allowed. Clarify density in Area B. Research the ratio for establish- ment of number of bedrooms allowable under the provisions of Article 936 of the Ordinance Code. 13. Paae 13, "Perimeter Setback" Add provision providing that the grade differential on adjacent property to the east and south shall not exceed one foot. 14. Paae 13, "Building Height" Clarification on method of measuring building height. Develop terminology to require variation in height. 15. Pages 14 & 15, "Building Bulk" Statements under Sub -Area A, a, b, and c, and Sub -Area B, a and b, shall be revised to include the word,"shall" in lieu of the word "should". 16. Paae 14, "Building Separation and Setback", Area A, Sub -Area H -4- 2-2-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 2, 1982 Page 5 This section shall be revised to read as follows: "Where open parking is provided on the same level as that portion of the dwelling used for human habitation, the minimum separation shall be 10 feet on a horizontal plain". 17. Pane 14, "Building Separation", Area B Minimum separation between buildings should be increased. A provi- sion for obliquely aligned buildings shall be established. 18. Page 15, "Open Space, Area A This section shall be revised to require 1,200 square feet in lieu of 800 square feet. 19. Page 15, "Open Space", Area B, Subsection A This provision pertaining to a 50% credit for resource produc- tion areas shall be deleted. 20. Page 16, Item B, "Main Recreation Area", Subsection B This section shall be revised to read as follows: "Residential units shall not be located closer to the main recreation area than 20 feet". 21. Page 15, "Open Space" Add provisions requiring that the maximum square footage require- ments for common open space shall not satisfy any requirement of Article 974 and Artical 996 of the Ordinance Code relating to park and recreational facilities. 22. Page 13, "Private Accessways" Standards for private accessways shall be consistent with stan- dards in Article 936 of the Ordinance Code. 23. Page 19, "Parking", Subsection D The provision pertaining to a credit for parking provided on a drive approach shall be revised to be consistent with the provision in Article 936 of the Ordinance Code. 24. Page 20, "Parking", Subsection G The provision allowing compact parking shall be subject to further study. 25. Page 19, "Parking", Sections A & B Covered parking spaces shall be contiguous to the dwelling unit -5- 2-2-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 2, 1982 Page 6 for which it will serve. 26. Page 21, "Cable TV" Provisions shall be added for a common antenna. 27. Landscape Corridor Consideration should be given to applying appropriate provisions pertaining to a landscape corridor. 28. Page 25, "Appearance Standards", Subsection C This section shall be revised as follows: Particular attention shall be given to incorporating the design of signs including colors of signs, into the overall design of the entire develop- ment in order to achieve a uniformity. 29. Page 26, Item L, "Approval Period" This shall be revised to conform with State law. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BANNISTER AND SECONDED BY PAONE TO TIE THE PROJECT PLAN TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN SO THAT THEY WOULD BE ADDRESSED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE SAME TIME. THIS MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Mahaffey NOES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Paone made a motion to process the zone change, condi- tional use permit and the tentative tract at one time and to recom- mend that the City Council, in the form of a resolution, adopt a development agreement with the applicant showing a specific time frame. Commissioner Bannister seconded this motion. After some discussion, Commissioner Paone withdrew his motion and Commissioner Bannister withdrew his second. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-16 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-15 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenef ick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: Bannister ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chairman Winchell called for a 5-minute recess. Commission meeting resumed at 11:00 PM. -6- 2-2-82 - P.C. I 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 2, 1982 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-8/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417/ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 78-4/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 82-552 Applicant: Mansion Properties, Inc./Urban West Communities A CUP request to permit a 492 unit planned residential development and a TT request to permit a one -lot subdivision for condominiums to be constructed on 44.6 gross acres of property located on the east side of Main Street, at the southeast corner of Clay Avenue and Main Street. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PAONE CUP 81-8, TT 11417, EIR 78-4, AND TPM 82-552 WERE CONTINUED TO AN ADJOURNED -MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 9, 1982 AT 8:00 P.M., BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-13 Applicant: Hartge Engineering CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-3 Applicant: Robert Zinnarabe A zone change request to rezone property from R5 (Office Professional) to Pacifica Community Plan, and a code amendment to the Pacifica Community Plan boundaries to include 3.1 acres of property which is located on the east side of Florida Street, 660 feet south of Main Street. The public hearing was opened. Richard Harlow spoke in favor of granting the requests on behalf of the applicants. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-3 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-13 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION THE FOLLOWING -7- 2-2-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 2, 1982 Page 8 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: ZONE CHANGE 81-13: 1. The zone change is in conformance with the City's General Plan. 2. The zone change will not adversely affect living conditions in in the surrounding neighborhood since the property is already developed and the use will not be changed. 3. The existing use on the site is consistent with development criteria and the purpose of the Pacifica Community Plan. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-16 Applicant: Hillcrest Missionary Baptist Church A request to permit the rezoning from R2 (Medium Density Residential) to R5 (Office Professional) on a .68+ acre parcel of property located at the northeast corner of Newman and Van Buren. The public hearing was opened. Seeing that no one came forward to address the Commission on this issue, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY KENEFICK ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-16 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: ZONE CHANGE NO. 81-16: 1. A change of zone on the subject property from R2, Medium Density Residential District, to R5, Office Professional District, is consistent with General Plan designation which is'Office Pro- fessional. 2. The proposed zone change from R2 to R5 will be compatible with surrounding land uses because the proposed office builidng is not an intense land use. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 (Continued from 1-19-82) Initiated by Development Services Department An amendment to Article 910 to revise the development standards per- taining to windscreens and patios in the R1 (Low Density Residential) 1 -8- 2-2-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 2, 1982 Page 9 District. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY KENEFICK CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bannister DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Secretary Palin announced that George Tindall of the Public Works is leaving the City to go into private practice. Mr. Bellavia asked if any Commissioners were interested in attend- ing the League of Cities Conference to be held in San Diego. No response was received. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned to an adjourned meeting on February 9, 1982, to discuss "The Ranch" project. The Regular Meeting of February 17, 1982, will begin with a Subdivision Committee Meeting at 6:30 PM. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 PM. Grace Winchell, Chairman -9- . 2-2-82 - P.C.