Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-09APPROVED 4-6-82 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1982 - 8:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone CONSENT CALENDAR: NONE STUDY SESSION ITEMS: ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN: Florence Webb, Senior Planner, capsulized the staff report, stating that staff needs direction from the Commission for a final version of the Specific Plan and to be able •to prepare a draft EIR that takes the considerations of the Commission into account. She further stated that this will all take a considerable amount of time seeing that when the draft EIR is prepared, it must go to the various agencies and public for a 30-day review period. Each item was discussed by the Planning Commission with regards to project size, housing types, densities, etc. The first topic was project size. Commissioner Porter questioned how staff came up with 10 acres being the minimum size for a node. Other commissioners wanted to know what would happen to the pro- perty owners who owned 2 acres or less. Mr. Palin suggested that they would need the -surrounding property owners for their sewer connections and electricity, etc. At this time, a letter from a property owner•in the area was discussed. Mrs. Ann Brendall was asked to come forward and address the Commission about her concerns. She stated that her parcel contains a "deep well" that goes down 9,000 feet and that she has been contacted by various agencies concerning the possibility of her well containing geothermal elements. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 9, 1982 Page 2 Chairman Winchell wanted to know what the best method would be for the individual property owners, especially those with small parcels. Ms. Webb stated that any of the methods would work. Commission consensus was concerned with the property owners whose property fell in the "green area" of the Specific Plan which would be for open space. Staff felt that everyone would have a share if they went with a joint venture. Naturally, the owners of smaller parcels would be more apt to be hurt by this Specific Plan. Redevelopment was briefly discussed, as regards the County's share of'tax increments. Staff stated that the County would waive the increments now and then get a percentage later. This percentage varies from county to county. Commissioner Mahaffey said he would like to see the property owners develop their own property "naturally", and use the Specific Plan as only a guideline. He felt that flexibility was lacking from the proposed Plan. Chairman Winchell was opposed to this statement, stating that this "natural" development plan would then annul any contiguous trail system. Commissioner Schumacher disliked the idea of a redevelopment district-- she felt that this would be "passing the buck" to another commission. A straw vote was taken on the subject of project size, product node configurations, variety of housing types and density. I -A. Project Size: 10 acre minimum IN FAVOR: Schumacher I-C. Project Size: 10 acre minimum within delineated project nodes IN.FAVOR: Winchell I-D. Project Size: 10 acre average with 5 acre minimum IN FAVOR: Porter I-E. None of the above IN FAVOR: Mahaffey II-C. Product Node Configurations: property lines IN FAVOR: Winchell, Porter, II-D. None of the .above IN FAVOR: Mahaffey III. Variety of Housing Types: Combination of topography and Schumacher 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 9, 1982- Page 3 III-C. Leave product type optional (grading regulations and open space corridors will encourage cluster development in some areas in order to get the maximum density) IN FAVOR: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey IV-B. Density: Allow different densities in different subareas but keep overall density at three units per acre IN FAVOR: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher IV-C. Density: Allow different densities in different subareas, and allow overall density to exceed three units per acre (Would require a General Plan Amendment) IN FAVOR: Mahaffey A study session was tentatively scheduled by the Planning Commission for April 27, 1982. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 936, HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE: Jim Barnes gave a brief synopsis of the staff report. He stated that the existing Planned Development Ordinance was structured to accommodate 10 acres or more. The purpose of the proposed amend- ments to the code is to build into the ordinance more flexibility that small parcels may now be in conflict with. Also, it should make open space more proportionate. Regarding open space, it was the consensus that the demand at present is for more -private open space and less common open space. Staff felt that the standard developed in the proposed amendments to Ar- ticle 936 did not sacrifice this and that, further, the City of Huntington Beach is more restrictive than other cities in Orange County. Chairman Winchell felt that a sentence should be inserted to deal with the distance a main recreation area should be measured from the building. Commissioner Mahaffey stated that he would support these draft amendments the way they are now presented. There was some question as to what constitutes a travel lane. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL, THE STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 936, FOR THE FIRST AVAILABLE MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher, Bannister, Kenefick, Paone ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Commissioner Mahaffey made a motion to approve Code Amendment 82-1 as corrected by staff. This motion failed for lack of a Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 9, 1982 Page 4 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-01 (Continued from 2-17-82) Applicant: Stephen & Daylane Fraser A request to permit the construction of a one -bedroom, 589 square foot dwelling unit above a proposed two-car.garage at property lo- cated on the north side of 12th Street approximately 200 feet east of Olive Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Seeing no one came forward to ad-- dress this issue, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mahaffey made a motion to approve Conditional Excep- tion 82-01 with the findings to added at a later date. This motion failed for lack of a second. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER TO DENY CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 82-01 BASED ON THE FINDINGS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF. THIS MOTION FAILED TO OBTAIN FOUR OR MORE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES AS SEEN BELOW: AYES: Winchell, NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Bannister, ABSTAIN: None Porter, Schumacher Kenefick, Paone Due to the failure to obtain four or more affirmative votes, Con- ditional Exception No. 82-01 was automatically continued to the meeting of March 16, 1982. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 (Continued from 2-17-82) Initiated by Development Services A revision to sections of the Ordinance Code pertaining to wind- screens on projecting decks. Mr. Bellavia added a correction to the staff report. On Page 1 of the proposed ordinance in regards to height, it will read as follows: "Windscreens on projecting decks may be constructed, subject to provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.24, to a height not exceedign nine (9) feet above the finished surface of the deck at the bulkhead line, and not exceeding the second story finished floor elevation at the exterior wall of the building." So the words "story" and "finished" were added to the text. 1 The public hearing was opened. Seeing no one came forward to address the Commission on this issue, the hearing was closed. No. second. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 9, 1982 Page 5 There was concern from some of the Commissioners regarding the wind- screens being completed closed which may constitute a habitable room rather than an enclosed patio. Mr. Palin explained that the original proposal that went to the City Council was that the ends be opened but City Council requested that we amend that part of the code. Commissioner Porter felt that a full Commission would be better able to deal with the issue. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-1 WITH THE CONDITION THAT A MINIMUM SPACE BE PROVIDED AT THE TOP OF THE WINDSCREEN SO THAT IT IS "OPEN". THIS MOTION FAILED TO OBTAIN FOUR OR MORE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES AS SHOWN BELOW: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone ABSTAIN: None Due to the failure to obtain four or more affirmative votes, Code Amendment No. 82-1 was automatically continued to the meeting of March 16, 1982. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-2 (Continued from 2-17-82) Initiated by Development Services This amendment deals with Article 973, Miscellaneous Provisions, of Division 9. Staff requested a further continuance because of pending litigation which could be affected by this section of the code. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY CODE AMENDMENT NO. 82-2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1982, BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Paone ABSTAIN: None DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: An ordinance for the Seabridge Specific Plan was prepared and distributed to the Commission for their review prior to presen— tation of same to the City Council at their upcoming meeting. In response to the Commission's request, a report was presented to the Commission regarding the requirements for affordable housing under Senate Bill 626 and Assembly Bill 321 (Mello Bill). The Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 9, 1982 Page 6 Commission had some question as to if this bill included mobile homes when it addressed the subject of conversions. Mr. Palin replied that the interpretation does apply to mobile home parks. ITEMS DISTRIBUTED: 1. Correspondence from Orange County Environmental Management Agency regarding the Ellis--Goldenwest Specific Plan. 2. Letter from American Landscape Supply (Mr. & Mrs. Brendall) regarding Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. 3. Letter of resignation from the Planning Commission ,from Mr. Wesley Bannister. ADJOURNMENT: Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM to the regular meeting to be held March 16, 1982. . ►Y Grace Winchell, Chairman 1 I.