Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-04APPROVED 10-18-83 As Corrected MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir CONSENT CALENDAR: Jim Barnes noted an addition to the consent calendar (Item A-4) which is a request for extension of time on Conditional Use Permit No. 82-23 and Conditional Exception No. 82-11. The Commissioners voted on the first three items on the calendar but agreed to vote separately on the additional item. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTING OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 83-10, TWO EXTENSIONS OF TIME, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-12 AND A QUALIFIED ZONING CLASSIFICATION ON ZONE CHANGE NO. 82-3, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSISTING OF AN EXTENSION OF TIME ON C.U.P. 82-23 AND C.E. 82-11, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RRMITAR AGRNnA TTRMS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-6/ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-12/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-41 (Continued from 8-16-83) Applicant: W & B Builders/Seaside Village Townhome Association A C.U.P. request to revise a previously approved C.U.P. to permit the addition of security gates and wrought iron fencing and a zone change request to change the zone from R2-PD to R2 on property located at the southwest corner of Atlanta Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Michael Strange gave the staff presentation. Commissioner Higgins asked if the Commission did not take action on the C.U.P. as recommended by staff would the notice of violation be required and would it have an effect on action on the zone change. Art De La Loza said that the original notice was done because of certain deficiencies, however, if those deficiencies are taken care of the notice of violation is no longer necessary. The public hearing was opened. Frank Thompson, representing W & B Builders, requested the Planning Commission to approve the zone change so that the 75 rental units will meet the code requirements. He said he believed that at that point, having been told he can have condominiums in an R2 zone that he could create Lot 10 and subsequently record a condominium map. He said that for staff to continue to recommend denial on the zone change was not productive for anyone. Nancy Schlachter representing the homeowners association said she was in favor of the zone change. She said she objected to Condition #2 with regard to including the future owners of Tract 9580 into their homeowner's association and under their CC&R's. She said this would force them to go to their lenders and would require a 2/3 vote of the present membership. She said the affect on persons residing in the fencing and gating tract and she said would not have an the plan has Fire Department approval. Wilburn Smith, an attorney representing the homeowner's association said he was there for legal questions. Manny Aftergut, one of the owners of Lot 10, requested approval. He said his company specializes in Section 8 housing and they were original developers of the project. The above speakers were questioned by the Commissioners. Commissioner Schumacher asked if there was a condition in the original C.U.P. dealing with the return of the 76th unit from a recreation room to a unit. Mr. Thompson stated that it would remain a recreation room in the event of a conversion to condominiums. He said that it came up from a 1978 letter at the time the project was approved for 82 units. Chairman Porter recommended a separate homeowner's association at the time the units convert, with separate CC&R's. Mr. Aftergut stated he would not object to that. The Chairman also questioned staff about conversations they might have had with HUD. Mr. Aftergut said he spoke to an agent from HUD who asked that he not be asked to get involved. He believed that HUD's concern was with security. He said that it was a "balancing act" dealing with aesthetic consistency and the flood hazard area, etc. Glen Godfrey stated that he spoke to Mr. Laferty at the San Diego HUD office who said he had no problem with the demand in having access to the pool and was basically in favor of an integrated project. He was more concerned about the tenants in the HUD project having roadway access. Mike Adams reviewed the PD standards. The public hearing was closed. -2- 10/04/83 - P.C. Commissioner Livengood suggested adding a condition of requiring a pool to be constructed and also suggested using the wording from the April 19, 1983 staff report with regard to easements and knox box systems. He said he still had some concern about private open space. Frank Thompson said he would accept the added condition of a pool. Commissioner Higgins said he favored creating a separate project for Lot 10. Discussion took place regarding a rezoning to R2, if it satisfied Article 936 as far as parking was concerned. Also discussed was density, i.e., units per acre, bedroom counts, etc. Chairman Porter said he did not favor a zone change. Discussion followed on the correct procedure to use to deal with the notice of violation letter. Art De La Loze said that dealing with the findings for special permit was possible but he did not know what practical affect it would have on the present homeowners. Mr. Smith, the attorney, stated that the notice of violation on the lenders' record would prevent any broker from closing escrow. Mr. De La Loza suggested imposing the condition of a pool and give the applicant the opportunity to present evidence to show cause why the notice should not be recorded. Commissioner Winchell stated that this application has gone around and around and wanted to know if staff's major concern with the project was the fact that the condominium map needed to be recorded. Mr. Godfrey stated that originally the entire development was considered an integrated project with Lot 10 as a part, and when the CC&R's were recorded, Lot 10 was not made a part. He said Lot 10 is still a part of the development because of the map approval. Chairman Porter said that some assurance was needed if R2 zoning would resolve the problems. Commissioner Winchell said if it was the intent to make it "PD", why zone it apartment. Commissioner Livengood asked if the Commission could determine that there was no violation if it is a separate project. Mr. De La Loza stated this would be arbitrary. It was the general concensus to approve the conditional use permit and continue the negative declaration and the zone change to the next regular meeting. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-6 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed alteration to the circulation plan of Tract No. 9580 will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety or convenience of persons residing in this tract or adjacent neighborhoods. 2. The construction of this gate and fence system will not separate said project in a manner which will make either portion nonconforming with the City's zoning and/or General Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the gate and -3- 10/04/83 - P.C. fence system, the applicant shall prepare and record with the County of Orange, a condominium map on the 75 units presently being rented and located on Lot 10. The site plan received and dated March 2, 1983, shall be the approved layout. 2. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be prepared, approved by the Department of Development Services and recorded for Lot 10 to be in effect upon the first sale of the first unit to an individual buyer within the development. 3. A knox box system and all gates to be constructed across any existing roadway shall be reviewed and approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A pedestrian accessway shall be provided through the wall on Atlanta Avenue subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services. 5. The property owners of both projects shall prepare and record revisions to the previously established easements over the appropriate streets in order to assure access to all units within the project. Said amendments to these easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Development Services prior to recordation. 6. A swimming pool shall be constructed within the main recreation area on Lot 10 prior to the first sale of the first unit subject to the review and approval of the Department of Development Services. 7. The property owners of both projects shall prepare and record an agreement for the continuing maintenance of commonly used facilities between Lots 9 and 10. Said agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Development Services prior to recordation. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-41 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-12 WERE CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 18, 1983 MEETING WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF TO COME BACK WITH ANALYSIS INCLUDING ANNEXATION TO MITIGATE FILING OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -4- 10/04/83 - P.C. Commissioner Livengood requested that Item C-2 on the agenda be moved to the last item. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-30, APPEAL (Continued from 9-20-83) Applicant: The Huntington Partnership Appellant: Ralph B. Saltsman, Attorney The original approval of Administrative Review No. 83-30 was for installation of controlled parking and development of a marina restroom facility located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway, 10 feet north of Anderson Street. The appeal was made by the attorney for the Red Onion Restaurant on the conditions of approval. Howard Zelefsky gave the staff presentation recommending a continuance. The public hearing was opened. Seeing there was no one present to speak for or against the item, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she saw no comments from the homeowners in the Broadmore tract. She was concerned about the adjacent homeowner's response to the new controlled parking. Mr. Zelefsky said he did receive some phone calls from persons residing in that tract. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE APPEAL ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 83-30 WAS DENIED (BZA APPROVAL UPHELD) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The restroom facilities plan, profile and architectural features shall be submitted for review and approval through the Department of Development Services permitting all Fire Department and Ordinance Code requirements prior to issuance of building permits. 2. That the restroom facility be secured for entry by card and/or locking mechanism or some other means or device which would make the facility only available to authorized users. 3. The parking circulation management plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Development Services and Public Works - Traffic Division meeting all staff concerns as voiced by the Fire Department, Engineering and Planning staff including"but not limited to valet parking, circulation, emergency, fire and police ingress and egress and noise mitigation prior to issuance of building permits. 4. That a revised site plan showing all proposed changes as discussed with the Board and including placement of traffic cones, circulation, special parking designations and other features requiring designation as proposed by the applicant and approved by the Board shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits. The revised site plan shall show all controlled entrances on the site and shall include all precise dimensions for entry, circulation widths, etc. This plan shall -5- 10/04/83 - P.C. be compatible and show a working relationship with the parking control management plan. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None APPEAL OF REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS NO. 83-36 AND 83-40 Applicant: George E. Arnold Appellant: Councilman John Thomas An appeal to a BZA action of revocation of Administrative Review No. 83-36 and 83-40, seasonal parking lot permit located approximately 100 feet south of Walnut and on the south side of 14th Street. Mr. Zelefsky gave a brief staff presentation. He said that staff further recommends a code amendment dealing with seasonal parking lot permits. Art De La Loza added that the public hearing is to determine whether the appellant should prevail that the Board of Zoning Adjustments acted improperly, or in other words, to find defects in the findings for revocation imposed by the Board. The public hearing was opened. The applicant George Arnold gave his argument concerning the revocation, addressing such issues as police calls, restriction of the Coastal Commission for development of his property, etc. He submitted, for perusal of the Commission, a letter of support from various residents in the City. He further cited the City for their tax roll records not being kept up to date. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood asked Mr. Arnold if he had the necessary insurance. Mr. Arnold stated that he did. Mr. Godfrey stated that it was the Board's understanding, per Risk Management Section, that he did not have the necessary insurance, however, in discussing this with the City Attorney, since it is not in the Code, it may not be a requirement. Mr. De La Loza stated that when property is not owned by the City, Workmens Compensation Insurance is required, however, in this case it appeared that there were no employees under Mr. Arnold. Commissioner Livengood questioned the timing of this appeal since it was past the time of expiration of Mr. Arnold's seasonal permit. Mr. Godfrey replied that the applicant's concern was that he would not have any prejudice attached to the operation of his lot this season as his intention is to ask -for a permit next year. Mr. De La Loza suggested to the applicant that he submit his application early enough in the year to allow for public hearing processes. Commissioner Livengood asked legal counsel if the Planning Commission took no action what would happen. Mr. De La Loza answered that the action by the BZA revoking the permit would have terminated in September anyway and that the Commission should make findings that the BZA action was properly taken. For example that the parking lots are -6- 10/04/83 - P.C. not secure with facts to substatiate that, that he exceeded the permit limit for seasonal parking, that he does not have proper insurance and that he is requiring police time to answer complaint calls. Other conditions that it appears he violated was that he was supposed to work closely with the land use enforcement officer and possible violation of the sign code. Commissioner Livengood agreed with staff that a code amendment was needed. Discussion ensued regarding tabling of the item with the understanding that the revocation would be in effect in 60 days. Mr. De La Loza stated that next year Mr. Arnold would have the opportunity to redress his greivance. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE APPEAL OF BZA ACTION TAKEN ON ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS NO. 83-36 AND 83-40 WERE TABLED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A CODE AMENDMENT TO INITIATE A TWO-STEP PROCESS FOR SEASONAL PARKING PERMITS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None The Chairman called for a five-minute recess. Commission resumed at 9:30 PM. SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 83-3 Applicant: Nu Art Signmakers, c/o Walter Brooks A request for a freestanding sign 540 feet apart from existing sign on property located on the north side of Adams Avenue approximately 1,100 feet west of Brookhurst Street. Jim Barnes gave a slide presentation on the item. The public hearing was opened. Walter Brooks, the applicant and Eddie Sheldrake, the restaurant owner, gave public testimony in favor of approval of the sign. Mr. Sheldrake quoted economic hardship due to competition of surrounding signs, while -Mr. Brooks cited inability to see the sign by traffic coming from the west on Adams Avenue. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Porter stated that although he was sympathetic to Mr. Sheldrake he did not agree on the height of the sign. Commissioner Livengood stated he supported the proposal. -7- 10/04/83 - P.C. A motion was made by Livengood and seconded by Higgins to approve Special Sign Permit No. 83-3 with findings that strict compliance to the sign code would cause economic hardship and that the addition of another freestanding sign on Adams Avenue would not adversely affect other signs in the area. Chairman Porter said he would vote against the motion unless it was restated to require a monument sign. The motion failed to attain four affirmative votes as follows: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: Winchell, Schumacher, Porter ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None ON A SUBSEQUENT MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 83-3 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Strict compliance with the ordinance code will result in a substantial hardship to the applicant because of competition of existing signs in the area. 2. Addition of another freestanding sign in the vicinity of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street would not adversely affect other signs in the area. 3. The proposed or existing sign will not be detrimental to the property located in the vicinity of such sign. 4. The proposed or existing sign does not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated September 1, 1983, shall be the approved layout provided that the freestanding sign be a monument sign with a maximum height of 9 feet and a maximum sign area of 60 square feet. The location of said sign shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Development Services. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 83-3/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-2 Area 3.1 Applicant: David Dahl Area 3.2 Applicant: Don VaVerka All other areas and administrative item, city -initiated The Chairman requested that the public hearing will be held concurrently with appropriate zone change requests. The public hearing was opened on EIR 83-2. -8- 10/04/83 - P.C. Area 2.1 Establish administrative items as defined and specific type of General Plan Amendment which does not require the normal detailed land use analysis. Staff presentations for all areas were made by Hal Simmons. The public hearing was opened. Seeing that no one wished to speak to this item, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD AREA 2.1 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None Area 2.2 Eliminate the two existing Estate Residential land use designations (0-2 and 0-4 units per acre), and create a new Estate Residential, 0-3 Units Per Acre designation. The action should only be taken if staff recommendation for Area 3.1 is approved. The public hearing was opened. David Dahl spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation. He said that 0-2 and 0-4 was redundant and not the proper method to use. Commissioner Livengood commented that he believed that the City Council action on the Downtown Specific Plan should come before action is taken on this item. Commission consensus was to take a straw vote on this area after action on Area 3.1. Area 3.1 and Zone Change No. 83-4, Applicant: David Dahl The applicant's request is to redesignate 10 acres located on the south side of Ellis Avenue, approximately 1,650 feet east of Edwards Street from Estate Residential (0-2 units per acre) to Estate Residential (0-3 units per acre) including 280 acres in the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan Area. Staff recommends redesignate the 280 acres from Estate Residential 0-2 and 0-4 units per acre to 0-3 units per acre. The public hearing was opened. Dave Eadie spoke on behalf of the Huntington Beach Company. He said that the company owned the Holly properties (100 acres) and plans will be presented to the City shortly for a General Plan Amendment and requested that it be omitted from any action tonight. He spoke of another parcel west of Edwards to the bluffs which falls in the coastal zone and asked that it be excluded until the Local Coastal Program is adopted. David Dahl of Lindborg/Dahl, spoke in favor of his requests. He said he did not believe that a General Plan Amendment was appropriate because of difference in topography, economic utilization, street capacity, etc. He gave a brief overview of the history of the property including modifications that had to be made during discussion of the -9- 10/04/83 - P.C. Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan. He preferred elimination of conditions on the qualified zone change except for trails around the perimeter. Commissioner Higgins said he found it hard to go along with staff's recommendation to make the whole area in question 0-3 units per acre on the designation. Chairman Porter said he had no problem with that for the 10 acres if that was maximum density. Mr. Dahl responded that he has been before this body since 1969 with attempts to change the zoning and all he wants is an increase in the General Plan designation to allow him to do what he wants to do. Chairman Porter said that if the City Council's intent was to allow more units per acre he was agreeable to reducing the size of the area to a boundary line between Edwards and Goldenwest and eliminating the rest of it. Commissioner Schumacher argued in favor of equestrian uses in the area, she said you are not going to have affordable housing in estate residential. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS AREA 2.2 WAS APPROVED AS FOLLOWS: ADD 0-3 ESTATE RESIDENTIAL TO THE OTHER TWO ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS; RETAIN TWO EXISTING ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS (0-2 AND 0-4) AND ADD NEW DESIGNATION OF 0-3 UNITS PER ACRE, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY WINCHELL AREA 3.1 WAS APPROVED AS FOLLOWS: REDESIGNATE AREA BOUNDED BY EDWARDS, ELLIS AND GOLDENWEST AS ESTATE RESIDENTIAL 0-3 UNITS PER ACRE WITH BALANCE LEFT FOR FURTHER STUDY, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None Area 3.2, Applicant: Don VaVerka The applicant's request is to redesignate 9.21 acres on the west of Magnolia Street, north of Warner Avenue, from general commercial to high density residential to permit 67 units per acre. Staff recommends that it be designated low density residential, however, if applicant's request is approved, staff recommends that the units be for senior citizens only. The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. VaVerka, stated that there was a need in the City for affordable housing and requested the Planning Commission to approve his request for senior citizen units. He felt that the major concern from surrounding residents may be the access on Magnolia. He said a reciprocal agreement was reached between -10- 10/04/83 - P.C. himself -and Dr. Brown (adjacent property owner). He further stated he was willing to install a signal with left -turn -only lane and a raised median. He said as far as the neighbors to the west, that landscaped buffers would be placed between the buildings. He felt that his proposed project would not add to traffic at peak hours due to the nature of the tenants. Commissioner Livengood asked the applicant for the setback figure on the west side. Mr. VaVerka said it was 85 feet. Melvin Ferdick spoke in opposition to the EIR addressing the Land Use Element Amendment, he said it does not reflect the current traffic problem. He was also opposed to the applicant's request because he said he would loose his view - he favored commercial. Wayne Cronnester said he was not against senior citizens, however, he said the residents in the area signed a petition against any residential development occuring on this property. Frederick Lake said he was concerned for the senior citizens who would reside there, that it was not the best place for them with a race track so close. He also said he was concerned with the applicant's plan which showed an opening through to the existing tract. He said he did not think anyone would like another opening with 575 apartment tenants available to that tract. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Higgins thought that the traffic counts shown on the report should be half of what was listed. Commissioner Livengood said that he thought the freeway noise was not condusive to future tenants. Commissioner Schumacher cited safety as a major concern. She said everyone is for more senior housing, however, we owe it to them to provide a decent place to live. Chairman Porter said he did not care for the setbacks and building bulk. He saw a problem with traffic backing up on the freeway offramp and bridge. The Chairman allowed William Kamakawa, owner of the adjacent nursery to speak to the Commission. He said he believed his hands were being tied, that the property is zoned commercial and his property is being used as a wholesale nursery. Commissioner Winchell thought that 575 people on 9 acres of land was very dense. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER TO EXCLUDE AREA 3.2 FROM THE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT. MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins, Porter ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None Chairman Porter requested staff to send a notice of the City Council public hearing on this matter to the three residents who spoke. Area 3.3 and Zone Change No. 83-13, Initiated by the City A request by the City to redesignate 1.6 acres at the southeast corner -11- 10/04/83 - P.C. of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street from Industrial Resource Production to Open Space. After brief staff presentation the public hearing was opened for Area 3.3 concurrently with Zone Change No. 83-13. Seeing there was no one who wished to address the Commission on these items, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS AREA 3.3 WAS APPROVED PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None Area 3.4 Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, A request by the City to redesignate approximately 37.6-acres bounded by Slater to the south, Nichols and Oakview School to the west, a line 145 feet north of Mandrel to the north and a line 300 feet west of Beach Boulevard to the east from medium density residential to medium high density residential. The City Redevelopment Agency has plans to include this area in the Oakview Plan and staff's recommendation is to accommodate those plans by a change to medium high density residential designation. The public hearing was opened. Seeing there was no one who wished to address the Commission on these items, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Porter stated that he did not believe that high density in this area was consistent with the City's goals. Commissioner Schumacher pointed out that, although the staff report indicates that the redesignation to high density residential would be out of conformance with the General Plan, if the density bonus allowed for new affordable housing were applied,to the area, it would not be out of conformance. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR AREA 3.4, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None Area 3.5 A request by the City to redesignate a 26.6 acre area covered by the Pacifica Community Plan and a 4.4 acre area covered by R5, both generally located on the south side of Main Street, 290 feet west of Beach Boulevard from office professional to mixed development; and a request to redesignate 4.17 acres covered by R3 zoning in the vicinity of Shaffer and Palin Circles from office professional to medium density residential. -12- 10/04/83 - P.C. The public hearing was opened. Richard Harlow spoke on behalf of Robert Zinngrabe (Pacifica Community Plan area), who said he favored staff's recommendation as long as it remained R1 zoning. The public hearing was closed on all items. Commissioner Livengood asked staff about the letter that was submitted by David Adler regarding this property. Mr. Simmons stated that Mr. Adler did not understand that the zoning would not allow residential and further stated he would write a letter back to Mr. Adler informing him of this. (Staff also distributed a letter from the Orange County Transit District in response to the Land Use Element Amendment and EIR.) ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR AREA 3.5 WAS APPROVED PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BY THE FOLLOWING STRAW VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 83-2 WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 83-3 WAS APPROVED (PER STRAW VOTES) ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 1314 AS AMENDED TO REFLECT PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-4 Applicant: Lindborg/Dahl Investors, Inc. A request to rezone 10.0 acres of property from R1-O-CD-Q-15,000 and RA-O-CD to Rl-O-CD-6,000 on property located approximately 1650 feet east of Edwards Street, south of Ellis Avenue. For public hearing see Land Use Element Amendment 8-3, Area 3.1. Chairman Porter suggested including two conditions (#1 and #4) as recommended by staff. Mr. Simmons stated that the City Council directed staff to come up with equestrian uses in that area and suggested that Condition #1 could be defined as a perimeter horse trail -13- 10/04/83 - P.C. or a condition imposed that would require the developer to set aside an area for stable facilities. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-4 WAS APPROVED TO "Q"-R1-(3)-O-CD-6,000 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ON THE "Q", AND RECOMMENDED. TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: Conditions on "Q": 1. Any future project approved for this parcel of land shall make provisions for equestrian trails within the development. 2. Any future project proposed for this property shall be subject to the filing and approval of a conditional use permit. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-13 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A request to remove 1.2 acres of property from M1-A to LUD on property located at the southeast corner of Banning Avenue and Magnolia Street. For public hearing see Land Use Element Amendment 8-3, Area 3.3. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 83-13 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-20 (Continued from 9-13-83) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach An amendment adding Article 949.5 which creates a mixed use office residential district within the zoning code of the City. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-28 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach An amendment to Article 969 changing the City's general park standards to comply with State law. Because of the late hour the Commission concensus was to continue these items to the next regular meeting. The Chairman entertained a motion due to the fact that these were advertised for public hearing. 1 -14- 10/04/83 - P.C. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-20 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-28 WERE CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 18, 1983 MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood requested staff to address the two letters received, one from the City Attorney's office on fees and the other from the Huntington Beach Board of Realtors on housing strategy and to report back in discussion items at the next meeting. Chairman Porter requested staff to distribute a copy of the contract between the City and Better Built Enterprises (Central Park Equestrian Center) at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 12 Midnight to the next regular meeting of October 18,• 1983. Marcus M. Porter, Chairman -15- 10/04/83 - P.C.