Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-01APPROVED ON 12-6-83 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1983 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir Higgins The Chairman suggested that each item on the Consent Calendar be voted on separately. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE MINUTES OF THE AD- JOURNED MEETING OF JULY 26, 1983, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Higgins ABSTAIN: Schumacher, Mirjahangir ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE MINUTES OF THE STUDY SESSION OF AUGUST 16, 1983, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Erskine ABSTAIN: Schumacher ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 1983, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Erskine ABSTAIN: Schumacher ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1983, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Erskine ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE MINUTES OF THE AD- JOURNED MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1983, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Erskine ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1983, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Erskine ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1983, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins, Erskine ABSTAIN: Winchell REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Request for Reconsideration of: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-06%TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12054 Applicant: S. Y. Kimball A request for reconsideration of previously approved applications; this in response to adjacent homeowners dissatisfaction with the map that was approved at the October 18, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. Art Folger asked for clarification on the request for reconsideration. Bruce.Borniman, representing the applicant, stated that in light of the appeal to the City Council by adjacent neighbors, the request for reconsideration was to address their concerns. He said he met with the president and vice president of the homeowners association. Commissioner Livengood asked staff if proper notification was given to the surrounding property owners. Jim Barnes stated that all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were notified of the October 18, 1983 public hearing. Mr. Folger stated that it was within the Planning Commission's power to take more information from the residents who were present, however, he said it would not be necessary to reconsider the items to do that. He said further, that if the Commission feels that a new plan would be better, than you might reconsider the applications. Mr. Barnes stated that a request for reconsideration was not received in time to readvertise. -2- 11-1-83 - P.C. The Chairman opened the floor for public testimony. Bruce Borniman explained the new plans (A and C). He said Plan A was proposing to move two lots on Saybrook Lane and close Santa Barbara Lane. He said he thought the property owners would want Santa Barbara reopened and couldn't understand why they wanted to move their entrance. He said that Plan C is a compromise that the traffic engineer was not too happy about. He said Plan C provides a widening of Santa Barbara Lane and reduces the number of lots he can then build. He said he preferred his original submittal. Commissioner Schumacher asked about the location of the storm drain. The applicant replied that the drain was kept at that same location so that any water would be intercepted. He stated further that the homeowners' major concern was the traffic. He said that the count on Friday was 31 cars from 5 to 6 P.M. and with 88 homes added it was estimated at 90 cars per hour, which was not a significant increase. William Ashby, a resident on Santa Barbara Lane stated that flooding was a problem and so was parking. He also said he strongly objected to the narrower lots. Commissioner Livengood asked him if he saw the conditions of approval that were imposed on the applicant. Mr. Ashby stated that he did not. Dr. Robert Minow, a resident of Harbor Cove stated that when Santa Barbara Lane was closed it was closed because it was a traffic hazard. He did not favor adding more cars with the new development. He also cited possible flooding. Chairman Porter asked him if he objected to the plans to have 21 homes fronting on Santa Barbara Lane. He said he would not object to that. Berdette Ballot, vice president of Harbor Cove Homeowners Association, said it was stated by Mr — Borniman that the initial plan was presented to himself and the president of the association and that did not happen. He said a presentation was made and a statement made by Mr. Kimball that the Planning Commission and traffic division would not allow them to have any ingress or egress other than on Santa Barbara Lane. He said there was only acknowledgment that the statement was made, but no approval by the homeowners. He said there was discussion this morning in which he was in favor of Plan A and would withdraw Plan C. He said there were many instances of damage to cars and houses due to hazardous traffic conditions. He cited an incident that had just occured within the last 48 hours at the intersection of Humbolt and Saybrook. He said he was also concerned about ecology and parking problems. Rick Anadoni stated he was notified of the Planning Commission meeting this evening, but did not see the origihial notice. He collected 33 signatures of surrounding residents against the plan to open Santa Barbara Lane due to a blind spot. He said there was a possibility of becoming one homeowners association with the new tract, however, he did not think that the value of a gated community was equal to a water -front home and he did not want his property devalued. It was his opinion that something could be worked out with the developer. Fred Helmic, a resident on.Saybrook Lane cited traffic and parking problems. -3- 11-1-83 - P.C. Steve Metler suggested a stop sign at Saybrook with ingress and egress in the middle of the project. Ron Botterin stated that they have had meetings and were assured that their interest was for the homeowners' concerns - he said he was astounded at their comments. He said what was proposed was one; right turn off of Santa Barbara Lane. He said what was presented tonight was a different plan. James Clark also cited the blind spot at the corner of Saybrook and Santa Barbara Lane. He preferred a different entrance onto Saybrook and something that would divide the traffic. Ken Eberhardt stated he was at the meeting with the developer and thought that all the problems were solved. S. Y. Kimball, the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that he felt there was a breakdown in communication between himself and Mr. Borniman. He said he had agreed to withdraw Plan C because in reading the staff report the City was requiring cul-de-sacs. He said if he moved the entrance to Santa Barbara Lane all the homes would be facing that street, and that was why it was drawn in toward Edinger. He said he was not "changing in mid -stream" as it might appear. Public testimony period was closed. Chairman Porter said that if the matter were not under appeal, he might reconsider, however, he voted against the original application and was not eligible to vote for reconsideration. He suggested an amended report to the City Council for their next meeting. Commissioner Schumacher asked Public Works staff about the nature of the barrier at the end of Santa Barbara Lane. Bruce Gilmer stated that it was concrete with wrought iron and could be removed if necessary. She asked if Public Works had a preference of the three plans submitted by the applicant. Mr. Gilmer stated he did not prefer any of the plans, as none were superior and none were inferior. She asked about the speed limit on Saybrook. Mr. Gilmer stated it was designated as a secondary arterial in the 1960 Master Plan and Streets and Highways. Art Folger.reminded the Commissioners that if it was their desire to reconsider the matter they would have to set it for a new public hearing as the hearing tonight was not noticed. Commissioner Livengood suggested a signal at the corner of Saybrook and Santa Barbara Lanes. Mr. Gilmer stated that other demands exist in that area such as the corner of Saybrook and Edinger. The applicant stated that he would be willing to pay for a signal at the corner of Saybrook and Santa Barbara Lanes. Commissioner Winchell suggested letting the Commission stand and to point out strengths plans to the City Council if they were not did not favor one over the other. Commissioner Schumacher favored letting the Commission stand. She further stated that nothing to do with the proposed project. action of the Planning and weaknesses of the two aware of it. She said she action of the Planning the speed on Saybrook has -4- 11-1-83 - P.C. A motion was made by Livengood to recommend, based on public testimony to accept the plan at the last meeting if the applicant considers installing a signal at Saybrook and Santa Barbara Lanes with a different exit than Santa Barbara Lane. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Erskine did not favor putting in a traffic signal. He suggested that a copy of the minutes be given to the City Council for their perusal. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR REQUEST TO RECONSIDER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-06 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12054 WAS DENIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: Porter USE PERMIT NO. 83-39/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-38, APPEAL APPLICANT: John Kavanagh & Mike Witney APPELLANT: Erdem Denktas Appeal of a request to permit construction of "tube Pit Stop" and auto service building and to permit reduction of driveway width and zero rear yard setback at property located on the west side of Beach Boulevard south of the flood control channel. Glen Godfrey gave a brief historical sketch of the project, clarifying some concerns of the Commissioners on the rear building, driveway width,.isdtbacks hnd parking. Art Folger suggested that proper procedure would be to sustain the appeal to deny the plan and have it go back to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The public hearing was opened. Erden Denktas, the appellant, spoke on his own behalf regarding his reasons for appealing the project. His first complaint was on notification. He said that he noticed construc- tion workers digging 30 feet from the street. It was brought to the City's attention and construction stopped and began again a few days later at the 50 foot setback. He was under the impression that parking requirements for the project fall under service station and auto repair standards which would require five spaces for each use. He said he has collected signatures against the proposed use and further stated that he believed it was injurious to the adjacent tenants, mainly himself. The following persons spoke in favor of the appeal of Mr. Denktas and in opposition to the approval of the project: Bart Lawson, David Homsey and Ali Davasligil, They cited such problems as traffic hazards with no signalization at that corner, lack of parking with the overflow going into adjacent parking lots that are already "overcrowded", and the possibility of setting.a precedent of giving special privilege to persons who buy less than standard lots. The applicant, John Kavanagh, explained his proposed operation, that there would not be a stacking problem due to the fact that people will sit in their cars while the -work is being performed. He also stated that there would only be 20% lot coverage. He further stated that -5- 11-1-83 - P.C. the rear building would be used as a "satellite" with storage of oil filters, etc. and deliveries twice a day. Commissioner Livengood inquired about the employees. The applicant stated that there would be spaces designated on site for the employees and two spaces for customers. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Livengood asked what other alternatives were available to the Commission. Chairman Porter said that the plan could be modified. Commissioner Livengood suggested that the rear buildin§ be eliminated and three additional parking spaces be provided.and to reword the findings on the conditional exception. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUST- MENTS' APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 83-39 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-28 WERE MODIFIED WITH STAFF DIRECTED TO COME BACK WITH AFOREMENTIONED MODIFICATIONS. BOTH APPLICATIONS WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1.983, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN:. None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83--27/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 83-07/NEGA- TIVE DECLARATION NO. 83-44 Applicant: Robert Zinngrabe A request to permit the construction of a 98 unit senior citizen rental development with exceptions for the number and size of parking spaces, perimeter setback and unit size on property located 530 feet south of Main Street on the east side of Florida Street. Carol Inge gave the staff presentation calling for a denial due to the fact that it could set a precedent in density. The public hearing was opened. Bob Zinngrabe, applicant on the project, addressed the Commission with his reasons for requesting the variances He also stated that he had no problem with the alternative action as stated on page 6 of the staff report but he disagreed with statements made by staff on page 3 with regard to his project. He said his project is of high quality, that it is not separate from the last one approved, rather that it is an annex building. He also stated that he had requested 98 units and the staff shows 91. He said he would have to increase his proposed rent from $335 a month, to $390 a month to absorb the costs. The public hearing was closed. 1 Commissioner Livengood asked staff what the allowed number of units was for it to meet -the existing density requirements. Ms. Inge said that there was no density requirement, but if it were a board and care facility, you could justify less. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD COMMISSION APPROVED THE SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ACTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEMS TO THE NOVEMBER 15, -6- 11-1-83 - P.C. 1983 MEETING AND DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF AN ALTERNATE PLAN. THIS WOULD INCLUDE CONCERNS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REGARDING A TURNAROUND. THIS MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Livengood further requested that this item be first on the November 15, 1983 agenda. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10067 (REVISED) Applicant/Subdivider: Mansion Properties, Inc. Engineer: Waldon & Associates A request to revise a previously approved 194-lot subdivision located on the north side of Palm Avenue, approximately 800 feet southwest of 38th Street. Jim Barnes gave a brief presentation on the proposed map. The public testimony period was opened. Dave Eadie, representing the subdivider, stated he was in concurrence with the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. The public testimony period was closed. ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10067 (REVISED) WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed gain in lot of the subdivision meets and City Council in their ment No. 83-1. 2. The proposed subdivision R2-PD-O is proposed to be per gross acre. area and depth for Lots 139 through 171 the intent of the Planning Commission approval of Precise Plan of Street Align- of this 42.3 acre parcel of land zoned constructed having less than six units 3. The General Plan has set forth provisions for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of housing, therefore, the project as proposed com- plies with the City's General Plan. 4. The lot, size, depth, frontage, street width, and through the use of a special permit, all other design and implementation features of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be con- structed in compliance with standards 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 tentative tract map received and dated October 10, 1983 -7- 11-1-83 - P.C. shall be the approved layout. 2. The conditions of approval for Tentative Tract No. 10067 adopted by the Planning Commission on January 5, 1982, shall remain in effect. AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Jim Barnes announced that Carol Inge of the Planning Staff would be leaving to take an associate planner position with the City of Inglewood. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:35 PM to the next regular meeting of November 15, 1983. jlm s W. Palin, Secretary Marcus M. Porter, C rm n -8- 11-1-83 - P.C.