Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-08-05Approved August 19, 1980 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1980 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher Bauer COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Winchell, Greer Chairman Porter welcomed new Planning Commissioner Wesley Bannister to the Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 15, 1980, AND CONFORMANCES WITH GENERAL PLAN NOS. 11 AND 12, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer Greer Stanley Cohen, resident of Huntington Beach, addressed the Commis- sion to discuss generally the enforcement of the sign codes within the City and specifically the possibility that signs existing at the corner of Brookhurst and Bushard Streets may be illegal. Pat Spencer reported that these signs have been investigated, are in- deed illegal, and that prosecution has been requested from the City Attorney's office. The Commission, after review, asked for a report from staff on the monies involved in complete enforcement of the Sign Ordinance and a report on the citations issued monthly, for use in consideration of next year's budget if it seems appro- priate. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-22 (Cont. from July 15, 1980) Applicant: Leo M. Ford To permit growing and sale of Christmas trees on property located at the southeast corner of McFadden Avenue and Gothard Street. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 2 The public hearing was opened. Leo Ford, applicant, addressed the Commission to express disagree- ment with the suggested conditions of approval, stating that to require street improvements on Gothard Street, installation of sewer facilities, and striping of McFadden Avenue would impose a severe financial hardship on his operation. He further stated that his lease with the Edison Company is on a thirty -day basis, cancellable at any time, which would make expenditure of funds necessary to comply with the conditions a financial impossibility. There being no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, the public hearing was closed. Staff reported -that the improvements would actually -be' --very minimal, consisting only of sidewalks on Gothard and the striping on McFadden; further, the sewer requirement would be imposed only if facilities were later installed on the property which would necessitate sewer hook-up. Secretary Palin pointed out that an applicant for a temporary use of this nature can request consideration of postponement of street improvements, but the code requires that dedication and improve- ments be a condition of approval. The Commission discussed extent and timing of the improvements, as well as the applicant's option for postponement. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-22 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1980, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Greer ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 80-5 (Cont. from July 15, 1980) Applicant: Superior Electrical Advertising To permit an additional non -illuminated, freestanding ground sign on property located on -the south side of Edinger Avenue approximately 350 feet east of Gothard Street. SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 80-6 Applicant: Carl Karcher Enterprises To permit the use of an existing 12 by 3 foot freestanding sign on property located on the south side of Edinger Avenue approximately 550 feet east of Gothard Street. Savoy Bellavia explained that S.S.P. 80-5 had been continued from the previous meeting to permit it to be heard in conjunction with S.S.P. 80-6, as both signs are requested for the same shopping center. -2- 8-5-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 3 Chairman Porter opened the public hearing on both items. Mark Frank, representing the applicant on Special Sign Permit 80-5, addressed the Commission in favor of his request. Bob Holden, representing Karcher Enterprises, spoke to urge the Commission to grant Special Sign Permit No. 80-6. He cited increased business for the restaurant after the sign had been erected, attributing this increase to the improvement in identi- fication from the street. Mr. Holden also informed the Commis- sion that, if his sign is approved, his company will be willing to relinquish its rights to identification on the main shopping center sign in favor of the smaller tenants who are applying on Special Sign Permit 80-5. A proposed sign layout was submitted to illustrate this offer, and Mr. Frank indicated that it might help the small shops in some degree. Mary Kunkly, owner of "Her Closet" in the center, addressed the Commission to ask to be allowed to retain her small identifica- tion sign on the site. There being no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, the public hearing was closed. Extensive discussion took place between Commission and staff, and it was the consensus that signing could have originally been arranged to adequately address the needs of all tenants, but that the developer had created the restrictions by relinquishing the signing rights on the major identification sign to the major tenants. The Commission also stressed that the additional signing existing on the property had been erected without benefit of any permit process. Commissioner Bannister pointed out that the ordinance does make allowance for exceptions to the code and the effects of inadequate identification on a business should be taken into consideration in granting such exceptions. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK SPECIAL SIGN PERMITS NO. 80-5 AND 80-6 WERE DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that do not apply generally to other shopping centers within similar zoning districts relating to location of property, shape of property, or topography. 2. The existing freestanding sign is sufficient in meeting the identification needs of the shopping center based on the in- tent of Article 979 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. AYES: Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Winchell, Greer ABSTAIN: None -3- 8-5-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 4 The Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened.at 8:45. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10648/ND 80-46 Applicant: Hartge Engineering and Construction To permit a 42-lot subdivision of 20 acres located on the north side of Talbert Avenue at Kovacs Lane, approximately one -quarter mile west of Beach Boulevard. Bob Dail, developer, expressed agreement with the suggested conditions of approval with the exception of No. f4, which concerned placement of truck loading facilities. Jim Brown, architect for the project, suggested that instead of pro- hibiting the loading facilities the Commission require a block wall at the location of such facilities to help alleviate any possible noise problems. Savoy Bellavia reviewed alternatives which the ap- plicant could pursue on these loading facilities, such as locating them along the sides of the buildings or in front facing onto the street. The Commission reviewed the noise -alleviating effects of walls as opposed to intensive landscaping at these locations; also taken into account were the setbacks which will exist between the industrial buildings.and any adjoining residential units. Means of obtaining street improvements along the "not a part" parcel of the map were discussed. Bill Hartge, engineer for the project, informed the Commission that the owners of that parcel cannot be loc- ated and taxes on it have not been paid. He indicated his client's willingness to install street improvements over and across this front- age as well as across the tract's frontage if some means can be found to allow it. Secretary Palin suggested that the City might pursue negotiations to obtain the right-of-way. He also noted that the place- ment of the truck loading facilities is not a proper condition to impose on a tentative tract map, but should be.addressed on the actual application to construct the project. - ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-46 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: - AYES: Bannister, Kenefick,Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Greer ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY BANNISTER AND SECOND BY BAUER TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10648 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed subdivision is in substantial conformance with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. -4- 8-5-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 5 2. The proposed subdivision complies with the City's General Plan land use designation on the subject site as general industrial. 3. The lot size, depth, frontage, street width, and all other design and implementation features of the proposed project are proposed 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 supplementary City Subdivision Ordinance. 4. This property was previously studied for this type of land use at the time the industrial land use designation was designated on the General Plan and the M1 zoning was estab- lished in the zoning ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative map received and dated August 1, 1980, shall be the approved layout. 2. The water system shall be through the City of Huntington Beach water system. 3. The sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach sewer system. 4. Drainage for the subdivision shall be to the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the recordation of a final map. This system shall be designed to provide for erosion and siltation control both during and after construction of the project. 5. The applicant shall be required to connect to a 48-inch master plan storm drain located along the west side of the railroad tracks in order to drain the southerly portion of the proposed development. The developer will be reimbursed for that portion of the drain system not adjacent to the subject property. 6. Developer shall be required to drain the northerly portion of the site to an existing 60-inch storm drain facility stubbed out on the east side of the railroad tracks. 7. Full street improvements shall be constructed along Talbert Avenue, including that portion of the street directly in front of Lot 42 and that portion of land designated as not -a -part parcel. Building permits will not be issued for Lot 42 until said improvements are made and this not -a -part parcel is in- corporated into the subject tract. 8. That portion of the Newman Avenue cul-de-sac adjacent to the subject property shall be dedicated to the City. No building -5- 8-5-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 6 permits shall be issued for Lot 30 until said dedication and full street improvements are made. 9. Vehicular access rights along Talbert Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach except at the intersection of "A" Street and Talbert Avenue and the two curb cuts, one at the common lot line between Lots 41 and 42 and the other at the west side of Lot 3. 10. An eight (8) foot wall shall be provided on the east and north perimeter of the tract. Tree wells shall be provided at 25-foot intervals along the east property line adjacent to the residen- tial units and along that portion of the north property line adjacent to residential development. Fifteen (15) gallon size trees shall be planted within these tree wells. 11. The sewer, water, and fire hydrant systems shall be designed in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal and Ordinance Codes. 12. Prior to recordation of a final map, the applicant shall guarantee clear title to all parcels within the blue border of the subject tentative map. 13. No trash receptacles shall be located next to a property line that is adjacent to property used or designated for residential purposes. 14. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, in reviewing the project pro- posed for the subject property, shall pay special attention to the orientation of the loading facilities provided in buildings which face residential properties. 15. The applicant is required to participate in the Crabb Lane lift station sewer assessment. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Greer ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-20/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11140/ND NO. 80-41 Applicant: Frank Sohaei To permit the construction of an 8-unit condominium project located on .552 acres of land on the west side of Newland Street approximately 580 feet south of Slater Avenue, and to allow certain special permits to accomplish same. Chairman Porter opened the public hearing. -6- 8-5-80 - Q.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 7 Pauline Bowers, representing the applicant, made a presentation of the proposed project to the Commission. She justified the special permit requests by noting that the limited width of the lot places restrictions on the design of the project within the required 10 foot side setback, that the required 10,000 square feet of open space is prohibitive for such a small development, and that the bulk of the buildings and lack of variation are not readily apparent because of the project's location between two other apartment houses. The public hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the project at length, including the lack of trash enclosures, storage facilities, possible need for sprinklering (Mel Ott of the Fire Department explained why the facility was not required to provide an automatic sprinklering system), and the requests for special permits which would be necessary to grant if the project were approved. It was the consensus of the Commission that the deviations from code in this proposal were too numerous to allow approval. However, in regard to the open space, Commissioner Kenefick noted that it seems advisable that the Commission begin to think of a small condominium ordinance, as it is apparent that the provisions imposed in the present ordinance seem restrictive for the smaller projects. A motion was made by Bauer that Conditional Use Permit 80-20 and Tentative Tract 11140 be denied. Motion failed for lack of a second. The Commission discussed with the applicant the possibility of revision to the plan and pointed out areas of concern which will need to be corrected. Ms. Bowers concurred with a continu- ance for this purpose. Items of particular concern to the Com- mission were the locations of trash areas, provision of adequate parking stalls, and setbacks. Commissioner Schumacher requested that renderings be submitted showing some screening or fencing of the partially subterranean parking to ensure that children could not fall to the concrete floors. ON MOTION BY BAUER AND SECOND BY KENEFICK NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-41 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Winchell, Greer ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 80-•20 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11140 WERE CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1980, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Greer ABSTAIN: None -7- 8-5-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 8 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 80-23/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-22/ CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-05/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-43 Applicant: Harold G. Morehead/Wayne Stuck To permit the elimination of a required masonry block wall and the construction to a 50-foot height of a 35,039 square foot professional office building located on the northeast corner of Beach ,Boulevard and Indianapolis Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Hal Morehead, applicant, spoke to the Commission to agree with the staff's suggested conditions of approval with the exception of the 42-inch wall at the parking lot, which he felt not to be necessary as the same screening could be accomplished more aesthetically with landscaping. In the alternative, he asked that he be allowed to in- stall a redwood fence in lieu of the suggested masonry wall. There being no other persons to speak for or against the proposal, the public hearing was closed. Commission review included consideration of the height of the pro- posed building from finished grade , height differential between the project and the residential units to the east, setbacks from those residential units to the structure, and the installation of the 42- inch wall as recommended by staff. It was the conclusion that the wall would provide more permanent screening of the parking lot than would landscaping which could be removed in the future. Drainage of the site was discussed; John Welch, architect for the project, ex- plained that drainage would flow from north to south along the natural drainage lines of the lot, ending at the low point along Indianapolis Avenue. Bruce Gilmer, Department of Public Works, said that drainage systems designed in Indianapolis Avenue would have been sufficient to accept the flow from this small property. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BANNISTER NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 80-43 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Greer ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 80-22 WAS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. Exceptional circumstances do not apply that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed on other properties under the same zone classification. Other property owners under the same circum- stances have not been granted the privilege of eliminating the -8- 8-5-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 9 required concrete block wall. There are no extraordinary cir- cumstances relating to the size and configuration of the lot which would justify elimination of the wall. 2. This conditional exception would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon properties in the vicinity. No reasonable hardship has been demonstrated by this request. Elimination of the concrete masonry block wall would set a precedent for granting similar requests in the future. 3. This conditional exception is not necessary for the preserva- tion and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The subject property was legally subdivided in a manner con- sistent with applicable zoning laws. Development on the prop- erty is subject to zoning regulations presently in effect. 4. The granting of this conditional exception may be materially detrimental to the public welfare or could be injurious to property in the same zoning classification. The purpose of the concrete masonry block wall separating commercial from residential properties is to provide an adequate degree of privacy and protection to the residential properties. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Greer ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CONDITIONAL EXCEP- TION NO. 80-05 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. Exceptional circumstances apply that deprive the subject prop- erty of privileges enjoyed on other properties in the vicinity. Other properties zoned C2 have been granted the privilege of building in accordance with the C2 height standards. 2. This conditional exception would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on properties in the vicinity. A reasonable hardship has been demonstrated by this request since the staff and Planning Commission have recognized in previous actions that the existing code require- ment pertaining to the height of a professional office build- ing in the C2 district is insufficient. 3. This conditional exception is necessary for the preservation of one or more substantial property rights. The applicant has requested to develop in accordance with C2 standards. 4. The granting of this conditional exception will not be materi- ally detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property -9- 8-5-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 10 in the same zone classification provided that proper measures are taken to screen the proposed development from residential properties to the east. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Greer ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY BANNISTER ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW NO. 80-23 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the conceptual site layout reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council when consid- ering Zone Change No. 79-9. 2. The proposed use will be compatible with surrounding land uses provided that the parking area is screened from the view of adjac- ent residences through the construction of a low profile wall along the bluff top and heavy landscaping is planted on the slope bank. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated July 17, 1980 and elevations received and dated July 29, 1980, shall be the approved layout. 2. A 42-inch high masonry wall shall be constructed adjacent to the parking lot along the top of the bluff. 3. Intensive landscaping shall be installed on the slope bank loc- ated between the parking lot and the easterly property line. Twenty-four (24) inch box trees on 14 foot centers shall be planted within this area. A detailed landscaping plan indicating the location and species of all plant materials within the land- scaped areas shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Water, sewer, and drainage systems shall be designed in accord- ance with Department of Public Works standards. 5. If lighting is included in the parking lot area, energy efficient lamps shall be used (e.g., high pressure sodium vapor). All out- side lighting shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. 6. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared and submitted to the Building Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an offsite facility equipped to handle them. -10- 8-5-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 11 8. A plan for silt control for all storm water from the property during construction and during initial operation of the pro- ject shall be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board staff for its review prior to the issuance of grading permits. 9. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this administrative review approval in the event of any violation of the terms of this approval or violation of the applicable zoning laws. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based upon specific findings. 10. Medical office and retail uses shall be prohibited on the site. AYES: Bannister, Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Greer ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS: The Commission reviewed a communication from the office of the City Attorney in regard to Item 7 in the Commission bylaws, which provides an attendance criterion for Commission meetings. It was the consensus of the Commission that the section of the bylaws dealt only with resignation, not removal, of a Commis- sioner who had missed more than two meetings without making contact with the Chairman, and that no revision to the section was required. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 78-18 (Church) Savoy Bellavia reported on the field conditions at the Mormon Church, which the Commission had asked to be investigated. The storage structures were delineated on approved plans; how- ever, a wing wall attached to one of the buildings was not shown on any approved plan. Trash enclosures, although their locations are not in violation of the code, are not fully en- closed, and this would constitute a violation. Landscaping was found inadequate to comply with the condition for "intensified landscaping" which had been imposed upon the project on approval; also, a drainage swale which had been required to handle runoff does not exist in the field. The Commission discussed ways of obtaining compliance. Residents of the area, Paul Rurock and Joel Osa, were permitted to comment in regard to conditions at the church. Mr. Rurock protested -11- 8-5-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 12 that the location of trash bins so close to adjacent residential property posed a health hazard, stating that he is having problems with flies in his yard as a result of the trash. Mr. Osa asked that residents be kept apprised of the results of staff's efforts to correct the problems on the site. OIL COMMITTEE: Chairman Porter named himself and Commissioner Greer as temporary members to represent the Commission on the newly reactivated Oil Committee. He also instructed staff to provide him with a complete listing of subcommittees and members so that he might make"perman- ent appointments. PROPOSED GATING OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: Secretary Palin reported that this proposal has come about because of the number of requests being received for police traffic enforce- ment within the planned residential developments. Staff is updating its information and separating the planned developments into differ- ent classifications according to street layout and whether the streets are public or private. It is the staff's initial feeling that a recommendation should not be made that all PD's be gated, but further research is needed. Mr. Palin also pointed out that most of the recent request for condominium or planned developments have in- cluded a gating system as part of the original layout. The Commis- sion discussed the proposal and directed staff to proceed with its investigations and prepare a report outlining the problems which the investigation identifies. SIGN CODE: Secretary Palin informed the Commission that the tentative joint meeting with City Council at which it was intended to discuss sign code enforcement cannot be scheduled for August. Any input from the Commission in regard to the sign code was postponed for a later meeting. ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-7 (Meadowlark Rezone to MH): Secretary Palin reported that the City Council has referred the zone change back to the Commission for a report on alternative land uses for the site and conditions which might be imposed if the Council should approve the mobilehome zoning on the property. He repeated the staff's original recommendation that the property should be handled under a specific plan, with the staff given time to analyze the area and work out methods of providing the low- and moderate -income housing and the family -type housing which the Council seems to wish to have included. -12- 8-5-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 13 After brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that there was insufficient time and information available at this meeting to prepare any report to the Council on the matter. Staff was directed to schedule a study session for Tuesday, August 12, 1980, to allow review of the proposed zone change and the alternatives suggested by the City Council and the administrator. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 80-4: Savoy Bellavia reported that the Council has requested clarifi- cation -on the wording in this proposed code amendment which would add the following: "This section shall not prohibit the storage by private property owners or lessees from storing his privately owned recreational vehicle or automobile for his per- sonal use on the subject property, subject to the screening provisions of Section 9515." A motion was made by Commissioner Bannister to make no change to the ordinance as it currently exists. Motion failed for lack of a second. ON MOTION BY KENEFICK AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CODE AMENDMENT 80-4 AS ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE COM- MISSION WAS AMENDED TO READ AS NOTED ABOVE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kenefick, Porter, Schumacher, Bauer NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Winchell, Greer ABSTAIN: None DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Savoy Bellavia introduced Ed Vasili, who will be replacing Mel Ott as Fire Department representative at Commission meetings. An informational pamphlet compiled by the Fire Department on fire protection requirements was distributed. Staff reported on a proposed stock apartment complex. The Commission as information is available. COMMISSION ITEMS: cooperative conversion of an will receive further reports Commissioner Bauer discussed installation of traffic signals and requested information on how priorities are set for signalizing intersections in the City. He also discussed the apparent plans to close Monterey Street near Saybrook, an originally private right-of-way long used by and open to the public. Staff will research the question and report; issuance of building permits for structures in this area will also be investigated. -13- 8-5-80 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission August 5, 1980 Page 14 Commissioner Porter asked staff to review the original sign program for the Seacliff shopping center to assure that a future new bank will not result in added signs in the complex. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 PM to Tuesday, August 12, 1980, at 7:00 PM. Marcus M. orter, a'rman 1 -14- 8-5-80 - P.C.