Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-20APPROVED AS AMENDED April 3, 1984 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MARCH 20',' -1-9-84 7:00' PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1984 WERE APPROVED AS TRANS- CRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Higgins, Schumacher, Mi,rjahanglr ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1984 WERE APPROVED AS TRANSCRIBED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine, Schumacher ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER A 90-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-3 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11473 WAS GRANTED, BY THE FOLLOWWNG VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir, Erskine, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PLANNING COMMISSION 'ITEMS: Chairman Porter discussed the prior approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 84-2 and Conditional Exception No. 84-01 (Charter Center), asking that the Commission address the possibility of Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 2 a reconsideration of that approval based on the following: 1) In its approval of Charter Center, the Commission did not consider the exact number of parking spaces which would be necessary to accommodate the 75,000 gross square feet granted for Building Pad No. 2; and 2) It was not brought to the attention of the Commis- sion that a possibility exists for the use of redevelopment funds in the project. Up to this point in time it had been his under- standing that the tax increment generated by the project would be used in the total redevelopment area and if the Commission had been aware of the infusion of public monies into the project that might have influenced the decision on the applications. Mr. Porter also informed the Commission that legal counsel has stated that a reconsideration would not affect the mandatory processing date for the applications. Staff has distributed to the Commission updated information on the parking matrix reflecting the approval of Building Pad No. 2; this shows the project 172 spaces short of the code requirements for the square footage proposed without considering any percentage for joint use hours. Mr. Porter suggested that if it is the Commission's pleasure to reconsider,a new condition of approval might be added to state that "additional parking usable by the site shall be pro- vided prior to the issuance of building permits for the second build- ing." This would in his opinion provide binding assurance that there would be adequate parking for the overall project. Extensive discussion among the Commission, staff, and legal counsel ensued regarding the parking ratios applied for the various uses, the basis for any reconsideration, and legal technicalities involv- ing re -noticing for another public hearing. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE COMMISSION DETERMINED TO RECONSIDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-2 AND CON- DITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-01, BASED ON MATERIAL INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT OF WHICH THE COMMIS- SION HAD NOT BEEN MADE AWARE, AND LIMITED TO RECONSIDERATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF PARKING FOR THE PROJECT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Higgins ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine, Mirjahangir ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY PORTER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO READVERTISE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-2 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEP- TION NO. 84-01 FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 3, 1984 AND TO LIMIT ADVERTISING TO RE-EXAMINATION OF BUILDING SIZE, PARKING RATIO, AND ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE PROJECT AS PRESENTLY PRO- POSED, AND TO NOTIFY THE APPLICANT IMMEDIATELY OF THE ACTION TAKEN AT THIS MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine, Mirjahangir FJ -2- 3-20-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 3 Chairman Porter requested that any Commissioners who were not present at the meeting of March 6 listen to�the tape to qualify themselves to act on the matter at the April 3 meeting. Commissioner Erskine stated for the record that staff compari- son of the project be based on comparison of like projects in the general area and not figures taken from, for instance, a project in downtown Los Angeles. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: USE PERMIT NO. 83-73 (Cont. from March 6, 1984) Applicant: Donald Perry A request to permit an addition to a single-family dwelling located on the west side of Second Street approximately 150 feet south of Orange Avenue. Staff reported that a set of revised plans has been received for this proposal but staff has not had sufficient time to complete its analysis. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR USE PERMIT NO. 83-73 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 3, 1984, AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-30 (Cont. from March 6, 1984) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach A proposal to add Section 9331(k) to the ordinance code requiring a conditional use permit subject to certain development criteria for excavation of a land disposal site in Huntington Beach. Jim Barnes reported that the Ascon Ad Hoc Committee has recom- mended that a subsection be developed in the ordinance to specifically address hazardous waste sites and that this sub- section contain the following: 1. Notification of property owners within a half mile radius of the site for all public hearings to be held regarding proposed excavation or development on the site. 2. Require a type of bond acceptable to the City Attorney that would ensure that necessary funds are available to restore the site to a safe condition if excavation is prematurely terminated -3- 3-20-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 4 3. Require that the excavation be performed in conformance with all applicable requirements of the State Department of Health Services and any other public agency with jurisdiction. 4. Require that the operations plan contain the following: a. An excavation plan formalizing lines of authority and re- sponsibility between public agencies and the developer or his agents during excavation. The plan should contain specific procedures to be followed by all parties involved with the excavation. b. A safety plan specifying measures for air quality monitoring to be implemented during excavation, thereby preventing the exposure of on -site workers or area residents to un- healthful vapors from the site. The safety plan should also include specific measures for worker safety and a plan for the evacuation of residents in the vicinity of the site if deemed necessary by the State Department of Health Services. c. A transportation plan delineating specific routes for vehicles transporting hazardous waste from the site. d. A termination plan indicating specific steps to restore the site to a safe condition if excavation is terminated pre- maturely. The Committee further recommended the following: 1. Subsection No. 7 in the staff's proposed ordinance shall be modi- fied as follows: Ambient air quality monitoring as well as other monitoring or testing deemed reasonably necessary shall be specified as conditions of plan approval (as opposed to the term may contained in the draft amendment). 2. The exemptions in Subsection No. 9 of the staff's proposed ord- inance shall apply only on non -hazardous land disposal sites. Commissioner Schumacher questioned the provision in (k)(3) which provides approval of an operations plan by the Director of Develop- ment Services, asking when in the process the public hearing would occur. Staff explained that the operations plan, once deemed acceptable by the Director, would then be scheduled for a public hearing before the Commission for ultimate approval or rejection. Commissioner Mirjahangir discussed "characterization" of a site, in- dicating his feeling that if the City is going to rely on the det- ermination of other concerned agencies a requirement should be included to condition that " . . . a certificate of compliance from other agencies shall be transmitted to the City prior to application for a conditional use permit." -4- 3-20-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Comm�ssj�on March 20, 1984 Page 5 The public hearing was opened. Beverly Titus, chairman of the Ascon Ad Hoc Committee, addressed the Commission. She pointed out that the committee's recom- mendation had been that the exemption for oil drilling should be eliminated and not modified; she also said that the committee had requested a written response from the Department of Health Services to the City delineating its guidelines on the site, as those had been the basis for the committee's recommendations. She concluded by saying that the Committee recommends adoption of,the amendment with the suggested modifications. There were no other persons to speak'for or against the proposed code amendment, and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT 83-30 WITH THE REVISIONS AS SUGGESTED BY THE ASCON AD HOC COMMITTEE, WITH THE ADDED CONDITION FOR A CERTIFI- CATE OF COMPLIANCE AS OUTLINED EARLIER IN THIS MEETING, AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. Further discussion ensued regarding the suggested modifications. Commissioner Winchell indicated that she would have some reserva- tions about approving the amendment without seeing the finished document after revisions have been completed, and legal counsel Art De La Loza said that the amendment is sufficiently ambiguous that it might not withstand any close constitutional scrutiny as written. He recommended sending it back to staff for a redef- inition of the scope of the entire section and expanding the definition of land disposal site to include hazardous waste site. Mel Malkoff, representative for Ascon, addressed the Commission upon the invitation of Commissioner Erskine. He pointed out that his client is concerned with the time frame for the ultim- ate cleanup of the site and suggested that perhaps simple re- numbering might solve the Commission's concerns and allow the amendment to be approved at this meeting. Commissioners Mirjahangir and Livengood withdrew their motion for approval. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-30 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 3, 1984 TO PERMIT TIME TO INCORPORATE THE SUGGESTED REVISIONS AND CONDI- TIONS INTO THE AMENDMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -5- 3-20-84 - P.C. Minutes; H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 6 ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-2 (Cont. from March 6, 1984) Applicant: Bank of Orange County To permit a change of zone from Q-C3 to Townlot Specific Plan, Area One, Section B on property located at the northwest corner of Seventeenth Street and Olive Avenue. Staff reported that a letter has been received from Paul Columbus, affected property owner, asking for a continuance to the next meeting. The public hearing remained open from the previous meeting. Craig Lacey, representing the Bank of Orange County, spoke to urge approval of the zone change request. Jack Ellsworth, property owner on Seventeenth Street, addressed the Commission to oppose the change of zone, saying it will result in spot zoning and is not consistent with the general character of the area. Paul Columbus, affected property owner, said that his request for continuance is meant to give him time to consult with his attorney on the matter. It is his feeling that the proposed zone change will have a deleterious effect on his lots and is a perceived abridgement of his property rights. Jim Severance, resident of Huntington Beach, inquired about a prior resolution which had proposed consideration of commercial zoning in the area if a full half block could be consolidated. He also stated that there seemed no purpose to having a Townlot plan and then not utilizing it. There were no other persons to address the matter, and the public hearing was closed. Staff explained that the resolution referred to had said that the City "may" consider commercial zoning in the event of half -block consolidation along Seventeenth Street - it had not guaranteed that action. Commission discussion included the comparative desirability of com- mercial versus residential zoning on the property, the adequacy of notice of this hearing to all concerned persons, and possible findings for the zone change. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-2 WAS APPROVED WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed rezoning of the property in question would conform to the General Plan and is consistent with the intent of the Townlot Specific Plan. -6- 3-20-84 - P.C, Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 7 2. The change of zoning eliminates the present spot zoning of some of the properties along Seventeenth Street as commer- cial. 3. The properties along Seventeenth Street have failed to meet the provision of Resolution No. 1078 for consolidation of an entire half -block for consideration for commercial zoning. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Those present were apprised of the appeal period and procedure and also that this item would be a public hearing before the City Council. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-6 Applicant: Joseph J. Nigro A request to expand an existing health club located at 8907 Warner Avenue. Staff reported that the applicant has requested a continuance on this item. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-6 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 3, 1984, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-8/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 82-36 Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Police Department To permit development of a permanent heliport facility for police use with four landing pads and one double bay hangar on property located on the west side of Gothard Street approxi- mately 290 feet north of Ellis Avenue. Staff planner Mike Adams explained that the proposed continu- ance on this item had been changed because of City Council's desire to hear the heliport at the next regular Council meeting. To comply with that direction, staff has submitted a staff report and negative declaration to the Commission for consideration at this time. Howard Zelefsky made the presentation on the heliport, out- lining a history of the proceedings on a proposed location, -7- 3-20-84 - P,C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 8 the site layout, approach patterns, and noise contours of the presently proposed heliport, and the environmental documentation for the project. This documentation includes a Master Plan study prepared by the firm of CH2M Hill in 1983 to meet.NEPA require- ments when it was proposed that the site might be a joint use facility partially funded by the federal government. The City Council subsequently decided not to go with the joint use and staff has prepared a supplementary negative declaration, based in part upon the prior master plan study. The Commission discussed the noise contours on the property in question, what long-range mechanism could be designed to assure - that flight patterns remain as depicted, the adequacy of the noti- fication area to inform concerned persons, the close proximity of the proposed use to the library and Central Park, and the desir- ability of keeping the use of the heliport confined to use by the Police Department only. The public hearing was opened. Ed Bradley, neighborhood resident, spoke in opposition to the pro- posed location, citing the commercial and industrial impacts to which his neighborhood is already subjected and protesting the addition of the heliport to that environment. Carol Zorn, also a neighboring resident, addressed the Commission to inform them that neither she nor her neighbors were notified of this hearing. Mark Sudo, resident, spoke in opposition to the project, saying that because certain noise levels are found acceptable to the average population does not mean that there are not segments of the population which will have a very adverse reaction to the same CNEL level. He also indicated that the winds in the area vary considerably and noise factors should be calculated showing land- ing patterns from other directions. The public hearing was closed. At the request of Commission, Lieutenant Morrison explained that it is planned to restrict the use of the heliport to the Police Department and possibly certain other public agencies on occasion, but not on any permanent basis. The present use involved approxi- mately 8 to 10 take offs and landings per day and he does not see any increase in that volume of traffic for the next two or three years. The department hopes to obtain much quieter aircraft in the future which should substantially reduce the effects of the noise contours. He noted, upon questioning from Commissioner Higgins about why three landing pads are proposed with four addi- tional pads proposed for future use, that the site is being designed for a 20-year expansion program. He also explained that the costs of the present operation are the principal reason the Council had wanted accelerated action on the project. -8- 3-20-84 - P.C. 1 Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 9 ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION NO. 82-36 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Chairman Porter said that his "nay" vote was made because he does not feel there is adequate documentation to support the granting of a negative declaration; he will also vote against the conditional use permit for that reason and because he feels the public has not been given adequate notice or time to re - spond. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-8 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN COMMISSION DISCUSSION. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Schumacher NOES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Mirjahangir ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Erskine The Commission asked for an opinion from legal counsel. Art De La Loza informed them that they have a duty to take due care and apprise themselves of all available information. If the Commission feels that it does not have sufficient information on which to base a favorable decision its action should be to table the request or deny with findings. Approval would imply tacit acquiescence to both the lack of information and the manner in which the project has been presented at this meeting; however, approval is within the purview of the Commission if it feels that any possible lack of information is not material. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION NO. 82-36 WAS RECONSIDERED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -9- 3-20-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 10 ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION NO. 82-36 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-8 WERE TABLED, WITH REASONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES:. Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Livengood, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR STAFF WAS DIR- ECTED TO FORWARD A COMMUNICATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OUTLINING THE FOLLOWING REASONS AND SUGGESTIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: REASON FOR TABLING: Due to the pressure of time and the fact that they did not receive the staff report and negative declaration until just before the meeting tonight, the Commission does not feel it has been sufficiently informed to warrant action on the proposal. It is also felt that there is not sufficient documentation to support a negative declara- tion. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The Commission recommends that the suggested conditions prepared by staff be imposed with the addition of a fifth condition to state that the use of the heliport shall be limited to the air- craft of public agencies only. It was also recommended that Condition No. 4 be modified to limit any expansion of the heli- port until the state of the art has improved enough so that noise problems can be alleviated. 2. The description of the project should be expanded to note the close proximity to the library and Central Park. 3. It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing on this matter with a notification area increased to include all those persons who may be affected by the heliport. 4. The CNEL contours should be conditioned to be held to the maxi- mum depicted in the staff report for 1988. 5. Testing to determine noise contours should be done under differ- ing conditions (e.g., rain, Santa Ana winds, high winds from other directions) to determine if these contours are maintained under all conditions. -10- 3-20-84 - P,:C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 11 6. The flight pattern proposed by the adhered to and should be terms of linear feet and altitude. Police Department shotld'be specifically spelled out in 7. A provision for landscaping should be made for the perimeter of the heliport site to provide some mitigation to ground noise factors. 8. The heliport should be conditioned for the exclusive use of the Huntington Beach Police Department, with other cities and public agencies permitted for emergencies only. A condition should also be applied that the Huntington Beach helicopters be used for policing this city only. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-71CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-02 Applicant: Alltrans To allow additional commercial use within a mixed use develop- ment and to allow such use to exceed the percentage allowed, on property located on the east side of Gothard Street approxi- mately 750 feet south of Heil Avenue. Staff reported that the applicant has requested a continuance on this request. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-7 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-02 WERE CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 3, 1984, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None USE PERMIT NO, 83-60/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-4 (Appeal) Applicant: McDonald's Corporation Staff reported that a request for withdrawal of this appeal has been received from the applicant. Commissioner Schumacher expressed concerns with the finding of hardship the Board of Zoning Adjustments had made in granting a reduction of the landscaping. The Commission dis- cussed with legal counsel the extent of their jurisdiction in -11- 3-20-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 12 light of the appeal to Conditions 1(a) and l(b) only. Staff explained that it had felt that the conditions imposed therein had a significant effect on the overall circulation on the pro- ject and had therefore expanded the staff report to include that issue. Legal counsel then informed the Commission that the cir- culation aspects of the entire project are within its purview in discussing this appeal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS APPEAL. MOTION FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Erskine, Mirjahangir NOES: Higgins, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Lowell Nelson, representing the applicant, addressed the Commis- sion to ask for a continuance in view of the fact that the staff report had set out alternatives and he would like to study those possibilities. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE THE APPEAL TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1(a) AND 1(b) IMPOSED ON USE PERMIT NO. 83-60 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1984, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Erskine, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 84-1 Applicant: Huntington Beach Sign Company To permit the continued use of a 72 square foot, non -conforming sign located on the east side of Beach Boulevard approximately 1500 feet south of Atlanta Avenue. Mike Adams presented the staff report and recommendation. Wayne Lamb, representing the applicant, stated that he felt the cash bond of $1500 for future removal of the sign seemed excessive. After discussion it was determined that filing of an insurance bond would adequately assure that the sign would be removed if not brought up to code after the permitted length of time. -12- 3-20-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 13 ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 84-1 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. Due to unique circumstances applicable to the sign, immedi- ate alteration, removal, or replacement of the sign will result in an economic hardship. 2. The sign will not adversely affect other lawfully erected signs in the same area. 3. The sign will not be detrimental to the property located in the vicinity of the property on which said sign is located. 4. The sign will be in keeping with the character of the sur- rounding neighborhood. 5. The sign will not obstruct the vision of vehicular or ped- estrian traffic. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall file an insurance bond in the amount of $1,500 with the City for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of the sign structure. If the sign is not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign ordinance after two years from the date of approval, the City of Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter on the property where said sign is located and re- move said sign, and the cost of removal shall be defrayed by the insurance bond and paid over to the City of Huntington Beach. 2. The site plan and elevations received and dated February 27, 1984, shall be the approved layout. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None nTSCTTSSTnN T_TEMS : Livengood, Porter, Erskine, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-16 (CONDO CONVERSION) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Staff reported that the Condominium Conversion ordinance is scheduled for public hearing at the April 3, 1984 Commission meeting. Brief Commission discussion ensued. -13- 3-20-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20,,1984 Page 14 CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-15 Staff reported that additional in-house review is needed. This item will be scheduled again on April 3, 1984 as a discussion item. PENDING ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood asked that the following items be added: 1) A non -conforming sign at "Eveready Electrical" on Edinger Avenue. 2) Review of what is taking place on Graham Place. 3) Shell station on Springdale Street - can it be converted to a 24-hour market or a 24-hour auto parts store without entitle- ment by the Board of Zoning Adjustments or the Planning Com- mission. Commissioner Winchell asked that a discussion of redevelopment be submitted to the Commission , including background, enabling State and City statutes, and how projects are processed under the redevelopment laws. This will be included in the Commission packet for the next meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Dick Harlow, representing Mola Development Corporation, addressed the Commission in regard to its earlier action on Conditional Use Permit 84-2 and Conditional Exception No. 84-01 (Charter Cen- ter).He informed the Commission that leases have been signed based on the prior approval and a delay could jeopardize the finan- cial feasibility of the project. He cited the prior public hear- ings and the many comprehensive discussions in regard to the park- ing, stating his continuing opinion that the parking is adequate. Mr. Harlow also discussed the issue of public monies being used in the project, saying that a request has been made for redevelop- ment funds but as of this date no public funds are committed and this project is a completely self-sustaining, self -financed private project. He urged that the Commission reconsider and not further delay the processing of a development which will enhance the particular area in which it is located and be of value to the en- tire City. Very extensive discussion took place among Commission members, touching on parking ratios, how to obtain assurance that parking will be adequate for Building Pad No. 2 in particular, the applicability of the numbers which have been presented as guides for this specific project, and the question of whether or not a substantial new issue has been presented to justify the reconsid- eration of the prior approval. In response to direct questioning from the Commission, staff responded that it feels the parking as approved at the March 6, 1984 meeting is adequate to meet the needs of the proposed construction and uses on the property. -14- 3-20-84 - C.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 20, 1984 Page 15 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY ERSKINE TO RECON- SIDER THE PRIOR CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-8 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-01, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ASSURANCE BY STAFF THAT THE PARKING IS ADEQUATE. Art De La Loza indicated that Mr. Erskine could not second the motion for reconsideration as he had not been on the pre- vailing side when the original action was taken. The motion was thereupon seconded by Commissioner Winchell. THE MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine NOES: Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE PREVIOUS ACTION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-8 AND CONDITIONAL EX- CEPTION NO. 84-01 WAS REVOKED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine NOES: Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir The above items stand as approved at the March 6, 1984 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Schumacher asked that an article regarding a study of affordable housing in California which had recently appeared in The Register be copied for the Commission. She also dis- cussed the allegation that illegally constructed units have been operating in the Townlot areas and asked staff to investi- gate. Staff informed the Commission of measures it is con- sidering to combat this problem. Commissioner Erskine asked staff to investigate the possibility of establishing a basketball court facility on a former tennis court pad located on the beach. Commissioner Livengood requested staff to provide the Commission with a final approved plan for Charter Center. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Mike Adams explained that the information provided the Commission this evening on the Coastal Commission review of the Downtown Specific Plan has been presented to acquaint the Commission with the status of review and because these items will eventually be before them as code amendments. The Coastal Commission's -15- 3-20-84 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Plannkng Commission March 20, 1984 Page 16 review will be a major topic of a special City Council meeting next Mondays March 26. He also informed the Commission that the hearing before the Coastal Commission on this subject has been requested for the first meeting in April in order to allow time for staff to more adequately address the concerns expressed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. :df U---' Marcus M. Porter, man 1 -16- 3-20-84 - P.C.