Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-01Approved as amended June 19, 1984 1 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1984 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY WINCHELL THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1984, AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE 84-6, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ITEM A-1: AYES: Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood ITEM A-2: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Winchell requested staff to investigate a possible illegal second unit in the Townlot area of the city, this in response to a complaint sent to her. Staff will report back at the next regular meeting. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-8 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach Police Department This item, which was continued from the last regular meeting, is a request to permit development of a permanent heliport facility for police use, with two landing pads and one double bay hangar on property located on the west side of Gothard Street, approximately 290 feet north of Ellis Avenue. Negative Declaration No. 82-36 was approved at the April 17, 1984 meeting. The public hearing was opened and closed at the April 17, 1984 meeting, therefore, Vice Chairman Livengood, acting as Chairman, opted to delete the public hearing portion and continue with Commission discussion and action. Howard Zelefsky reviewed the staff report which studied alternative sites for the proposed heliport. Staff still recommended that the proposed site was the best site in light of the current price of land. Commissioners Higgins, Winchell and Livengood stated for the record that they had listened to the tape of the April 17th meeting and were prepared to vote on the matter. Acting Chairman Livengood suggested that a straw vote be taken to determine which site the Commissioners agreed upon. Commissioner Winchell asked Mr. Zelefsky if the Bolsa Chica Street area was explored as a possible site. He responded that staff did not find a good site here, the main reason being that it was too close to residential areas. The following straw vote was taken to determine if the proposed site for the police heliport was favorable to all Commissioners present: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Discussion took place regarding the condition proposed dealing with heliport use. It was discussed at previous meetings that there were times when other law enforcement agencies, assisting the Huntington Beach Police Department, were allowed access to the heliport. The flight pattern was also discussed. Commissioner Livengood suggested that any future expansion on the site must go through a public hearing process with notification to residents within a 2,000 foot radius. The question arose about occasions where other departments such as Fire, must use the heliport to transport patients requiring emergency medical treatment. The City Attorney's representative suggested that the wording, "public safety agency" be used in the condition. It was also suggested that other standard conditions of approval be included regarding lighting and unusable building material. Commissioner Livengood suggested that the number of take -offs and landings per day be limited. Lt. Morrison stated that this would be difficult as the operations change on a daily basis. At this point, Commissioner Higgins stated that somewhere along the line we have to put our faith in the police of this city. Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that he agreed with this statement. Brief discussion ensued -2- 5-1-84 - P.C. regarding the removal of fuel tanks and noise levels. Because staff needed time to work out the actual wording of certain conditions of approval, it was suggested to table the item until after the next regular public hearing. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-8 WAS TABLED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None (For.the sake of consistency, the following took place after Item C-2, C.U.P. 84-6, was completed:) ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-8 WAS BROUGHT BACK FROM THE TABLE FOR COMMISSION ACTION: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-8 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Because of the site is surrounded by an industrial buffer, the proposed heliport is compatible with adjacent land uses. 2. The proposed heliport is consistent with the land use element of the General Plan which designates the site as Light Industrial. 3. The proposed heliport will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The facility shall be for the use of Huntington Beach Public Safety agencies. Use by other federal, state or local public safety agencies shall only be with the consent of the Huntington Beach Police Department for the purpose of assisting Huntington Beach Public Safety agencies. Other public safety agencies may use the facility on an emergency basis only. 2. Construction of the hangar and on -site improvements shall be consistent with the Civic District standards in the Ordinance Code. The Design Review Board shall review materials to be used for the hangar and any on -site improvements. -3- 5-1-84 - P.C. 3. The flight pattern proposed by the Police Department, received May 1, 1984, as exhibit HB-3, shall be the approved pattern. This flight pattern shall be spelled out in terms of flight slope, altitude and linear feet and rigidly adhered to. 4. Helicopter noise levels at this facility shall be maintained at the 1988 CNEL contours as depicted in the CH2M Hill report dated March, 1983. 5. Any future expansion for the heliport shall require a public hearing and notice to property owners within a 2,000 foot radius of the site before the Planning Commission. 6. Expansion of the heliport facilities shall not proceed until technology for a quieter helicopter is developed and utilized by the City of Huntington Beach. 7. Private or commercial helicopters are not allowed to operate from the heliport. 8. The site plan (including landscaping and parking) dated April 25, 1984, shall be the approved plan. 9. 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. If lighting is included in the parking lot, energy efficient lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-6 (Continued from 4-17-84) Applicant: Joseph J. Nigro A request to permit the expansion of an existing health club located at 8907 Warner Avenue. The acting chairman reopened the public hearing. Willard Halm, representing Exercise Express, spoke to the Commission regarding the actual operation of the health club. He stated that the aerobic classes have been moved across the street. He also explained that parking would be satisfied with a joint use agreement and by restriping for compact cars. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Higgins suggested that the permit be granted for one year with a review of the use at that time. ON MOTION BY MIRJAHANGIR AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-6 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY -4- 5-1-84 - P.C. THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. 4. The property owner has submitted a revised parking layout depicting 223 parking spaces through restriping for compact parking and a joint parking agreement which will satisfy current parking requirements. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan delineating health club area received and dated February 23, 1984, shall be the layout. 2. The floor plan demonstrating weight distribution of exercise equipment shall be approved by the City's structural engineer. 3. Aerobic classes are prohibited. 4. The revised parking layout as depicted on the site plan received and dated April 13, 1984, shall be the approved plan for the entire site. 5. The revised parking lot layout shall be completed prior to expansion of the use. 6. The Planning Commission shall review the facility one year from the date of approval, and reserves the right to rescind this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violation of the applicable zoning laws or conditions of approval. Such decision shall be preceeded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None -5- 5-1-84 - P.C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-13 Applicant: Robert J. and Suzie Smith A request to permit a second unit to an existing single family dwelling on property located at 21352 Yarmouth Lane. Mike Adams briefly outlined staff's recommendation stating that an additional condition was recommended regarding onsite parking. The public hearing was opened. The following neighboring residents spoke in opposition to the proposed addition: Arnold Winburg, Kim Henry, Raul Waltern and Charles Hawson. Although most of the comments did not object specifically to the addition proposed by the Smith family, they did object to the long-term effects of the "second unit" ordinance passed by the City Council. One resident, Mr. Henry, said specifically that he did not object to the Smith's plans, but he said that if this was done to a two-story house, he would have objection. Commissioner Higgins suggested that if the residents felt strongly about their opposition to the second unit ordinance, perhaps they could address their concerns to the City Council. However, as one of the residents pointed out, it is a state law. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-13 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will not be detrimental to: a. The general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; b. Property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 2. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan of Land Use. 4. The granting of a conditional use permit is consistent with the development standards contained in Section 9101.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated March 29, 1984, shall be the approved layout. -6- 5-1-84 - P.C. 2. The existing driveway shall be widened to a minimum width of 18 feet. 3. The applicant shall provide safety, energy and conservation measures as required by Section 9101.3. 4. The addition shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code and Building Division. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-12 Applicant: Jim Brashier, Partner, c/o Edward Abraham, M.D. A request to permit an industrial -related medical practice and clinic in an existing building located on the south side of Bolsa Avenue, approximately 550 feet west of Graham Street. Mike Adams gave a slide presentation and recommended a slight change in the first condition in the staff report dealing with site plans and floor plans. The public hearing was opened. Seeing there was no one present who wished to address this item, the public hearing was closed. Some discussion took place about the compatibility of the uses. Staff stated that the use was compatible under M1-A standards. Commissioners suggested that the total of 108 parking spaces be spelled out in the conditions of approval. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-12 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The on -site parking lot as proposed to include restriping for compact parking to provide a total of 108 spaces, will be adequate for the proposed medical clinic, the existing office building and the industrial building. 2. The proposed medical facility is compatible with surrounding land uses which include offices, warehousing and manufacturing. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan and floor plan dated May 1, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. The proposed medical clinic shall only serve industrial related businesses, and shall not be open to the general public. -7- 5-1-84 - P.0 . 3. Signage or other means of identification for the proposed medical clinic shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the proposed Signage does not comply with applicable sections Article 976 of the Ordinance Code. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this conditional use permit approval in the event of any violation the applicable zoning laws or conditions of approval. Such decision shall be preceeded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing, and shall be based on specific findings. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Porter, Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None At this point in the meeting, Chairman Porter arrived and resumed the chair. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-03/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 572 Applicant: Hartge Engineering of of A request for a conditional exception to permit a reduction in lot width from 60 to 57.5 feet and a request for a tentative parcel map to permit the subdivision of one lot into two lots on property located on the south side of Glencoe Avenue, approximately 550 feet west of Beach Boulevard (7874 and 7876 Glencoe Avenue). The public hearing was opened. Bill Hartge, engineer on the project, stated for the record that he was in agreement with the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. The public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-03 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-572 WERE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-03: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Approval of Conditional Exception No. 84-03 will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. Approval of this request is consistent with previous actions by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Approval of Conditional Exception No. 84-03 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Approval of this request will allow parity with other property owners within the same vicinity and zoning. 3. Approval of Conditional Exception No. 84-03 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. -8- 5-1-84 - P.C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84-572: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed subdivision for purposes of splitting one lot into two lots is consistent with the City's General Plan. The property was studied and approved for this intensity of land use and for this type of residential structure at the time the R2, Medium Density Residential designation was placed on the property. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The tentative parcel map received by the Department of Development Services on March 23, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. A parcel map shall be filed with the City and approved by the Departments of Development Services and Public Works and recorded with the County of Orange. A copy of the recorded map shall be filed with the Departments of Development Services and Public Works. 3. At the time of new construction of dwelling units on the subject property, a common driveway shall be installed to service both developments. 4. Grading and street improvement plans shall be provided to City standards at the time the parcel is developed. 5. Water supply shall be through the City of Huntington Beach water system at the time said parcels are developed. 6. Sewage disposal shall be through the City of Huntington Beach sewage system at the time said parcels are developed. All utilities shall installed at the time said parcels are developed. Compliance with all applicable City ordinances. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-4 Applicant: Great Western Savings A request to permit a change of zone from R3, Medium High Residential District, to C4, Highway Commercial District on .26 acres of property located on the north side of Stark Avenue, approximately 150 feet west of Beach Boulevard. This request is intended to comply with Condition #15 for Conditional Use Permit No. 84-3 which was conditionally approved in conjunction with Use Permit No. 83-69 by the Planning Commission on February 22, 1984. The property will be used as a -9- 5-1-84 - P.C. parking lot for Great Western Savings. Staff made a brief presentation and recommended approval with recommendation for adoption by the City Council. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Welch, representing Great Western Savings, said he would answer Iany questions the Commission had. Seeing there were none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked staff if the lot consolidation was considered appropriate. Mr. Adams referred to Mr. Welch who stated that the lot consolidation occurred in 1969. ON MOTION BY WINCHELL AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-4 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDING FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed zone change is compatible with the surrounding land uses. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-12 (Continued from 4-3-84) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach An amendment to the Ordinance Code amending Sections 9310.1 and 9360.1 and adding a new Article 930 establishing standards and guidelines for conversion of apartments to residential condominiums, stock cooperatives or community apartments. The Commission discussed each section, incorporating comments from Norbert Dahl and Shirley Commons Long (Board of Realtors) on various sections. As a result of that discussion, the following changes were proposed to the ordinance; the new language (underlined), reads as follows: 9300. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE. The provisions of this article shall apply to conversions of existing apartment houses, apartment hotel.3, hotels, multiple dwellings, or group dwellings to a condominium, stock cooperative or community apartment project involving separate ownershir of individual living units, and this article shall also apply where multiple -owner rental projects are also sold separately or divided in such a manner that tenants are displaced. This article shall not ap ly to applications for the subdivision of existing rental projects into new multiple ownerships of two or more units which remain rental units. -10- 5-1-84 - P.C. 9300.1. DEFINITIONS. (d) Project shall mean an existing apartment house, apartment complex, . . . For purposes of this definition, the term "existing" means a building constructed prior to 1945 or, if it was built after 1945, a certificate of occupancy has been issued for such building prior to the time of application. 9300.1. DEFINITIONS. (e) Affordable unit shall mean a residential unit, sold to or occupied by a household earning up to 120 percent of Orange County's gross median income as determined by the County of Orange. Any change in the income range subsequently adopted by the housing agency of Orange County shall be automatically reflected in this definition. 9300.5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED. (g) Tenant profile: (e.g. family size, length of residence, number of tenants of age 62 or greater, number of children, number of handicapped or disabled tenants. 9300.9. TENANT ASSISTANCE. (a)(7) A description and brief explanation of state and city requirements applicable to condominium conversions, including the rights of tenants to participate in the governmental decision process, that are in effect at the time the notice of intent to convert was mailed. A copy of all laws and regulations pertaining to condominium conversions shall be available for inspection and use during normal business hours by tenants at the rental office of the apartment complex proposed for conversion; (f) Tenants Right to Purchase. As provided in Government Code Section 66427.1(d) any tenant household occupying a unit on the date that the condominium conversion is approved by the City shall be given notice of an exclusive right to contract for the purchase of its unit or any other available unit within the development upon the same terms and conditions that such unit will be initially offered to the general public or terms more favorable to the tenant. . . . Evidence that notice pursuant to this subsection was mailed by registered mail to each tenant household shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services within five working days of when the notice was mailed. (i) Relocation Assistance. The owner shall provide actual moving expenses not to exceed one and one-half times the monthly rent to tenants residing in the project at the time of approval by the City. The chairman called for a 10 minute recess. Commission reconvened at 9:55 P.M. The language changes resumed as follows: 9300.10.10. OPEN SPACE (COMMON). . . . Common open space areas shall not be located within 10 feet of any side of a ground floor dwelling unit having a door or window. On any side without a door or window, common open space areas may be located within 5 feet of the ground floor dwelling unit, provided the separation area is landscaped, etc. 9300.10.11. OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE) . . . Units constructed above ground level in which all rooms used for human habitation are constructed above ground level shall be provided with balconies or sundecks with a -11- 5-1-84 - P.C. minimum of 60 square feet and a minimum dimension of six (6) feet. 9300.11.15. SOLAR WATER HEATING. All condominium conversion developments containing a common water heating system shall be converted to a solar water heating system subject to the approval of the Planning Commission unless it can be shown that such conversion is not reasonably feasible. 9300.15. PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL FACTORS. (c) The need and demand and community benefits which are derived from the provision of low and moderate income home ownership opportunities which opportunities are increased by the conversion of apartments. (d) . . . In assessing the current vacancy level under this subsection, the increase in rental rates over the preceding two years and the average monthly vacancy rate for the project over the preceding two years shall be considered. In addition to the above -mentioned sections, Sections 9300.3, Fees and 9300.6, Special Code Compliance Inspection Report, were discussed and staff will be prepared at the next meeting to suggest revisions in response to the discussion. Sections 9300.10, Development Standards and 9300.10.1, Maximum Density were held in abeyance until the next regular meeting. The public hearing was opened. Norbert Dahl and Shirley Commons Long briefly summarized their written responses. Dick Harlow also addressed the Commission stating that he agrees with the recommendations made by the Housing Committee. Commissioner Winchell suggested that the meeting of May 15, begin at 6 P.M. with this item. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS.CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-16 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-12 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MAY 15, 1984 MEETING TO BEGIN AT 6:00 P.M. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL REMAIN OPEN. THIS MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-05 AA221icant: Church of Latter Day Saints Site Plan Amendment No. 84-05 is a request by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to erect a 12 foot by 20 foot storage building (240 square feet) to house yard maintenance tools, lawn mowers, sweepers, etc., in their parking lot adjacent to the northerly property line on property at the northeast corner of Delaware Street and Clay Avenue. -12- 5-1-84 - P.C. Mike Adams stated that the staff reviewed the request of the applicant and concurs that the proposed location of the storage building will not adversely affect the adjacent residential property. Warren Pitts, the architect, was present for questions. Some discussion took place regarding the location of the trash bins and the setback from the storage building. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-05 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated April 27, 1984, and elevations received and dated April 4, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 2. Building materials used for the storage building shall closely resemble the color and materials of the existing church. The final design of the storage building shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 84-4 Applicant: John C. Brown A request to change sign copy in two existing freestanding signs located at 8907 Warner and 16931 Magnolia. Staff recommends that if the applicant and property owner concur, the Planning Commission allow the continued use of the nonconforming sign for a period not to exceed two years from the date of approval. At the end of the two year period, the sign shall be made to conform with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The applicant representative, David Burke, stated that he was agreeable to the recommended conditions in the staff report. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 84-4 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. Due to unique circumstances applicable to the sign, immediate alteration, removal or replacement of the signs will result in an economic hardship. 2. The signs will not adversely affect other lawfully erected signs in the same area. -13- 5-1-84 - P.C. 3. The signs will not be detrimental to the property located in the vicinity of the property on which said signs are located. 4. The signs will be in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The signs will not obstruct the vision of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1.- Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file a cash bond in the amount of $1500 or its equivalent as approved by the City Attorney, with the City for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred in the removal of each sign structure. If the sign is not made to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign code 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 remove said sign, and the cost of removal shall be deducted from the bond and summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of Huntington Beach, and the remainder, if any, returned to the person depositing the bond. 2. The property owner shall obtain a separate permit for each sign. 3. The site plan and elevations received and dated April 13, 1984, shall be the approved layout. AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-06 Applicant: Mola Development Corporation Site Plan Amendment No. 84-06 is a request to amend the approved site plan for a 77-unit planned residential development located at the southwesterly extension of Countess Drive, adjacent to the Main Channel in Huntington Harbour. Conditional Use Permit No. 83-24 was approved permitting the development of the 77-unit project on September 20, 1983. The site plan amendment request is for the following modifications to the approved site plan: 1. Incorporate a 10 foot wide public walkway easement along the bulkhead. 2. Provide for a 15 foot setback from the edge of the public walkway to the main structure. -14- 5-1-84 - P.0 . 1 3. Relocate the 60-unit condominium structure to accommodate the public walkway and setback. 4. Incorporate all required covered and uncovered parking spaces for the condominium units within the parking structure. Guest parking for the condominium units will continue to be located in the main parking lot. 5. Reorient the patio homes on the lots by reversing the side yard having the "zero" setback. Incorporation of the 10 foot wide public walkway easement and relocation of the 60-unit condominium structure is being proposed in response to conditions required for the development by the California Coastal Commission. The result of this modification will improve public access to the development and provide a greater setback from the channel. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS, AND SECOND BY PORTER SITE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-06 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan received and dated April 26, 1984, shall be the approved layout. AYES: Higgins, NOES: None ABSENT: Erskine, ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS: Winchell, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir Schumacher Graham Place EIR 83-3 Lengthy discussion took place regarding staff's request that the Planning Commission reiterate their concerns regarding the Graham Place EIR so that these concerns may be passed on to the consulant. Glen Godfrey pointed out that the EIR need not be an exhaustive study and need not be delayed to include all potential comments or results of works in progress. Rather that an adequate review to provide an informed decision is all that is required. Chairman Porter did not agree with this and requested that all comments, especially those made by other agencies, be incorporated into the document, possibly in footnote form. He believes this is important because of the fact that the proposed project will be residential in nature. Commissioner Livengood added that it appeared to him that no comments were included in the document since December; he requested the date the draft was prepared. PENDING ITEMS: Commissioners recommended that the pending item regarding trash and -15- 5-1-84 - P.C. debris at the service station located at the corner of Springdale and Heil be removed from the pending item list as the situation has been ,mitigated. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Porter requested Public Works staff to investigate the new installation of ramps for handicapped at the southwest corner of Magnolia and Indianapolis. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:45 P.M. to the next regular meeting of May 15, 1984, to begin with the condoiminium conversion ordinance public hearing at 6:00 P.M. jlm 0685d Marcus M. P rter, 'rm n -16- 5-1-84 - P.C. 1