Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-24Approved September 5, 1984 A -I MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1984 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington'Beach, California Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir Winchell, Erskine ITEM A-2: (Street Vacation within Huntington Harbour) Chairman Porter directed staff to add that at the point that vacation of the street takes place that it will take access into the adjacent tract and that the homeowners association be formed prior to approval of final street vacation. ITEM A-3: (Construction of a water well) Commissioner Livengood commented that there have been problems in the past with incompatibility, however, in this case the project is compatible with the surrounding area. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 10, 1984, AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCES NOS. 84-9 AND 84-10 WERE APPROVED AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-28, APPEAL, (Continued from 7-10-84) Applicant: 30th Street Architects Appellant: Neil A. Friedman An appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments' approval of a request to permit a 47 space reduction in the required amount of parking at property located on the south side of Newman Avenue, approximately 200 feet east of Beach Boulevard. Jim Barnes indicated that staff was directed at the last meeting to combine the presentation of this item with the new request for expansion of Humana Hospital (CUP 84-16). The Chairman agreed with this method, however, requested that the public hearings.be held separately. Mike Adams pointed out that the staff was treating the medical building site and the Humana Hospital as one parcel, that the lines on the map are.lease lines, and that no division into separate parcels has been recognized by the City. Some discussion took place regarding the review of the medical facility's parking and occupancy rate stated in one of staff's proposed conditions. The Chairman reopened the public hearing on the appeal item. Tom Harmon, representing Dr. Friedman, the appellant, made his presentation. He asked that the Commission consider the existing situation with parking; he did not agree that a reduction in parking should be allowed. He passed photographs, taken at various hours of the day, to the Commissioners for their perusal. He reiterated the need of'a parking structure. fie did not feel there was any provision for future expansion. Harold Graham, representing the applicant, 30th Street Architects, stated for the record that he agreed with the proposed conditions of approval. He said his project was designed to allow for 24 doctors to park near the building - that the purpose was to keep the doctors who use the hospital facilities to have their offices close -by. He did no ti think that parking would be so inadequate that people would use the appellant's parking lot. He said that his plan provided more parking than other medical offices in the general surrounding area. He further stated that Dr. Friedman's property would be screened sufficiently from the proposed medical facility. He concluded by saying that they have tried to comply with the City's conditions in good faith and deserve an opportunity to move ahead with the project. Lynette Cervantes of Van Dell and Associates (authors of the parking study), stated that after looking at the data, the problem seemed to be in distribution of parking (she thought that if employees parked in the rear of the hospital it would mitigate any potential problems) and not necessarily lack of parking. She said the study her company completed was on the "worst case" senario. She said with restriping there would be 979 parking spaces for the entire complex. Richard Bloomingthal spoke in opposition of the appellant and in favor of,the applicant, 30th Street Architects. He said that the parking study was submitted by the applicant as requested by staff and that it was a qualified parking survey. He quoted Section 9815.1.2 which states that a person filing an appeal to a BZA decision must show reasons for his appeal, he did not agreed that the appellant had done this. Further, he did not agree that there was a problem with parking at the present.time, nor did he foresee any situation in the future of a parking problem. Dick Thom spoke in favor of the appeal by Dr. Friedman; against the approval of the project by the BZA. fie felt that a parking structure -2- 7-24-84 - P.C. was necessary and would be good for the whole community. He did not agree that a survey could be sufficient to base a reduction in parking on, especially when Van Dell was hired by the applicant to do the study. Fie felt that, naturally, they would submit a report favorable to their client. Two other members of the audience spoke in favor of the appeal; against the approval of the project, Arnold Angeneis (a dentist) and George Nichi (a merchant in the area), both stating the need for more than the proposed amount of parking. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion began with Commissioner Higgins who stated that he would hate to grant an exception with a reduction in the required amount of parking and then find out that parking was inadequate. He favored a condition where a parking structure would be required at 50% occupancy if it was determined at that time that a structure would be necessary. He said another alternative would be for the applicant to consider purchasing the adjacent vacant land for additional parking. Ms. Cervantes said that this alternative was not discussed with the applicant, only the alternative of a parking structure which would be a joint effort between the applicant and Humana Hospital. Mr. Graha►n stated that the hospital did not own the vacant parcel referred to by Commissioner Higgins. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she did not feel comfortable acting on the appeal item before the hospital expansion item which was next on the agenda. Staff pointed out that iswith the expansion of the hospital, no parking increase would be required by code; this because parking would be attached to an increase in beds and this was not the case. There was a concensus to change the 80% occupancy figure on the proposed condition to 60%. Chairman Porter stated that a condition was necessary that parking be provided if there was a need for it and that if it was necessary that it would be up to the applicant to work out some arrangement with Humana Hospital to provide that parking. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she did not think Humana Hospital would allow a shortage in parking to happen without doing something about it. Staff recommended that the Commissioners add a condition to require that a parcel map be filed. Commissioner Livengood suggested that the parties responsible for the required amount of parking be spelled out in the conditions of approval. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS, THE APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS' APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-28 WAS DENIED WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The parceling of the property with lease lines and the existing layout of buildings and circulation system create exceptional circumstances that do not generally apply to property or uses in the same district. 0 2. The granting of this conditional exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. -3- 7-24-84 - P.C. 3. The granting of this conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming land, property or improvements in the neighborhood of the property for which such conditional exception is sought. 4. The applicant is willing and able to carry out the purposes for which the conditional exception is sought; that he will proceed to do so without unnecessary delay. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A revised site plan showing the circulation and parking layout integrating the two adjacent project areas, shall include identification of handicapped parking spaces to meet State standards, and shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The uses within the proposed structure are limited to those as outlined in the traffic demand study and as listed on the conceptual site plan. Any modifications, expansion of buildings or change of use shall require new entitlement and additional parking. 3. A review of the complex parking, as prepared by a traffic consultant, shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services when the proposed development is 60 percent full. Such a study shall be independently prepared under contract to the City at the applicant's expense. If this traffic study finds that additional onsite parking is required, the applicant, in cooperation with Humana Hospital, shall provide the additional spaces necessary in a parking structure. Structure design and location shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to the permitting of additional occupancies over the 60 percent figure. 4. Parking lot modifications for the subject site and adjacent property owned by Humana shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In addition, the applicant shall prepare a parking phasing plan showing future parking structures and their locations with a draft agreement entitling Humana Hospital and the Center Medical Compelx to participate in any future parking proposal in order to satisfy any future expansion needs: 5. The applicant shall file a parcel map, and condominium plan if necessary, with the City. This map shall be approved and recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine 46 ABSTAIN: None -4- 7-24-84 - P.C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-16/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-15 (Continued from 7-10-84) Applicant: Edward McCoy, Director, Humana Hospital A request to permit the addition of 20,020 square feet of floor area to the Huntington Community Hospital located south of Newman Avenue and east of Beach Boulevard. Staff added that new information was received from Cal Trans that they had plans for an additional traffic signal in the area. The public hearing was opened. Edward Anno, speaking on behalf of the hospital, had some reservation on the proposed conditions of approval. He did not agree to removal of the storage area as he said this was required for infectious waste materials; he felt that a sprinkler system installed would mitigate this problem. He also stated he would have no control over a suggested condition to require removal of a second driveway. He further requested that the cat scan facility be allowed to proceed prior to other proposed additions. Chairman Porter asked the applicant what would happen to the vacant space created by the expansion. The applicant stated that eventually this would be converted to bed space. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Porter suggested that a condition be added that would require that staff parking be provided at locations more suitable for patient access. The applicant stated that if that was required the employees would have to walk around the building and enter the front door, that there was no easy access from the rear of the building, and in some cases, employees would be required to do this late at night. Brief discussion also took place regarding handicapped parking. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 84-15 WAS FOUND ADEQUATE AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-16 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed addition is in conformance with the City's General Plan. 2. The proposed addition will not adversely affect surrounding properties or excessively increase traffic congestion nor create demand for additional parking spaces. -5- 7-24-84 - P.C. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan dated June 29, 1984, shall be revised to incorporate the following: a. removal of all parallel parking within the left turn pockets. b. removal of the storage buildings on the eastern property line and reclaiming the area for parking. C. extend the median island at the entrance off Beach Boulevard westerly to the property line. d. all mature landscaping should be maintained and not sacrificed for additional parking. e. provide vehicular access between existing and proposed parking areas to the north and west. f. increase amount of compact spaces within existing parking areas. g. provide handicapped parking to meet the State minimum standards. 2. The floor plans and elevations received and dated June 7, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 3. The applicant shall prepare a parking phasing plan showing future parking structures and their location, with a draft agreement entitling the proposed Beach Boulevard Medical Office and Center Medical Complex to participate in any future parking proposal in order to satisfy any future expansion needs. 4. The uses within the proposed development are limited to those outlined in the staff report dated July 10, 1984. Any modification, expansion or change of use shall require new entitlement and additional parking. 5. Parking lot modifications for the subject site and adjacent properties conveyed by lease or fee shall be completed prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy. 6. An automotic sprinkler system, or other approved system, shall be installed in the existing hospital complex and the addition subject to the review and approval of the Fire Department. 7. All life safety systems shall comply with State codes and Huntington Beach Fire Department standards. 8. Should the addition cause any fire protection equipment to be obstructed, the equipment shall be reloacted to an area approved by the Fire Department. -6- 7-24-84 - P.C. • 0 9. Addition off -site fire hydrants are to be installed in locations approved by the Fire Department. 10. All travel lanes and turning radii shall conform with Fire Department standards. 11. All building spoils such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe and other surplus or unusable materials shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 12. If new 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. 13. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer. This analysis shall include onsite soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, etc. 14. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement from such property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with G-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated G-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. The applicant shall file a parcel map with the_City to legally establish the lease lines shown on the approved site plan. 16. The installation of the C.T. scanner facility may be permitted to occur prior to the development of parking improvements. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-30, APPEAL Applicant: Merlind J. Perumean, Jr. Appellant: Susan Shaw An appeal to overrule a Board of Zoning Adjustments' denial of a variance request to permit a 30 foot encroachment into the side yard setback at property located at 5771 Trophy Drive. Mike Adams made the staff presentation which recommended that the Commission uphold the action of the BZA and sustain their findings for denial. The public hearing was opened. Susan Shaw, the appellant, stated that during three years of construction numerous inspections were made and that during that time they were never advised by staff of an -7- 7-24-84 - P.C. encroachment. (The inspector at that time was Bill Morris who is no longer employed by the City.) The inspector informed her that they should file for a new permit which, in her opinion, was to correct a City -oversight. She.presented the Commission with a petition of surrounding residents in favor of granting the variance. Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Vogel, who live next door to Susan Shaw, addressed the Commission. They stated that in the beginning they were opposed to the project, but after they viewed the proposed plans, they did not feel one way or the other about the addition. Bud Belsito, attorney on behalf of the appellant, stated that it was a matter of 2.4 inches difference. He said that in 1980, the City granted a permit to Ms. Shaw with no objections raised and then three years later tried to rectify their error. The public hearing was closed. Secretary Palin stated that there was no plan indicating a side yard setback or showing what the existing setback is; that was the error. Commissioner Higgins suggested that a one -hour fire wall be installed and that the opening in the wall be eliminated that is adjacent to the Vogel's property. Secretary Palin also added that there were no windows depicted on the original plans. Mr. Georges from the City Attorney's office advised that the Commissioners should not be concerned of alledged.errors by employees; that this does not in effect make a nonconforming use a conforming use. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE APPEAL TO CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-30 WAS APPROVED OVERRULING THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS' DENIAL, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS: 1. The granting of Conditional Exception No. 84-30 will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the same zone classifications. 2. The granting of the conditional exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The granting of.a conditional exception is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The building plans dated 1980 shall be the approved plans. 2. The applicant shall modify the existing wall to make a one -hour fire rate wall with no openings. 3. The site plan dated May 30, 1984 shall be the approved layout. -8- 7-24-84 - P.C. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None The Chairman called for a 5-minute recess. Commission reconvened at 10:10 P.M. CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-25 A & B/USE PERMIT NO. 84-34, APPEAL Applicant: Phil Zisakis Appellant: Councilman Robert Mandic Use Permit No. 84-34 was filed to permit the construction of a 2,000 square foot commercial building for use as a glass shop, including the installation of auto glass, pursuant to Section 9472. The Conditional Exception has been submitted for two alternative plans, both which involve numerous deviations from the Ordinance Code. The Board of Zoning Adjustments denied the requests on June 27, 1984. Councilman Robert Mandic appealed this action. Staff informed the Commission that Mr. Zisakis' property was located -within the Oakview Redevelopment Area and that there were possibly plans by the Redevelopment Agency to consolidate and issue condemnation procedures. The public hearing was opened. Phil Zisakis stated that he has been working with the City over a five-year period with various applications and that he felt he was at the same position as he was two years ago. He suggested that Plan B was the best plan. He said that he is in a very competitive business, that he has a small lot and he has spent in the neighborhood of $8,000 to legalize the lot. He saw no progress in attempting to obtain the vacant land next to his property (the Walker property). He further -stated that exposure on Beach Boulevard was very important to the survival of his business. John Kells, an architectural consultant hired by the applicant, stated that he has never seen such patience as Mr. Zisakis has displayed with the City and admired him greatly for this. He said that he has been involved with the project with Mr. Zisakis for the last five years. He agreed that the piece of property is question was a difficult piece to work with however, it remains a legal building site. He requested that if the Commission could not agree on Plan A or B that the applicant be allowed to go back to the BZA and work with staff again to revise his plans. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Higgins asked for clarification on proposed redevelopment action. Mike Adams stated that there was preparation underway of a resolution of necessity for the August 6, 1984 City Council meeting initiating condemnation on the applicant's property in conjuncdion with the Walker and Robinson properties. Commissioner Schumacher asked if this was done was there a possibility that Mr. Zisakis could acquire the property. Mr. Adams answered that they would need to evaluate the scope of that possibility. --Mr. Adams added that Mr. Zisakis' property was being considered -for condemnation with possible inclusion into the Charter Centre complex, but in that event the City would approach him and provide him with an alternative site. -9- 7-24-84 - P.C. Commissioner Livengood stated that he was concerned with the two plans submitted by the applicant with their deficiencies in parking, setbacks and landscaping. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she did not believe that the City should leave the applicant "hanging" for the next four years. Chairman Porter asked if it was possible to put a conforming business on a parcel of this size. Mr. Adams answered that he believed that this parcel was similar in size to the "Lube and Tune" parcel recently approved. Mr. Georges stated that the Commission could wait until after the August 6 City Council meeting to take action. Commissioner Higgins stated for the record that he was not in favor of this type of development on the site. ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE BZA DENIAL ACTION ON CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-25 (A AND B) WAS UPHELD, WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL (CE 84-25 A and B): 1. The granting of the conditional exception would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. 2. The granting of the conditional exception would be injurious to the conforming property and improvements,in the neighborhood of the subject property. 3. The granting of the conditional exception would adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY HIGGINS THE BZA DENIAL ACTION ON USE PERMIT NO. 84-34 WAS UPHELD, WITH THE'FOLLOWING FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL (UP 84-34): 1. The plan for the use permit requires the approval of Conditional Exception No. 84-25 - Alternative A or B, which has been denied, therefore, the use permit must be denied also. 2. The granting of the use permit would adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The granting of the use permit would be injurious to the property and improvements in the vicinity of the use. 4. The establishment and operation of the use would be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. -10- 7-24-84 - P.C. 5. The proposal is deficient in the following areas: • parking • exterior side yard setback . sight angle encroachment • landscaping AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-12 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A request to permit a change of zone from R2-PD-14-CZ to R1-CZ on 5.33 acres of property located at the southwest corner of Los Patos Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. Staff presentation was made. The public hearing was opened. Seeing there was no one present to speak for or against the item, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-12 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY,COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood,-Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-13 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A request to permit a change of zone from R1-CZ to RA -CZ on 10.77 acres of property located at the southeast corner of Los Patis Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. Staff presentation was made. The public hearing was opened. Seeing there was no one present to speak for or against the item, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-13 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-14 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A proposed amendment to delete Exhibit B from Section 9792.11, Landscape and Scenic Corridors, of the ordinance code. Staff made -11- 7-24-84 - P.C. their presentation. The public hearing was opened. Seeing there was no one present to speak for or against the item, the public hearing was closed. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CODE AMENDMENT NO..84-14 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-15 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach An.amendment with provision to exempt minor developments which are handled ministerially by the City from the requirements of a coastal development permit. Staff presentation was made. Commissioner Schumacher had some concern about Planning Commission control. Jeanine Frank assured the Commission.that they would have control. The public hearing was opened. Seeing there was no one present to speak for or against the item, the public hearing was closed. ON.MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND.BY­.MIRJAHANGIR CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-15 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Schumacher, Erskine ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-15 Initiated by City of Huntington Beach A proposal to allow manufactured homes on lots zoned R1, Low Density Residential District. Mike, Adams said that Planning Commission may wish to use the suffix method to'allow this use in R1 district. The public hearing was opened. Seeing there was no one present to speak for or against the item, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Higgins stated that he was in favor of reviewing the suffix approach on a case -by -case basis. Commissioner Livengood stated he would favor a minimum width and length. He questioned staff's definition of manufactured homes. Mr. Adams said that this definition was taken from the City's mobile home standards. Commissioner Mirjahangir favored a continuance. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CODE AMENDMENT NO. 83-15 WAS CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 7, 1984 MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -12- 7-24-84 - P.C. AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Request to Expand Resolution No. 1258 for Mixed Use Development Applicant: Delta Management An industrial complex located at the southeast corner of Heil Avenue and Gothard Street is being operated as a mixed use development as approved by Conditional Use Permit No. 80-15. A request to amend the resolution of approved uses was continued from the July 10, 1984 meeting. The management group requesting the change to the resolution are doing this at the request of Mr. Rudy Lemkes, a prospective tenant who wishes to operate a wholesale and retail beauty supply business in the area. Delta Management informed the Commission that at the present time there are two similar businesses operating across the street from Mr. Lemkes with full salon facilities. The public testimony portion was opened. Mr. Lemkes addressee the Commission stating that he had already signed a lease for the space and relinquished his space at his previous location.- He said that the building provided delivery doors that were necessary to his business. Commissioner Schumacher stated that she was concerned about "chairs" and expansion of salon operations to•possibly include a sink and hair stations. Mr. Lemkes said that he does have one girl who does shows with him and that this was necessary to his business for economic reasons. However, he said this was only for nails. The public testimony portion was closed. Commission consensus was to word the use so that only the beauty supply portion of Mr. Lemkes' business would be allowed; thus, the resolution will read "nail and beauty supplies" as a permitted use, eliminating the word "salon". Commissioner Mirjahangir stated that he would not support that motion. Some discussion also took place about a possible code amendment on this subject. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY•PORTER THE ABOVE.DESCRIBED CHANGE WAS MADE TO THE RESOLUTION (1258) ALLOWING "NAIL AND BEAUTY SUPPLIES", BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter;_Schumacher NOES: Mirjahangir . ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 84-5 Applicant: 'Innovative Graphics, Inc. A request to permit the continued use of a 240 square foot nonconforming pole sign located at 10111 Adams Avenue in a retail -13- 7-24-84 - P.C.. shopping center. The applicant representative Mr. Fainbarg, agreed to the conditions and also stated for the record that he would obtain approval from the property owner. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO, 84-5 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 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 surrounding neighborhood. 5. The sign will not obstruct the vision of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:,.;„ f 1. Prior to issuance.of,bgildingpermits,, the applicant shall file and cash bond in the amount of $1500 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 remove said sign, and the cost of removal shall be deducted from the cash 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 site plan and elevations received and dated.June 28, 1984, shall be the approved layout. 3. Approval shall be subject to written concurrence of the property owner. AYES: Higgins, Livengood,-Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None -14- 7-24-84 - P.C. n I ZONE CHANGE NO. 84-3A Initiated by City of Huntington Beach City Council requested the Planning Commission to verify their action taken on this zone change in the Oakview Redevelopment Area. Commission action was to rezone to R3-16 with a density bonus. Chairman Porter said he would draft a response for the City Council explaining their decision. DISCUSSION ITEMS: General Plan Conformance 84-8: Capital Improvement Plan Glen Godfrey informed the Commission that a full report on this subject will be forthcoming at their next meeting. Commissioner Livengood inquired if the pump at Gothard andd Heil was included in the report. Conditional Use Permit No. 84-18 Applicant: Dixie Olinger, 15581 Oakshire Lane When the Planning Commission approved the above request on July 10, 1984, there were concerns raised regarding the height of the block wall which surrounds the property. Staff made an on -site inspection which confirmed that the wall, consistent with code requirements for a day care use, is indeed six feet high. Mr. Godfrey said that the applicant was also apprised of a swimming pool next door. PENDING ITEMS: The pending report was submitted to the Commission. Commissioner Schumacher asked that two items be added to the list: Room addition restrictions in floodplain areas and "pot holes" in Slater Avenue near the railroad crossing. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Porter discussed the possibility of holding office elections after the City Council elections, rather than the first meeting in July. Mr. Georges suggested that for such a change it would be advisable for the full Commission to change the by-laws dealing with time of officer elections. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS MOVING THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS TO THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY OF EACH YEAR, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Porter, Schumacher, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Winchell, Erskine ABSTAIN: None -15- 7-24-84 - P.C. A motion was made by Livengood and seconded by Mirjahangir to have Chairman Porter continue as Chairman until January, 1985. After some discussion, the maker and second withdrew the motion. Commissioner Livengood requested that staff add the name of the planner assigned to each application on the preliminary agenda. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEM: Secretary Palin gave a report on the revised habitat plan in the Bolsa Chica which will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission and the action which took place regarding the same subject by the Coastal Conservancy. He said that they had shown concern about the question of the proposed rerouting of Pacific Coast Highway. ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at\12:03 A.M. to the next regular meeting of August 7, 1984, at 7:00 P.M•. Ames W. Palin, Secretary Marcus MI Porte , ChAirman IF jlm 1021d -16- 7-24-84 - P.C.