Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-09-17APPROVED OCTOBER 15, 1985 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Schumacher CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. CONSENT CALENDAR: A-1 Minutes from August 20, 1985 meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 20, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES WITH CORRECTIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-2 Minutes from September 4, 1985 meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY MIRJAHANGIR TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBFR 4, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A-3 General Plan Conformance no. 85-6 The Department of Public Works is proposing to construct a water well facility (including drilling the well, construction of a block building to house engine and installation of pumping equipment) at McFadden Avenue and Huntington Village Lane on a .05 acre portion of McFadden Avenue right-of-way. A MOTION 14AS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ROWE TO APPROVE A WATER WELL FACILITY LOCATED AT MCFADDEN AVENUE AND HUNTINGTON VILLAGE LANE BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMISSION ITEMS: None C. ITEMS FOR PUBLIC HEARING C -1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-35 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-64/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-262/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-43 Applicant: Coastal Properties Ltd. This item was continued on September 4, 1985 at the request of the applicant in order to allow additional time for the completion of revised plans and for the submittal and public noticing of the conditional exception and special permit requests that are necessary for the remaining deviations from code requirements. The applicant's request is to combine two, twenty-five foot wide lots into one lot by lot consolidation and to construct a three unit condominium project on the property. The zone district is Downtown Specific Plan, District Two. ENVIRONMENTAI, STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect'at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-43 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on the proposed project, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 85-43. P.C. September 17, 1985 -2- (3375d) 1 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jack Wood, engineer for the project, spoke in support of the project stating that he concurred with staff recommendation as long as the two new conditions no. 8 & 9 were appealable. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Winchell expressed that she would not go along with a project in this area that will reduce required guest parking, concluding that she would be opposed to the conditional exception on this project. Commissioner Porter commented he agreed with Commissioner Winchell adding that the applicant should apply architectural treatment to all sides of the buildings. He also stated he did not like the flat wall design. He requested that the applicant rework the exterior elevations plans on the project. Florence Webb of staff commented that staff has included architectural design as a condition of approval. Jack Wood agreed with the additional work on the architecture of the building if if the approval could be handled by the staff instead of coming back to the Planning Commission. chairman Livengood stated that he supported the other commissioners as far as their concerns regarding parking in that area. Commissioner Rowe also concurred with Chairman Livengood. Jack Wood commented that the tenants entertainment time should be in the evening. Guest parking should not interfere with beach parking Commissioner Winchell strongly expressed that she wanted on -site parking for all the units. Chairman Livengood requested stronger reinforcement from staff as to the recommendation for approval on two off -site parking spaces. Commissioner Porter asked staff if it was possible to accommodate the parking on the site. Florence Webb answered that the applicant felt it was very difficult to do so. Secretary Palin also added that it would be extremely difficult looking at the lay -out. It leaves minimal ground floor area to start with. It will be difficult to get 8 parking spaces on this project. Commissioner Erskine asked if the applicant choose to develop two separate units per the Downtown Specific Plan what would the parking be. Secretary Palin answered that the applicant would need two fully enclosed garages. Commissioner Mirjahangir asked staff if the were tied to the bedrooms or to the number of staff said they were tied to bedrooms. number of parking spaces of units. Florence Webb P.C. September 17, 1985 -3- (3375d ) Jack Wood suggested sub -standard tandem guest parking by putting one parking space per unit behind the garage. The Commission requested continuance to give the applicant time to work with staff to meet the requirement of two on -site guest parking spaces and review and incorporate the improved architectural design into their plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-35 WITH SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-64/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 85-262/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 85-17/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-43 TO OCTOBER 1, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-2 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-8 Applicant: Southland Signs Special Sign Permit No. 85-8 was originally a request to construct a 20 foot high, 99 square foot internally freestanding sign located at 7011 Warner Avenue approximately 500 feet east of Coldenwest Street. The proposed sign contained 28 tenant copy panels and was to be located in a landscaped area. The retail center is governed by Planned Sign Program No. 83-2 and only one, 25 foot high freestanding sign is allowed along the Warner Avenue frontage. The applicant initiated a special sign permit because the proposed sign did not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Article 976 Sign Code. Special Sign Permit No. 85-8 was continued to the September 4, 1985 Planning Commission meeting and then to the September 17, 1985 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant time to work out problems with the staff. The applicant is now proposing a 9 foot high, 48 foot sign. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to Section 15311, Class 11(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Law and Guidelines 1984, the proposed project is categorically exempt. Florence Webb of staff pointed out to the Commission that upon physical inspection of the site, all businesses are visible from I Warner Ave. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED P.C. September 17, 1985 -4- (3375d) Gregg Ptacek, representing Southland Signs, spoke in support of the project stressing the fact that they had proposed revisions and a modified sign to the Commission. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood commented that if the Commission does approve this request the Commission should express that tenant exposure on the sign be limited to those having no street exposure so as to preclude tenants having street exposure from seeking panels on the new ground sign. Commissioner Erskine questioned staff on the banner signs at the site. Florence Webb of staff stated that these signs are illegal. Commissioner Erskine said he would be supporting staff's recommendation of denial. Commissioner Porter requested a new finding No. 1 be added to the denial recommendation to reflect the Redevelopment Agency's opposition to the applicants request being inconsistent with Planned Sign Program No. 83-2 and to place proposed findings in a new order. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO'. 8�-8'WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. The Redevelopment Agency opposed the applicants request because it will be inconsistent with the Planned Sign Program No. 83-2 for freestanding signs which should be reserved for major tenants only. Since the new center does not contain any major tenants an additional freestanding sign should not be allowed. If the new center had a different name or other identity, that may be reason for a separate freestanding sign, but in no case should individual tenants be identified on such a sign. The location of, and proximity to an arterial highway allows for sufficient visibility of tenant wall sign identification. 2. The proposed freestanding sign will not be in keeping with the character of the shopping center or the neighborhood and does not comply with approved Planned Sign Program No. 83-21. 3. The proposed freestanding sign will'adversely"affect other signs in the area. 4. The proposed freestanding sign will be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. P.C. September 17, 1985 -5- (3375d) 5. The proposed freestanding sign may obstruct the vision of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT 11140 Applicant: Don Hartfelder The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11140 and Conditional Use Permit No. 80-20 on the subject property on October 7, 1980. Tentative Tract No. 11140 was a request to subdivide the subject property into a one lot subdivision. Conditional Use Permit No. 80-20 was a request to permit the construction of eight residential condominium units. The proposed layout indicated eight units contained in two buildings located towards the front of the site with semi -subterranean garages underneath each unit. The required open space was located at the rear of the site. The project was never built and both approvals received extensions of time first to April 1983 and then to April 1984. The applicant redesigned the site plan for the eight units and submitted it under a new conditional use permit application No. 83-14. On August 2, 1983, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 83-14, a request to permit the construction of an 8 unit condominium complex. The two year time limit on the approval of this project has since expired because actual construction has not commenced. The staff has recently learned through a detailed analysis of the site plan that the actual lot size, after full street dedication, is 20 feet shorter in length. Thus, the allowed density is reduced to 7 units from the original approval. The applicant is now seeking a density bonus for one -unit to allow for the construction of an 8 unit development. On September 4, 1985, the subject next regular Planning Commission affirmative votes for approval. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: requests were continued to the meeting due to a lack of 4 Negative Declaration No. 80-41 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1980 for an eight -unit condominium development on the subject property. Staff has determined that no additional environmental assessment is necessary. Commissioner Porter requested that this item once again be continued so he could review the tapes from the last meeting to gain further insight of this request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11140 TO THE OCTOBER 1, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: P.C. September 17, 1985 -6- (3375d) Gregg Ptacek, representing Southland Signs, p ke in syppo t of the project stress .,ng (�o,�� There being no further testimonhe public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood commented that if the Commission does approve this request the Commission should ex S. qp '� Mp, on this sign"t re o �thstreet'-seek'7 o e'ound sign. Commissioner Erskine questioned staff on the banner signs at the site. Florence Webb of staff stated that these signs are illegal. Commissioner Erskine said he would be supporting staff's recommendation of denial. Commissioner Porter requested a new finding No. 1 be added to the denial recommendation to reflect the Redevelopment Agency's opposition to the applicants request being inconsistent with Planned Sign Program No. 83-2 and to place proposed findings in a new order. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-8 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. The Redevelopment Agency opposed the applicants request because it will be inconsistent with the Planned Sign Program No. 83-2 for freestanding signs which should be reserved for major tenants only. Since the new center does not contain any major tenants an additional freestanding sign should not be allowed. If the new center had a different name or other identity, that may be reason for a separate freestanding sign, but in no case should individual tenants be identified on such a sign. The location of, and proximity to an arterial highway allows for sufficient visibility of tenant wall sign identification. 2: The proposed freestanding sign will not be in keeping with the character of the shopping center or the neighborhood and does not comply with approved Planned Sign Program No. 83-21. 3. The proposed freestanding sign will adversely affect other signs in the area. 4. The proposed freestanding sign will be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. P.C. September 17, 1985 -5- (3375d) 5. The proposed freestanding sign may obstruct the vision of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. C-3 CONDITIONAL USF PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT 11140 Applicant: Don Hartfelder The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11140 and Conditional Use Permit No. 80-20 on the subject property on October 7, 1980. Tentative Tract No. 11140 was a request to subdivide the subject property into a one lot subdivision. Conditional Use Permit No. 80-20 was a request to permit the construction of eight residential condominium units. The proposed layout indicated eight units contained in two buildings located towards the front of the site with semi -subterranean garages underneath each unit. The required open space was located at the rear of the site. The project was never built and both approvals received extensions of time first to April 1983 and then to April 1984. The applicant redesigned the site plan for the eight units and submitted it under a new conditional use permit application No. 83-14. On August 2, 1983, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 83-14, a request to permit the construction of an 8 unit condominium complex. The two year time limit on the approval of this project has since expired because actual construction has not commenced. The staff has recently learned through a detailed analysis of the site plan that the actual lot size, after full street dedication, is 20 feet shorter in length. Thus, the allowed density is reduced to 7 units from the original approval. The applicant is now seeking a density bonus for one -unit to allow for the construction of an 8 unit development. On September 4, 1985, the subject requests were continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting due to a lack of 4 affirmative votes for approval. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 80-41 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1980 for an eight -unit condominium development on the subject property. Staff has determined that no additional environmental assessment is necessary. Commissioner Porter requested that this item once again, be continued so he could review the tapes from the last meeting to gain further insight of this request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11140 TO THE OCTOBER 1, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: P.C. September 17, 1985 -6- (3375d) Gregg Ptacek, representing Southland Signs, spoke in support of the project stressing the fact that they had proposed revisions and a modified sign to the Commission. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood commented that if the Commission does approve this request the Commission should express that tenant exposure on the sign-be-li-mited--to those having ,no street exposure so -as -to preclude tenants having street exposure from seeking panels.on the new ground sign. I - Commissioner -.Erskine questioned -staff, on -the banner signs.at the site. Florence Webb of staff stated that these signs are illegal. Commissioner Erskine said he would be -supporting staff's recommendation of --denial. - Commissioner Porter requested a new finding No. 1 be added to the denial recommendation to reflect the Redevelopment Agency's opposition to the applicants request being inconsistent with Planned Sign Program No. 83-2 and to place proposed findings in a new order. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 85-8 WITH FINDINGS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ` AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. The Redevelopment Agency opposed the applicants request because it will be inconsistent with the Planned Sign Program No. 83-2 for freestanding signs which should be reserved,for major tenants only. Since the new center does not contain any major tenants an additional freestanding sign should not be allowed. If the new center had a different name or other -identity,.that may be reason for a separate freestanding sign, but in no case should individual tenants be identified on such a sign. The location of, and proximity to an arterial highway allows for sufficient visibility of tenant wall sign_ identification. 2. The proposed freestanding sign will not be in keeping with the character of the shopping center or the neighborhood and does not comply with approved Planned Sign Program No. 83-21. 3. The proposed freestanding sign will adversely affect other signs in the area. 4. The proposed freestanding sign will be detrimental to property located in the vicinity. P.C. September 17, 1985 -5- (3375d) 5. The proposed freestanding sign may obstruct the vision of vehicular and pedestrian tr-affic. ­ C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT 11140 Applicant: Don Hartfelder, The Planning Commission approved -Tentative -Tract No. 1114-0,and Conditional Use Permit No. 80-20 on the subject property on October 7, 1980. Tentative Tract No. 11140 was a request to subdivide the subject property into a one lot subdivision. Conditional Use Permit No. 80-20 was a request to permit the construction of eight residential condominium units. The proposed layout indicated eight units contained in two buildings located towards the front of the site with semi -subterranean garages underneath each unit. The required open space was located at the rear of the site. The project was never built and both approvals received extensions of time first to April 1983 and then to April 1984. The appl-i.cant redesigned the site plan for the eight units and submitted it under a new conditional• use permit application -No. 83-14. On August 2, 1983, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 83-14, a request to permit the construction of an 8 unit condominium complex. The two year time limit on the approval of this project has since expired because actual construction has not commenced. • I • - The staff has recently learned through a,detailed analysis of the site plan that the actual lot size, after full street dedication, is 20 feet shorter in length. Thus, the allowed density is reduced to 7 units from the original approval. The applicant is now seeking a density bonus for one -unit to allow for the construction of an 8 unit development. On September 4, 1985, the subject requests were continued -to -the next regular Planning Commission meeting due to a lack of 4 affirmative votes for approval. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 80-41 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1980 for an eight -unit condominium development on the subject property. Staff has determined that no additi,onal.environmental assessment is necessary. Commissioner Porter requested that this item once again be continued so he could review the tapes from the last meeting to gain further insight of this request. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY ERSKINE TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-8/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11140 TO THE OCTOBER 11 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 9:00 P.M. BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:- P.C. September 17, 1985 -6- (3375d)- �1 AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir MOTION PASSED C-4 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-47/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-11 Applicant: John F. Swint The applicant is proposing to construct manager's apartment on a 50 by 286 foot the west side of Beach Boulevard between Avenues. The applicant is requesting a allow a motel on a 50 foot wide lot, to required 5 foot side yard setbacks, and landscaping. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: a 19 unit motel with a lot in the C4 district on Ellis and Garfield conditional exception to allow encroachment into the for a reduced amount of Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 85-11 for ten days, and no comments, either verbal or written were received. The staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Conditional Exception No. 85-47, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 85-11. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Dr. James Sham, owner of the adjacent dental building, spoke in opposition to the project stating that the lot was too narrow and added that the proposed parking was facing his parking. He felt he would lose control of his parking area and would be impacted by motel patrons parking. Mr. Patel spoke in support of the project stating that he has enough parking for his guests. Commissioner Erskine Commented that there seemed to be severe circulation problems on the site. Florence Webb of staff said that Public Works does want a turn around on the subject site. Commissioner Porter stated that the frontage and interior side yard involved too much reduction in width. He expressed that the project is an inappropriate use for the property. Chairman Livengood expressed that the development is to large a project for the size of the parcel. A request for continuance meeting was received from continuance, in order for driveway easement with the of this item to the October 15, 1985 the applicant. The staff concurs with the the applicant to work out a reciprocal owner of the property to the north. P.C. September 17, 1985 -7- (3375d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 84-47/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 85-11 TO THE OCTOBER 15, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-5 USE PERMIT NO. 85-60/CONDITIONAL FXCEPTION Applicant: Lincoln Properties Use Permit No. 85-60/Conditional Exception No. 85-63 is a request to permit the development of a 102-unit apartment complex on the north side of Warner Avenue between Lynn and Sims Streets. The project was previously approved as a 102-unit apartment project in March, 1985 (Conditional Use Permit No. 85-13). Prior to that (January 1984), the Planning Commission approved a 102-unit condominium project for the site. The proposal presently under consideration is substantially the same project as the prior approvals. However, the applicant is seeking to convert 24 one -bedroom with den units to two -bedroom units. In addition, there will be setback encroachments for balconies/storage areas and deviations from the height limit. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: In January 1984, the Planning Commission adopted negative Declaration No. 83-47 which assessed the environmental effects of a 111-unit condominium project (Conditional Use Permit No. 83-32, Tentative Tract 12084). Staff's analysis indicates that a change from ownership to rental units will not alter the status of Negative Declaration No. 83-47. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is warranted at this time. THE PUBLIC HFARING WAS OPENED Mr. Morningstar, adjacent property owner north of the proposed site, submitted a letter to the Commission in opposition to height density and set back variances stating that the project will not conform to the neighborhood. Dan Murphy, representing Lincoln Properties, presented an introduction to the project and the background of Lincoln Properties. Ernie Vasquez, architect for the development, spoke in support of the project. He described the requested variances in detail and explained the differences in building height between the previously approved projects and the proposed project. P.C. September 17, 1985 -8- (3375d) 1 Dick Harlow, representing Lincoln Properties, spoke in support of the project and discussed the landscaping and affordable housing requirements. There being no further testimony, the Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Livengood asked how the overall square footage compared with the previously approved project and the project presently proposed. Howard Zelefsky of staff stated that it was the same. Commissioner Erskine asked if the applicant had submitted a landscape plan. The applicant replied that they submitted a conceptual plan. The Commission and staff discussed the height measurement of the structures.. Commissioner Winchell stated that staff should make the point of measurememt more clear and added she would not vote for a height of 45 feet adjacent to a 35 foot in height structure. The Commission asked the Fire Department for their opinion of the plan. Tom Poe of the Fire Department staff said it seems to be all right as long as the project has automatic sprinklers. Commissioner Erskine felt that the landscaping plan shown is not consistent with the wording in condition no. 18(c) requesting that special plant materials be included in the condition. Commissioner Rowe asked if the slab and foundation could hold a three story building. Ernie Vasquez, architect, said that the slab is designed for a three story building. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY PORTER TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 85-60/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION NO. 85-63 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Erskine, Porter NOES: Rowe, Winchell, ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Livengood, Mirjahangir Chairman Livengood recommended that this item be continued and appointed Commissioner Rowe and Commissioner Porter to work with the applicant and staff to come up with a modified plan to address the concerns of the Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO CONTINUE USE PERMIT NO. 85-60/CONDITIONAL FXCEPTION NO. 85-63 TO THE OCTOBER 11 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED P.C. September 17, 1985 -9- (3375d) D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING: None E. DISCUSSION ITEMS: E-1 Staff presentation and discussion of DOWNTOWN PARKING, TRANSIT AND FINANCE STUDY. (Please bring document with you. Gail O'Brien of the Planning Staff gave the presentation on the Downtown Parking, Transit and Finance Study. The Planning Commission discussed this item and requested that the Commission's comments be submitted to City Council at an appropriate time. E-2 Discussion of Economic Analysis Disposition and Development Agreement - Main -Pier Mixed Use Project and Disposition and Development greemen is was handed out at the as meeting, please ring them with you.) To be continued to October 1, 1985. F. PENDING ITEMS: Commissioner Porter requested staff to investigate the corner of Magnolia and Warner Avenues where there is a considerable amount of grading being done and expressed his concern about the dust control. He continued to comment on the signalization at Magnolia and Adams stating that its a very good installation. Commissioner Porter asked staff to investigate the driveway located in the vacant Safeway Store building requesting that something be done with it. He also informed staff that the Southwest corner of Talbert and Beach was being used as a parking lot for moving vans. Commissioner Winchell requested staff to research Section 9530.16 of the Zoning code in regards to auto use dismantling as to the reason "and/or" was dropped from "and/or storage yard." She continued to request research on required height restrictions from other cities. Secretary Palin stated that most cities use UBC. Commissioner Mirjahangir requested staff to investigate the inconsistencies with Article 932 and the Downtown Specific Plan regarding Common Open Space and parking tied to bedrooms. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Erskine suggested that whenever the Commission is dealing with sensitive issues, staff should send copies of the report to special interest groups in order to elicit their input into the decision making process. He stated that this procedure is being implemented very successfully by Orange County EMA. P.C. September 17, 1985 -10- (3375d) 1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY FRSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TO SEND COPIES OF ANY CHANGES TO THE HOUSING POLICY TO THE BUILDING INDUSTRY AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS AFFECTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: Schumacher ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Livengood, Erskine, Porter, H. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood informed the Commission and staff that he would be late to the October 1, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting. He also scheduled a 6:30 October 15, 1985 Planning Commission study session. The purpose of the study session will be for a slide presentation by Orange County EMA staff on the flood control channels in the county. I. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to the next regular scheduled meeting of October 1, 1985. Tom Live , C rm n P.C. September 17, 1985 -11- (3375d)