Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-07APPROVED 4/4/89 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1989 STUDY SESSION - 5:30 PM (ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND OCTD) Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega P P Mountford, Leipzig A. CONSENT CALENDAR A-1 MINUTES - January 18, February 7, February 22, 1989 Planning Commission meetings A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 18, 1989, AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mountford A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED FEBRUARY 7 AND FEBRUARY 22, 1989, AS CORRECTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IT WAS ANNOUNCED AND A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY LEIPZIG, TO WITHDRAW ITEM D-3 (RECONSIDERATION OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 88-18) FROM THE AGENDA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Scott Hess advised the Commission that an appeal had been filed by Councilman Green on Zone Change No. 88-18 and public hearing was scheduled for the March 20, 1989 City Council meeting. I� Ll PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -2- (2166d) 1 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS C-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR AMENDMENT NO ONE TO THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The proposed project is to amend the Oakview Redevelopment Plan to Increase the existing limitation on the total amount of tax increment which may be allocated to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, and to update various elements in the plan to meet the current standards of the California Community Redevelopment Law. The proposed amendment will not change the original project area boundaries, General Plan designations, zoning, or restrictions on eminent domain. The 1982-1983 assessment rolls will be retained as the base year assessment roll for the purpose of allocating taxes. The amended plan will provide adequate financing needed for the Agency to upgrade public facilities and improve the quality of life for Project Area residents, employees and business owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 1411, finding that the proposed Amended Redevelopment Plan for Amendment No. One to the Oakview Redevelopment Project conforms with the Huntington Beach General Plan, and recommending approval of the Amended Plan and Environmental Impact Report to the Redevelopment Agency. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1411 AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDED PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -3- (2166d) C-2 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO 89-2 (REFERRED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR) APPLICANT: JOHN H. TILLOTSON Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-2 is a request for a reduced rear yard setback (one (1) foot in lieu of five.(5) feet) for a sunroom addition to a single family residence located at 16426 Ladona Circle. A five (5) foot setback from the bulkhead (rear property line) is required for any room addition pursuant to Section 9110.8 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. On February 8, 1989, the Zoning Administrator referred Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-2 to the Planning Commission for review. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 5, Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The project is exempt from a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to Section 989.5.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept letter of withdrawal of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-2 (received March 7, 1989) from the applicant. Letter formally requesting withdrawal of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-2 was received March 7, 1989, from the applicant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO WITHDRAW CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE), NO. 89-2, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 88-45/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) N0. 88-44 APPLICANT: GREENBERG FARROW ARCHITECTS Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 is a request by Home Depot to establish a fenced outdoor area for the storage and staging of merchandise. The location of the enclosed area would be in the rear of the store where the existing loading docks are (16912 Edinger Avenue). 1 PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -4- (2166d) Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-44 is a request to permit a total of 769 spaces in lieu of 941. In addition, the applicant has agreed to make a number of site improvements requested by the Planning Department related to parking and drive improvements. These include the closure of an existing driveway on Edinger, the creation of a wider commercial entrance, as well as other parking striping changes. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 88-44 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ron Pattinson, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the request. He said the applicant agrees with all conditions of approval. David A. Graham, 6941 Nyanza Drive, spoke against the request. He submitted a petition containing 47 signatures in opposition to the request. He said Home Depot has been insensitive to the homeowners complaints. Big -rig trucks are being allowed to park in the driveway (located next to adjacent homes) over the weekend waiting to unload, they start unloading at 5:00 AM causing earthquake -like disturbances, they disregard signs prohibiting them from entering residential areas, and are causing a public nuisance. Donald McCallum, 6841 Nyanza Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. He pointed out an error in the public notification to the Commission; instead of 16,000 square foot storage area it stated 1,600 square feet. He said his neighborhood has had a continuous problem with Home Depot. They ignore their complaints and continue to operate in violation of City Codes. He said the biggest problem is the noise emanating from the Home Depot loading area because of their trash compactor, the big rig trucks, and.the fork lifts. He said if the trucks arrive late with their deliveries they unload anyway; the diesel fumes spill over into their neighborhood; after the trucks unload they park in the residential neighborh000ds. He asked the Commission to deny the request, to demand enforcement of the code, not allow the Home Depot to use their trash compactor and limit the number of trucks per day. Vern Hart, 18112 Marjan Lane, stated his opposition to the expansion in the parking area. He feels it will just add to the already existing noise problems. He does not feel the unloading activities can be enforced. He would like to see all outside activities prohibited. PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -5- (2166d) Bob Thrall, 6861 Nyanza Drive, said he has a two-story home behind the unloading area and that it has a visible effect on his family. He said when trucks are being unloaded it is very noisy, the truck drivers use bad language,' and he.does not feel a sound wall will mitigate the noise. James B. Young, 6821 Nyanza Drive, said he is subjected to the noise from the unloading operations. He feels the expansion will create more noise and urged the Commission to -deny the request instead of making "code breakers" legitimate. He said Home Depot is becoming an industrial business (lumber storage yard). -He further stated that even though the fork lifts are electric they still beep when backing up. Gene Wilson, 16122 Marjan Lane, said the.noise from falling pallets, trucks backing..up and beeping cannot be described.- He feels the addition of 16,000 square feet will -Just add to the traffic problem already existing. Dennis Goughary, owner of the center, spoke in support of the request,._ He said the reason for the additional storage area is to cut down on problems and that the Home Depot is trying to be a "good neighbor". He said the intent.is to -cut down the truck traffic per day and that all improvements made to the property -have been made with proper permits. He said Home Depot has installed signs prohibiting trucks in the residential neighborhoods and has switched to electric fork lifts to -mitigate the -noise. He said there is a toll free number which is available to everyone and the adjacent neighbors should feel free to use it. He feels the enclosure will minimize the noise. He also stated the traffic study was conducted over the Thanksgiving holiday which he feels is one of the busiest weekends of the year. Doris Wilson; 16122 Marjan Lane,' said the trucks -and trash compactor are too noisy and should not be allowed. Alice McCallum, no address, said she called the Home Depot and asked for a toll free number and was told there was none. Beverly Gross, 16102 Marshan Lane, said she works out of her home and is unable to conduct business because of the noise. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners Ortega and Mountford were in opposition to the request. They expressed concern with the notification, this type of use and traffic within the current zoning, shortfall on parking, potential hardship to new merchants, and the lack of code enforcement. PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -6- (2166d) The remaining Commissioners felt Home Depot was making an effort to improve the situation and that they were a victim of their own success. They felt further improvements were necessary and additional changes could be implemented to mitigate the problems. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-45 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-44, WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Ortega, Mountford NOES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-45.AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 88-44, TO THE APRIL 4, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH RE -ADVERTISEMENT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Ortega, Mountford ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED C-4 USE PERMIT N0, 88-66/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-6 APPLICANT: BARRY JAFFE-COVE WEST Use Permit No. 88-66 is a request for attaching a prefabricated metal structure to an existing industrial building to provide enclosed storage. The subject property (15881 Chemical Lane) is adjacent to property zoned and general planned residential; therefore, a use permit is required pursuant to Section 9510.0l.b.2 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-6 has been initiated because the proposal does not comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Section 951.13 which specifies that a six (6) foot landscaped planter be provided adjacent to property zoned or general planned residential. The applicant is requesting the existing tree wells be maintained in lieu of the landscaped planter. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -7- (2166d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Use Permit No. 88-6 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-6 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 88-66 AND CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-6 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN:- None X- R1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - USE PERMIT NO. 88-66: 1. The location, site layout, and design -of -the proposed storage area properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. 2. The combination and relationship of one proposed to another on a site are properly integrated. 3. The access to and parking for the proposed industrial structure does not create an undue traffic problem.. The project meets the standards contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 4. The proposed structure does not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 89-6: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the land, buildings or premises involved that do not apply generally to other property or uses in the district. The industrial buildings in -the vicinity were built prior to the code requirement for the six (6) foot buffer and, therefore, do not.have a buffer. Additionally, the proposed structure is set back forty-five (45) feet from the residential property providing the code intended buffer. PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -8- (2166d) 2. The granting of a conditional exception for allowing the existing trees to serve as the buffer is necessary in order to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. Without the granting of the conditional exception an addition would not be possible. 3. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-6 for allowing the existing four tree wells to remain in lieu of a six (6) foot wide planter, will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the conforming land, property, or improvements in the neighborhood. 4. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-6 is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and Land Use Map designation of General Industrial. 5. The granting of this conditional exception from Section 9510.3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code will not defeat the general purposes or intent of the code which is to help insulate the residential properties from the industrial uses. The proposed structure is 45 feet away from the residential properties and has no opening facing the residential properties. 6. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed storage area without providing an additional landscaped buffer will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and property and improvements in the vicinity of such use or building. 7. The granting of Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-6 for allowing the existing four (4) tree wells to remain in lieu of a six (6) foot wide planter will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated February 28, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. A convenent to restrict the uses within the subject building and addition to meet the parking provided on -site shall be approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development and recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office. A copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Department of Community Development for the file. The mix of uses may change if the metal structure is removed. PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -9- (2166d) b. The applicant shall file a tentative parcel map to consolidate Lots 2 and 3 of Tract 8746. The parcel map or plat map and covenant to hold two parcels as one shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy of the recorded map or plat filed with the Department of Community Development prior to final inspection or occupancy. 3. Fire Department Requirements are as follows: a. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. b. Fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. C. Inside trash receptacle area shall be provided with a -sprinkler head per Fire Department standards. 4. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 5. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off -site facility equipped to handle them. 6. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or trailers. 7. All work shall be conducted wholly within the building. 8. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 9. Prior to final building permit approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall restripe the parking lot so that it conforms to provisions of Article 960 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and to the approved site plan. b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. 10. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Use Permit No. 88-66 and Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 89-6 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 1 ri, PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -10- (2166d) C-5 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 83-16 APPLICANT: CHURCH OF THE COASTALINE Conditional Use Permit No. 83-16 was approved on September 6, 1983, with a five (5) year limitation. The applicant has requested a ten (10) year extension of time to continue the existing church at 7641 Talbert Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1 Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve five (5) year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 83-16 with findings and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Larry Knutsen, 19511 Hartjoalb Circle, spoke in support of the request. He requested an open extension of time on the use or at least a 10-year extension. Art Folger, City Attorney, said an open extension of time would require a different application. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO APPROVE A 5-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 83-16, WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. The proposed church for a five-year period is compatible with surrounding land uses and conforms to the development standards stated in Division 9 of the City's zoning ordinance. 2. The use of the proposed church for five years would, in general, be during time periods when the remainder of the industrial development is not in use. PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -11- (2166d) 3. There will be adequate parking to serve the proposed church because the applicant will obtain parking easements for joint use of parking spaces on adjacent parcels. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated February 24, 1989, shall be the conceptually approved layout. 2. The project shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 83-16 shall remain in effect for five (5) years from September 6, 1988. A five (5) year extension of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon written request by the applicant. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 83-16 if any -violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing. C-6 PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT NO, 88-15 - REVISION TO ARTICLE 977 (YARDS AND FENCES) (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 7. 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH On February 7, 1989, the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No. 88-15 and directed staff to schedule a meeting with the Subdivision Committee, local architects, landowners, contractors and other interested parties to discuss the positive and negative impacts of such proposed ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Code Amendment No. 88-15 be continued to the May 2, 1989 Planning Commission meeting with a study session. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed. r Ll PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -12- (2166d) A MOTION_WAS_MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SLATES, TO CONTINUE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT NO. 88-15 TO THE MAY 2, 1989.PLANNING-COMMISSION MEETING,WITH A STUDY SESSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 111 • _; D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS D-1 EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 86-30 APPLICANT: JAMES LUMBER COMPANY Conditional Use Permit No. 86-30, a request to permit the temporary storage of lumber, was originally approved by the Planning Commission on September 16, 1986. After modifying some of the conditions of approval on appeal the City Council approved the project on November 17, 1986. The approval was for an initial two year period. The applicant is in the process of satisfying one of of approval at the present time, that of providing an the conditions all-weather surface on the 30 foot wide alley located at the east end of Cedar Avenue. The lumber company has submitted an alley and street improvement plan to the Public Works Department and is awaiting their approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 86-30 (until November 17, 1989) with all previous conditions of approval applicable. The Commission expressed concern regarding the applicant's failure to pave his alley. They would like to see this requirement completed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE A 6-MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 86-30 WITH ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -13- (2166d) D-2 BOND AMOUNT FOR TRACTS 11769 AND 13210 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 4 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) On January 4, 1989, the Planning Commission continued this item and directed staff to determine a reasonable bond amount and analyze a possible location for additional stalls. Staff is recommending the continuance of this item because major issues associated with the Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan have a direct bearing on determining the per horse bond amount. Continue the bond amount issue to the April 18, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and address it after the formal processing of the revised Draft Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan has been completed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO CONTINUE BOND AMOUNT FOR TRACTS 11769 AND 13210 TO THE APRIL 18, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Mountford (Out of Room) ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED D-3 RECONSIDERATION OF ZONE CHANGE NO, 88-18 APPLICANT: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH A request to reconsider the Planning Commission's former action to accept withdrawal of the zone change to rezone non -certified coastal areas of the City located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. Action taken on Reconsideration of Zone Change No. 88-18 during Oral Communications. E. DISCUSSION ITEMS E-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 88-39/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO 88 30 (NONCONFORMING PATIO ENCLOSURE - LISA PRODAN, 808 PECAN) - STATUS OF COMPLIANCE On October 4, 1988, the Planning Commission approved the above mentioned project, a request by Lisa Prodan for the expansion of a nonconforming structure at 808 Pecan, with variance to the front yard setback requirement of 8 feet-4 inches in lieu of 12 feet required, and an increase in over 10 percent floor area. (The City Council on appeal sustained the Planning Commission's action on November 7, 1988.) PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -14- (2166d) Condition No. 6 required that a 90 day review be conducted to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY KIRKLAND, TO ACCEPT THE STATUS REPORT AS PRESENTED WITH DIRECTION FOR A 90 DAY REVIEW, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates,. Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E-2 PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT NO 88-12 - REVISIONS TO ARTICLE 960- OFF-STREET PARKING AND LANDSCAPING Commission discussed the proposed code amendment and directed staff to prepare an ordinance based on their comments. E-3 PLANNING COMMISSION SUB -COMMITTEES A MOTION WAS MADE BY SLATES, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEES, AS ASSIGNED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED E-4 PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO 89-3 (1989-90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM) A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY SLATES, TO SCHEDULE THE PROPOSED CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR CONSIDERATION AS A GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE ON MARCH 21, 1989, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Slates, Kirkland, Williams, Bourguignon, Ortega, Mountford, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -15- (2166d) F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES None G. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The following issues were discussed: Commissioner Kirkland: (1) Code enforcement on Sign Ordinance Commissioner Williams: (1) Certificate of Occupancy - use and intended use (2) Follow-up on Approximate Timetable/Update of General Plan Staff was directed to follow up. H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS None I. ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:15 PM TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989, AT 7:00 PM. APPROVED BY: i Mike Ad ms, ecretary Planning ommission' Chairman PC Minutes - 3/7/89 -16- (2166d)