Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-01-05r ' \ ( ' , __ MINUTES OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BFACH HELD ON JANUARY 5, 1982, IN THE CITY H.luL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chrm. Izant at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL IBESENT: Comns. Currnri.ngs, Donnelly, lnosli, Peirce, Rue, Smith, Crnm.. Izant ABSmT: None ALSO PRESENT: Panela Sapetto, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Conm. Curmrings, seconded by Comn. Rue, to approve the December 15, 1981, minutes with the following corrections: Page 13, last para., should read, 11 ••• He cot1ID211ded the Comnission for resuming their meetings at a tirre when more of the conmunity can attend." Page 14, sixth para., should read, "School properties are not included in this Resolution." Page 14, sixth para., should re.ad, 11 • • • that are non-open-space-owned. . No objections, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Cornn. Loosli stated that Resolution P.C. 82-02 should have an additional sentence; that is, "School properties are not inclu:led in this Resolution." Motion by Corrm. Rue, seconded by CoIIIn. Currmings, to approve Resolutions P.C. 82-01 and 82-02 with the additional sentence in Res olution P.C. 82-02 to exclule school properties. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Camns . Currmings , Donnel 1 y, Loosli, Peirce , Rue , Smith, Chrm. Izant None None OVERI.AY ZONE AMENDMENT Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the overlay zone did reduce the height limits on certain properties. The lowering of the height limit rray have a negp.tive inpact on those properties with respect to their view corridors to the ocean. Those areas which might have a negative i.rrpact would be those properties an Myrtle Avenue between 24th and 25th Streets and on Manhattan Avenue between 22nd and 24th Streets. She gave the Conmissian two alternatives to consider, one being to disregard the concept of PLANNING CCM1ISSI ON MINI.ITES -January 5, 1982 Pa ge 2 OVERI.AY ZONE AMENDMENT (Cont .) protect ing the view corridor and t he other would be to allow the 30' height of R-2 zoning to r emain in this area. If the latter alternative were chosen, a l l pr operties up to and fronting on Park Avenue should be allowed the 30 ' height limit. Anothe r alternative is to change the Gener al Plan from tredium density to low density between Ozone Court and Palm Drive. She stated that the other are as which are impact ed in a simi l ar fashion by the overlay zone are those R-2 lots abutting the rrn.tl.ti-use corridor. The height for these lots have been reduced to 25 feet. She gave the Coo:mission four alternati ves, narrE l y, to disregard the concept of pr otecting the view corridor, to further r educe the height limit of the propert i es in the rrulti-use corridor , to raise the height limit in the overlay zone area (R-2), or to consider a staggered height limit corresponding to the slope of the land . Corrm. Loos l i asked i f there i s pres ently any view s hed protection in the Ci t y of Hemosa Beach . Ms . Sapett o r eplied in the n e gative . Coom. Loosli correc t ed the l ast sentence on the first page of the Ana lysis . He s t a ted that t he area between Palm Drive and Herrms a Avenue has a 30-f oot height limit . Coom. Ctmnings asked if pass ing t his i s s ue would s e t a pre cedent wherein other s may apply for a change of t heir allowable height limit . }1s . Sapett o stated t hat it i s pos sible . Public Hearing opened a t 7: 53 P .M. Mike Lawton, 1840 Hermosa Avenue, Henrosa Beach, stated that his l ot is zoned R-3, iredium density. He stated that his lot runs from Palm Drive to Hemosa Avenue, and it is surromded by high density properties that are 40 to 50 du/a. He stated that many houses on Hermosa Avenue are in excess of 35 fee t . He added that if this item were passed, the Con:mi.ss i on would be making a discriminatory-type of ruling. He believed that the City should provide an equal opportunity for all property owners to have a view cor ridor . Publi c Hearing c l os ed at 8:04 P .M. Coum. Donnelly a ske d if view r ights are de t ennined a s property right s in California . Mr . Pos t s t at ed t hat pr operty right s keep changing, and i t i s di f f i cult to make ordinances for views that are enforc e able . • Chxm. Izant s t ated that anot her alt ernative would be t o change the R-2 zone from 30 f e et t o 25 f eet that has Ozone Court on t he west and Myrtle on t he eas t . PLANNING COMMISSION MrnUTES -J anuary 5, 198 2 Pa ge 3 CNF:Bl.A Y ZONE .AMEIDMENT (Cont.) Cornn. Dcmne lly recorrmmded disregarding the conc ept o f protec t ing the view c orridor mtil nore informat i on i s in hand. Comn. Pe irce rrentioned that t he Cormri.ssi on coul d change the General Plan. Motion by CODI11. Donne lly , seconded by Conm . Cumnings , t o r ecomnend that t he City Council take no act i on in changing t he over lay z one . The Planning Corrmission is will ing t o study and evaluat e the concept of view prot ection at a future date. AYES : NOES : ABSENT : Conms. Cunmings , Donne lly , L::>osli , Pei r c e , Rue, Chnn . Izant Gonm. Smith None Motion by Cl-nm. Izant, s econded by Comn . Peir ce , to make a Resolution; WHEREAS , t here is n othing in the Genera l Plan or in the zoning ordinances protecting private viewr corr idors, and WHEREAS, there are other p ossib l e m:ans of protecting view corridors. THEREFCRE , I T BE RESOLVED that the Pl anning Corrmission reconmmds that there be no change in the Overlay Zone Ordinance passed by the City Council. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Coorn.s. Cwmings , Donne l l y , Loosli , Pe i r c e, Rue, Cl:mn. I z ant COITIIl . Smit h None CONCEPIUAL PIAN FCR 440 -2nd S'IREET AI.SO KNOWN AS THE BQl\.TYARD SITE Ms. Sapetto gave staff r eport . She stated that the tentative map was denied a t a prior neet ing, and the app licant has r eapplied for a tentative map. She stated that the Corrmission can approve a conditional use permit before the tentative map; however, the tentative map cannot be approved before the conditi onal use permit. She inform:d the Corrmission that there are tv.Q tentative maps, Sc herre A showing 92 units and Schem: B showing 104 units. CCTIIn. CllIIIIlings asked i f there -wer e only one parce l map. Ms. Sapet t o r e plied in t he affinm.tive . "Ms. Sapetto continued staff report, stating that the plans for 92 units rreet rore of the conditions in:posed upon the project by the Planning Conmission . It meets the General Plan density designation; however, Schene B exceeds the all owable du /a by 3.1. Scheme A provi des 30% family-type unit s, and Schem: B provides 18% family -type units . Both scheDEs are deficient in the storeage space at ground level . Both scherres also have plumbing fixtures locat ed on com:oon wal l s. Sorre units will be in excess of 150 feet from their parking spaces, and areas above parking garage slab will be landscaped by means of planters but will not have earth cover . She discussed the six recomnendations and tID conditions previous l y set forth by the Corrmission . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 5, 1982 Pa ge 4 CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR 440 -2nd STREET ALSO KNOWN AS THE BOATYARD SITE ( Cont . ) Comm. Loosli a sked for s taf f 's definition of a family unit . Ms . Sapetto r eplied that a family unit could be considered anything o ver tW0 units . Comm. Peirce asked what portion of the project is actually the b oatyard site as it was rezoned . Ms . Sapetto replied that fuhe boatyard site does not include the railroad right of way or the Rickert property. She stated that the railroad right of way is General Plan open space, but it is unzoned; therefore, that property is zoned R-1 . She added that the applicant has designated a jogging path for that property on bis site plan . Comm. Loosli stated that t h e Rickert property is R-1 me dium dens i ty , so there is a conflict bet we en t h e Gen eral Plan and zoning . He stated that this con­ fli c t must be resolved bef ore the Commi s sion passes judgement on the property. Ms. Sapetto state d that it will be resolved by r ezoning the pr operty to R-2 . Comm . Cumming s state d that the General Plan should be modified before the zoning . Ms. Sapetto state d t hat they can be changed at the same time. Ms. Sapetto i nformed the Commission that they could cont~nue the condition­ al use permit until the next meeting when the zone change request will be studied, or they could review Scheme A and B to determine whether either alternative i s a cceptable to the Connni s sion . Cbmn. Izant a sked if the conditional use permit were still in the concep ­ tual phase. Ms . Sap etto r eplied in the affirmative . Chmn. I zant a sked the applicant if he f elt t h e c onditi onal use p ermit were s til l i n the conceptual phase. Mr. Leonard replied in the affirmative . Comm. Smith asked f or a step-by-ste p process of what the Commissi on should f oll ow for the conditional use permi t and the tentative map . Ms. Sapetto replied that the Commission would determine which conceptual plan is acceptable, and the appli cant w~uld c ome back with a spe cific plan. At that point, the t entative map and the specific plan would be approved or denied by the Commission and sen t on to t h e City Council. Comm. Peirce asked if the applicant can move into the specifi c phase wi thout conceptual approval. '---. PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -January 5, 1982 Page 5 CON:EPIUAL PIAN FCR 440 -2nd S'lREET ALSO KNCMN AS THE BOATIARD SITE (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. She stated that if the Corrmission denies the conceptual plan, the applicant could appeal it to the City Council. Comn. Cunmings asked if reviewing Scherres A and B would prejudice the vote on the zone change request . Mr. Post stated that the Corcmission's decision would not be prejudiced . CO!llll. Cunnings stated that he would be prejudicing the irerits of the zone change by hearing the plans at this point. However, hearing the plans would not prejudice his decision for the Rickert property because that property has already been zoned for residential use. Comn. Donnelly asked if it were true that the Comn:issicm may approve a conceptual plan and deny the specific plan based on that conceptual plan. Comn. Loosli replied in the affirmative. He stated that the ordmance says that a specific plan will not necessarily be adopted as a result of the passage of a conceptual plan . ., Mr. Post stated that if the specific plan is based 100% on the conceptual plan, the Cormrission must have valid reasons for denying the specific plan. Cornn. Loosli stressed that the Conmission should discuss what constitutes a family unit. Coom. Cunmings asked what the nurrber of allowable units would be if the railroad right of way property were not included in the density calculaticm. Ms. Sapetto replied that she would have to research that. Conm. Donnelly asked how many square feet are in the railroad right of way. Mr. Leonard stated that it is between 11 and 12 units calculated at 25 du/a. It is approximately half an acre. Ghrm. Izant referred to Sunnyglen I s letter, Page 4, and asked if the sound quotient will be 60 to 64%. Ms . Sapetto replied that the applicant will have to address himself to that. Chrrn. Izant asked if the proposed cast-iron plumbing is a mitigating factor to having the pluming on coomon ,;,,alls . Ms. Sapetto replied that the cast-iron plurooing is for sotm.d attenuaticm reasons. Coran. Donnelly stated that the reason the tentative map was denied was because it was not in conformance with the General Plan. It was in excess of 25 du/a. PIANNING CCM1ISSION MINlIT'ES -January 5, 1982 Page 6 COOCEPruAL PIAN FCR 440 -2nd S'IREET AIBO KN<l-JN AS lliE BQ\TIARD SI TE (Cont . ) Public Hear ing opened at 9:03 P.M. Dick Leonard, 17422 S. Prairie, Torrance, applicant, stated that Sunnyglen Corporation had filed a new tentative n:ap. The zone change request was filed with the tentative map, and that request will be heard at the next meeting. He stated that Sunnyglen has considered a tc:Mnhouse concept for the property which would have a "tuck-under " plan. This "tock-under " plan constitutes a garage with two stories above it , and next to the gprage is a subterranean alley. He stated that the buildings, on-grade parking and the separation be~en the rnits cons'l.lID:::d approximately 96% of the property when calculated at slightly less than 25 du/a (90 tmits). This would leave approximately 8000 square feet as comron area . The townhouse "tuck-under" plan would not be a family-oriented project. At the subterranean alley, the height would be in excess of 30 feet. The only way to lower the height would be to construct a parking gprage as proposed on the three -story plan. Conm. Donnelly asked how many bedrooms are proposed in the townhouse-style developrent. Mr. Leonard replied that roost of the units would have two bedrooms, a few units would have three bedrooms, and a few units would have one bed.roan with a den . Coom. Loosli asked for the width of the units. Mr. Leonard replied that the footprint would be approximately 900 square feet . Coum. Peirce asked how mmy 1.mits are at the site on the north~st corner of Valley and Second Street . He also requested the acreage. Mr. Leonard replied that there are 64 units, and the density is slightly over 23 du/a. Coum. Peirce felt that stacked three -story units should not be constructed at the boatyard site. He added that one of the six conditions set forth at a prior meeting was that the project be two stories or thirty feet, and the applicant has still not net that condition. Mr . Leonard stated that he did not believe the Coo:mission had the authority to limit the project to two stor ies. Clum. Izant stated that the Camli.ssion had requested that the project coma in at 30 feet or two stories at their Decen:ber 1 , 1981, meeting . This request was set forth as an arrendrrent to the Planning Corrmission 's Resolution. Comn. Peirce asked Mr. Post if the Planning Comnission had the authority to place a two-story height limit on this project. PI.ANNlliG CCM1ISSION MINUTES -January 5, 1982 Page 7 CONCEPTUAL PLAN FCR 440 -2nd S'lliEET AI.SO KNGlN AS 'IHE BOATYARD SITE (Cont. ) Mr . Post replied that he -oould need to review the ordinance. Con:m . Loosli stated that the ordinance says that the Planning Conmission can set other standards . Chun. Iza:nt stated that the Planned Developmmt Standards say that no building shall exceed a,;o stories or 30 feet, whi_chever is less, in an R-2 zone. Mr . Post f elt that~ stories or 30 feet is a reasonable condition to be inposed upon this project. Mr. Leonard urged the Comnission to take straw votes to guide him in the right direction. Cornn. Peirce stressed that if Mr. Leonard is not going to submit plans that conform to the conditions set forth by the Coomi.ssion, there is no need to discuss the natter any further. Mr. Leonard stated that both Scherres A and B include a landscaped path around the entire property. 'This path would be const:ru:ted with materials acceptable by the Coomi.ssion. He stated that they are proposing to put IDod chips on the Santa Fe right of way. Both plans showed a pool, a conm:,n-use area, a spa, picnic tables, an active playfield, a children 's play area with playground equipment , and extensive landscaping in the courtyards betw:en the units. Schema A would not include a triangle of land t-hich is approxi.mately 1800 square feet. Scheme B 'OOuld incluie the triangle which bas four elevators in lieu of t'OO and four stairs. Sunnyglen will of fer to pay the purchase price for that peice of property; however, they will allow it to remain in City ownership. Comn. Smith asked Mr . Leonard if they are offering the comn::m space in Schene A, ~ as a public park. Mr. Lecnard replied that they would be willing to offer a public park in Schene B, but not in Sc~ A. Chmn. Izant asked the applicant if there will be a wall or sorre type of barrier be.~en his property and the raiJroad. Mr. Leooard replied that they are proposing to place a chain link fence bet~en the two properties. Coom. Smith stated that Santa Fe requested that the applicants constnrt a wall to buffer the noise in addition to a restraining wall to keep persons from wandering cnto the tracks. Coorn. Cunrnings asked if the units along the railroad right of way that have patios on gromd level will be closed off. ~ COMMISSION MINUTES -January 5, 1982 Page 8 CONCEPIUAL PIAN FCR 440 -2nd S'Il{.EET Al.SO KNOON AS THE BQ\TYARD SITE (Cont.) Mr. Leonard replied that they have not yet made that determination; however, in the past they have used divider screens. Comn. Smith asked if the triangle was calculated into the du/a of either plan. Mr. Leon.ard replied that the triangle was not calculated into the du/a of either plan. Comn. Smith asked if Scheire A includes the railroad right of way and the Rickert property in the du/ a calculation; and Schen:e B includes tre Ardnore stub, railroad right of way, and the Rickert property. Mr. Leonard replied in the affinmtive. Mr . Leonard stated that Schen:e A has 42% tandem parking, and Scheire B has 4mo tandem parking . Corrm. Smith noted that the staff Analysis is incorrect in that Schetre A does not fall within the O to 40% range for tandem parking. Mr . Leonard requested that the Corrmission give him sone direction in regards to the height limit 6£ a t<.Jw'rlhouse-type developnent. Chrrn . Izant asked if the subterranean parking would IIEet Code with respect to proper ventilation, sprinkler systems, etc. Mr. Leonard replied in the aff innati ve. Mr. Leonard stated that he could nake either Scheme within the 30 -foot height limit; however, he requested a variance within the 10% range. The height w:,uld exceed 30 feet if the n:easuremmt v.ent to the bottom of the ventilation shafts. Chm. Izant stated that staff noted that the basic height of the building was 30 feet except for the entrances to the garage. Chnn. Izant asked the applicant to address the comron v-all plunbing that currently does not ireet Code. Mr. Leonard stated that the walls are not actually conm::m -walls; they are double 'Walls. The Building Departrrent had informed him that with the use of cast -iron plumbing, it w:>uld treet the criteria for noise abaterrent. He aclied that the cast -iron plurrbing would be for vaste only; the danestic -water w:,uld be copper. Mr. Leonard urged the Comnission to give him sorre guidence on three issues; those being, one, the m.n:nber of stories; tw:>, IDuld the Ccmnission be agreeable to the "tuck-under" garage concept. If so, could there be sorre deviation on the height limit within the interior of the property in those areas 'Ml.ere PIANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -January 5 , 1982 Page 9 CONCEPID\L PIAN FCR. 440 -2nd S'IREET AI.SO KNOON AS THE BOATYARD SITE (Cont.) there are~ stories above a gp.rage; and, three, the number of units. Coom. Smith asked Mr. Leonard what qual ity of the project will attract families. Mr. Leonard replied that the price will attract families. Jerry Moss, 539 Second Street, Henoosa Beach, stated that he was happy to see the Comnission discuss in detail the design of the project. He stated that the Ch:vron property in Manhattan Beach is using the "tuck -under" IIEthod and a townhouse-type configuration . He suggested allowing an R-1 density for the railroad right of way. In regard to a park, he believed it is a dangerous policy to comingle public usage of private property. He requested that a deed restriction ce put on the railroad right of way so that at no titre can anything be built on it. He suggested that the applicant wrap the plumbing to reduce the sound. He added that he was speaking neith:r in support of or opposition to this project. Herb Schneider, 157 ArdmJre, Henrosa Beach, asked why this hearing was not noticed to the public. Clnin. Izant explained that men an item is continued from a previous reeting, that constitutes a public notice. Mr. Schneider stated that the developer is asking for the ma.xi.mun density or more. Jim Rosenberger, 156 First Court, Hermosa Beach, stated that the zoning for the boatyard site was under discussion due to the last project that w:i.s proposed at this site. At that tine, there ~e ~ parcels involved. Because of the conditions that have developed in tenm of this property, the Comni.ssion should not feel obligated to any one particular project. Polly Schneider, 157 Ardrwre, Herrrosa Beach, stated that her n:ajor concern... was that the developmmt on the southt-:est corner of Valley is 23 du/a. She asked wbo owns the Rickert property. It w:i.s her understanding that the Rickerts still owned the property . Chm. Izant asked Mr. Leonard if he ~re the owner of the Rickert property or if he had permission from the owner to use the land. Mr. Leonard replied that they have the pennission of the owner, and it is in escrCM . Mrs. Schneider stated that she has heard noth:ing about this project that will enhance the neighborhood. Rita N:wkirk, 540 First Street, Henrvsa Beach, spoke in opposition to the proposed 92 mits. She stated that the particular area is too dense at this tim:. She added that the developer should ce granted the minimum du/a . PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINlITES -January ~. 1982 Page 10 CONCEPTUAL PI.AN FOR 440 -2nd STREET ALSO KNOWN AS THE BOATYARD SITE (Cont. ) Ron Orr, 168 Hill Street, Herrrosa Beach, urged the Conmission to hold the applicant to a 30-foot height limit for his project. He felt that the applicant should be able to build a three-story unit if he desires. He believed that a park on the property, public or private, would be an asset to the conmunity. Crom. Smith asked that the conditions that \\ere put on the parcel map affecting the railroad right of way be reiterated. Ms. Sapetto reiterated those conditions. CcxtlII. Donnelly felt that a townhouse developrrent could be constructed with less than 92 units that still neet all the con.di tions and would be beneficial to both the developer and the City. Public Hearing continued at 10: 27 P .M. Recess from 10:27 P .M. to 10:35 P.M. Cami. Donnelly stated that a townhouse-type developrrent w::iuld ad:lress concerns of both the Comnission and the public relative to family orientation, design capabilities, etc. Chnn. Izant asked for straw votes from the Coumission on ~tber they felt that townhouses frcm the exterior view should be no higher than 30 feet above existing grade . All Comnissioners felt that the townhouse-type developuent from the exterior view should be no higher than 30 feet above existing grade. Chun. Izant stated that there are t~ alternatives for parking for the townhouse developuent. One is the "tuck-mder" garrage, and the other is the corrm:m garage. Coom. Donnelly stated that he was very much in favor of the utuck-under" garage to each unit along the lines of maintaining the family -use concept . Comn. L.Josli stated that with the rrtuck-under " garage, there W'OUld be only buildings and asphalt; however, with the comron garage there would be nore landscaped open space. Conms. Cua:mings, Donnelly, Rue, Smith, and Chm . Izant v-ere in favor of the "tuck-under" concept. Corrm. Loosli was in favor of the conmm garage, and Com:n. Peirce stated that he w::iuld go for either one. Cbrrn . Izant asked for straw votes for a max::i.mum of 65% lot coverage. Comns . Cua:mings, Donnelly, Peirce, Rue, and Srni th voted for a maximum of 65% lot coverage. Conm. Loosli voted for les s than 65% lot coverage. PLANNING CO-lMISSION MINUTES -January 5, 1982 Page 11 CONCEPTUAL PLAN FDR 440 -2nd S'IREET ALSO KNOWN AS THE BOATYARD SITE (Cont . ) Chm Izant asked for a straw vote for the nuroer of stories that should be allowed for this project. Corrms . Cum:ni.ngs, Donnelly, Loosli, and Cbnn. Izant did not care whether the project cane in at two or three stories. Comns. Peirce and Smith felt that the project should be tvX> stories. Cornn. Dormelly noted that he did not care 'wrlether the project was tm or three stories provided it did not exceed 30 feet . Chim.. Izant asked for a straw vote on tandem parking. Gorans. Cum:ni.ngs, Donnelly, and Smith voted for no tandem parking. Coom=i. Loosli, Peirce, and Rue voted for tandem parking only if they have completed the m:inimlm for regular parking and guest parking. Chnn. Izant asked for input regarding the dwelling units per acre for the project. Cornn. Donnelly stated that he could not figure the anount of tmits because he did not kna;v the nUIDer of acres. However, he believed the project should not allow the rmx:im.ml of 25 du/a. He felt that the project should be less than 20 du/a. Coom. Loosli felt that 15 du/a, nediun density at 55 mits is dense enough. Comm. Cumnings stated that if the zone change were granted, he would be in favor of less than 25 du/ a. If the zone change ¾ere not approved, he would be in favor of 25 du/a. Mr . Post cautioned the Corrmi.ssion about setting a maximum du/a, because it is up to the developer to set the project between 14 to 25 du/a. He stated that the Comnission must have the rationale for setting the du/ a below 25. Comn. Smith stated that he would like to see substantially less mits in Scherre A than is proposed; however, he would not set a firm number . Cbnn. Izant asked if the Conmi.ssion wished to set a specific figure for the du/a to be IJBde a condition of the project. Conms. Ctmmi.ngs, Donnelly, Peirce, Rue, Smith, and Chrrn. Izant stated that they would not like to set a specific nuaber for the du/a to be made a condition of the project. Comn. Loosli wished to set a specific number, that nuaber being 15 du/a. Chnn. Izant asked the Comnission what they would like to set the du/a at far this project , a figure that would not be binding on the developer. PlANNING CCM-1ISSION MrNUTES -January 5, 1982 Page 12 COOCEPI'UAL PLAN Fm. 440 -2nd STREEI' ALSO KNGJN AS 1HE BOA'IYARD SITE (Cont . ) Coom. Donnelly stated that he would like the project to care in at· son:eching substantially less than 25 du/ a. However, he stated that he may still vote for it if it is 25 du/a. Coom. Smith voted for a max:i.mlm of 20 du/a. Comn. Curmrings stated that he would accept 25 du/a, but he noted concern for the railroad right of way. Conm. Rue voted for a figure within the 15 to 20 du/ a range . Conm. Peirce agreed with Conm. Cumrlngs, stating that he would go for the maximum of 25 du/ a because the developer may have a right to use the maximun. COIIJU. Loosli voted for 15 du/a. Chm. Izant voted for 20 du/a; however, he felt that legally the developer tmy have a xight to go to 25 du/ a . Chrm . Izant asked if the square footage of the units should be set by the Condominium Standards. All Comni.ssioners and Chrm . Izant felt that the square footage of the mits should be based upon the Condominium Standards. Chrrn. Izant infernal the applicant that the Coami.ssion may either act on the conceptual plan at this time or the applicant nay appear at the next reeting with a townhouse layout based on the guidelines set forth by the Conmi.ssion. Mr. Leonard stated that he v,'Uuld like to appear at the January 19, 1982, ~eting with a new set of plans. STAFF REPCRTS None CCM1ISSIONER'S ITEMS Comn. Peirce stated that Ms . Sapetto will be incorporating sooe of the ideas and coommts which arose from a subcomni.ttee meeting with persons from Coldwell Banker . The summry of the cOIIDE11ts from those persons was that extending the depth ~uld be a lost cause . Chm. Izant asked if the City Council nrust be notified that the sunset ordinance needs to be extended. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would nake that notification . Motion to adj oum at 11: 40 P .M . I"""-\ I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -January 5, 1982 Page 13 CERTIFICATIOO I hereby certify t h at the foregoing minutes are a true and conplete record of the action taken by the Planning Comnission at their regular reeting of January 5, 1982. s • CHAIRMAN DATE