Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-01-19r ' MINUTES OF 'IHE PLANNING CCM1ISSION OF HERMOSA BF.A.CH HELD ON JANUARY 19, 1982, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chon. Izant at 7:30 P.M. ROIL CALL PRESENT: Comns. Currmings, Donnelly, Loosli, Peirce, Smith, Chan. Izant ABSENT: Cornn. Rue AI.SO PRESENT: Panela Sapetto, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Barm. loos li stres sed that the Corrmission was taking part only in straw votes on Pages 11 and 12. He asked i f "felt" should be used in place of "voted." Chnn. Izant stated that on Page 12 the Corrmission was rrerely :indicating their preference. Motion by C,onm. Donnelly, seconded by Cornn. Smith, to approve the January 5, 1982, minutes with the following correction: Page 12, should indicate that the Corrmissioners we.re stating the ir preference for du/a; they did not specifically vote on this item. No objections, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUITONS Conm. Donnelly noted that Resolutions P.C. 81-46 and P.C. 81-47 should be nurrbered P.C. 82-03 and P.C . 82-04. Corrm. Smith noted that the Resolution rmkes no mention that the Planning Con:mission was willing to study the matter at a future date. Cornn. Loosli stated that the above was a point of discussion, but was not made part of the Re solution. Chrm. Izant asked if the Comni.ssioners recalled stating in the Resolution that the Planning Corrmi.ssion would study the matter at a future date. Comns. Donnelly, Peirce, Smith, and Chrm. Izant felt as though the Resolution stated that the Planning Conmission would stuiy the rmtt~r at a future date. Com:ns. Currmings and Loosli felt as though the Resolution adequately reflected what transpired at the January 5, 1982, meeting. Ms. Sapetto recOIT1IEnded incorporating a third WHEREAS in the Resolution, ''WHEREAS, the Planning Comniss ion would be willing to study the protection pf private view corridors as a separate issue, if so directed by City Council." I I ; , ) 'PLANNING COMMISSION MI NUTES -January 19, 198 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTI ONS (cont .) Page 2 Motion by Comm . Cummings , seconded by Comm, Pe irce, t o a pprove Re solut ions P.C. 82 -03 and P .C.82-04 (formerly P.C. 81 -4 6 & 81 -47) with the added WHEREAS to P.C. 82-04: that i s "WHEREAS, t he Planning Commission woul d be willing to study the prot ection of privat e view corrid ors as a separa te issue , i s so d irected by the City Council. 11 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Cummings, Donnel l y, Loosli, Pei rce , Smith , Chmn. Izant None Comm. Ru e Comm. Smith stated that he voted 11AYE 11 onl y to the accuracy of the Resolut i on; however , he was against the motion and Resolution P.C. 82 -03. PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Ms. Sapetto gave staff r eport. She stated that the Planning Commission established a target date of this meet ing for the receipt of the prelimi nary draft of t he Revised Housing Element. However, the c onsultant was unabl e to attend the meeting, and the data gathering and t he policy decis ions at the City Council l evel have not yet been ac complished; therefor e, the Housing Element was not present e d to the Planning Commission. She requ ested the Planning Commissi on to reschedule the rece i pt of the rough draft of the Hous i ng Element to the February 3, 1982 meeting . She added that review of the rough draft coul d be done at a workshop with the City Council on Februa ry 4 or 11. She s uggest ed reviewing the (complete ) draft of the Housing Element on February 16, 1982. On Marc h 9, 1982 , the Housing Element will be returned to the City Counc il. She asked that the Plann ing Connni ssion either concur with or recommend changes fo r the timetable . Comm . Donnelly stated that a great dea l of t he data i s based on the 1970 c ensus. Ms. Sapetto stated that they did not ha ve the ful l scop e of the 1980 f i gures. However, they had some population fi gures and some prel iminary figures. They a l so had the SCAG projections based on their 1978 proje ctions . Comm. Donnelly felt a s t hough it were a n exce llent job based on e xtreme ly dated data . He noted concern f or using 12-year ol d dat a for making pro ject ions. Ms. Sapetto clarifie d that the rep ort is part of the working material; it i s not necessarily the only data t hat will be used in the preparation of the Housing Element. Con1~. Smith asked i f the Commissi on will get a co py of the actual Housing Element that is being proposed when t he rough draft come s before the Commi ssi on. He asked if it will specify those items that were changed from th e last Housing Element . He asked if the Commi?sion will get a copy of the HCD revisions plus any additional i nformation that may be added to the Housing Element . PUNNING CCM1ISSION MINUrES -January 19, 1982 Page 3 PRELil1INARY DRAFT OF TIIE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto suggested naking a reconrnendation that the above be included with the rough draft. Comn. Peirce asked if SCA.G 1 s number of 1465, relating to resident households experiencing housing needs, is a rock-hard figure or if that figure is up for discussion. Ms. Sapetto replied that they are up for discussion. However, those figures are the figures that the Roos Bill has requested the City to work with. The Roos Bill says that every regional planning agency must arrive at figures via certain rrethodology. The City may accept those figures or they rmy challenge those figures based on their current data. Corrm. Curmrings accepted that the Corrmission rrnJSt follow the Roos Bill guidelines. He asked if Henoosa Beach is entitled to soire relief on the fair-housing shares. Ms. Sapetto stated that Herm:>sa Beach has a large share of heads of households ratio, that is, single persons sharing the rent. However, the majority of the rental stock is in the single fami lies and duplex developrrent. There has not been an esti.nate of what the rents are and what the incotres are of people that rent those places. Conm. Cunmings stated that he would like comparative data between •Herroosa Beach and neighboring commnities. Chrm. Izant asked how the public hearing was advertised. Ms. Sapetto replied that it was advertised for discussion of the preliminary draft. Public Hearing opened at 8:06 P.M. Clarence Hines, 1965 Manhattan Avenue, Herrrosa Beach, asked if there have been estimates of the cost of the Housing Eleirent. He stated that there are 28 substandard units in Hernx>sa Beach at this ti.Ire. He suggested that the Comnission determine the cost per living unit. He asked what the qualifications will be for living in these units. He said these issues IIDJSt be determined in the preliminary stages. Public Rearing closed at 8:17 P.M. Corrnt. Donnelly stated that he would like to review the tiough dr aft on February 18, 1982, at a workshop session. Chim. I zant stated that February 3, 1982, is acceptable to the Corrmi.ssion for the public hearing on the rough draft of the Housing Elerrent . . ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 4 PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN {cont.) Comm. Smith preferred reviewing the rough draft on February 18, 1982, Comm. Cummings felt that a public hearing should be held on February 16, 1982 because there is enough public interest. He was agreeable to a workshop session on February 18, 1982. Comm. Izant declared that the Commission would like to have a public hearing on February 3, 1982 and February 16, 1982 and have a joint workshop session with the City Council on February 18, 1982. He added that another public hearing should be held at the February 3, 1982 meeting. Comm. Smith stressed that he would like to see a rough draft with the changes indicated, along with a copy of a letter from the Housing and Community Development Department notine those changes. He asked that the changes in the Housing Element be underlined. Comm. Donnelly asked that the comparison of the breakdown by age group be shown in the survey comparing the respondents to the actual breakdown within the City. Comm. Loosli recommended that the R-2, Low Density area be mapped in the Housing Element. Comm. Cummings asked for a sensitivity study to medium income. ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) THE AT & SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY , BOUND BY SECOND STREET , VALLEY DRIV~, & HERONDO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HILL STREETS FROM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW OF 440 -2ND STREET -THE "BOATYARD " SITE Chmn. Izant stated that a flyer was distributed around the Boatyard area. He briefly clarified the four points indicated on the flyer to the audience. Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Rickert property is the subject of the zone change as well as a portion of the Railroad Right­ of-Way. She indicated the exact size and location of the properties on the City parcel map. Staff recommended that the Rickert property located at the corner of Second & Hill Streets be rezoned from R-1 to Planned Development Residential/Medium Density. Staff recommends to rezone the Railroad Right-of-Way to Open Space from its current R-1 status or to Planned Development Residential/Open Space. Staff also recommended to review the revised conceptual plan and to adopt the plan or to request a further revision of the plan. She stated that the Rickert property is currently zoned R-1, Medium Density, which is equivalent to an R-2 zone. The Rickert property is 14,060 sq. ft. and could contribute eight units to this project if calculated at 25 du/a. Comm. Donnelly asked for the acreage of the Rickert property. Comm. Peirce replied .33 acres. PIANNING CCMMISSIONMINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 5 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FDR 1) THE AT & SF RAilROAD RIGHT-QF..:WAY , BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VALLEY DRIVE, & HERONDO S'IREET ALSO • 2) THE SOUTIIWEST CORNER OF SE:COND & HilL STREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTIJAL PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET ..: THE "BOATYARD" SITE (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto continued staff report, stating that the Planned Development Residential, :nedil.'[Il density will bring the project into confonnance with the General Plan, as would an R-2 zone. The railroad right-of-way is 22,651 sq. ft. and would contribute 13 units to the project if it 'vl:ere calculated at 25 du/a. The railraod right-of-way is designated open space. This property should not be used in calculating the number of allowable du/a. If the Conrni.ssion wished to include that property in the calculation, they would have to change the General Plan. Cornn. Loosli stated that the Canmi.ssion has been using the railroad right-of-way in their density calculations in the 104-mit plan and the 92-unit plan. Conm. Loosli asked if the allowable is now 79 du/a. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affinnative. Corrm. Donnelly stated that the allowable is 80 du/a. Corrm. Donnelly asked for the anount of acreage currently owned or in escrow by the applicant, the arrount of acreage of the Rickert property, and the arrount of acreage of the railroad right-of-way. Comm. Currmings asked mat the applicant's present developrrent rights are. Ms. Sapetto replied that they are R-1. Corrm. Donnelly asked if a vote of 4-2 or greater is required to make the zone change. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comn. Smith stated that the,owner of Sunnyglen has certified by affidavit that Sunnyglen now owns the Rickert property. He asked whether or not this was correct. Ms. Sapetto replied that the applicant has indicated that he is in the process of acquiring ownership. Camn. Smith requested that that be clarified. Conm. l.Dosli stated that the Rickert property is currently zoned R-1. If the zone is not changed, it adds approxirrately four units to the project. If the zone is change\ to R-2 or PDR, it adds approximately eight units. He asked if the project could be left at R-1, low density . • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -January 19, 1982 Page 6 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST Fffi. 1) THE AT & SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-W-\Y, BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VPJLEY DRIVE & HER.ONDO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HilL STREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PlAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd S'IREET -THE ''BOATYARD'' SITE (Cont. ) Ms. Sapetto replied that the project could be left at R-1, if the General Plan was changed to Low Density Residential. Conm. Loosli added that they could either change the ~oning or the General Plan. Comn. Peirce asked, even though the property is General Plan open space, R-1 zoning, if only recreational buildings can be built there or can residential housing developmmts also be built there. Ms. Sapetto stated that she knew of no provision regarding that. Chrm. Izant stated that the first decision the Conmission will take is whether or n ot the Cormrl.ss ion shouilld take any action on rezoning the Rickert property, and the second decision is whether or not the Corrrnission should take any action on rezoning the railroad right-of-way. Clum. Izant added that the second part of the public hearing will concern the conceptual plan for the boatyard site. Public Hearing opened at 9:03 P.M. Dick Leonard, 17 422 S. Prairie, Torrance, applicant , stated that the Rickert property is 14, 060 sq . ft. , which is 3. 23 acres. That prope rty was in escrow, the escrow was closed, and Sunnyglen now owns the property . He stated that the entire Santa Fe right-of-way is 100 feet wide . The east erly 35 feet of that right-of-way is in escr01il. Sunnyglen has no control over the balance of the property whatsoever. The easterly 35 feet of the right -of-way is . 52 acres . The balance of the property is 2,857 a cres , making a total of 3.7 acres or 161,172 sq. ft. He stated that if the Santa Fe property were left out of the density c alculation, but the Rickert property and the balance of the property owned by Sunnyglen ~re included, Sunnyglen would be allowed 79 units to the acre if calculated at 25 du/a. I f the Sant a Fe property -were included at R-1 density, it would add another .52 ~.)m i ch w:,uld make a total of 84 units. If the Rickert property were considered a s R-1 and Santa Fe were considered as R-1 and the balance at 25 du/a, there would be a viable density of 79 units. If the railroad right-of-way -were considered open space and the Rickert property were considered R-1, they w:,uld be al lowed 74 units. However , he felt as though this would not be beneficial for Sunnyglen. He added that Sunnyglen intends to develop the 35-foot strip. Comn. Smith asked the applicant if he is definitely interested in seeing the rezone from. open space to PDR. Mr. Leonard replied in the affirmative , explaining that the zone change spe cifically included only the 35-foot strip that is in escrow, not the balance of the railroad. Cornn. Cunmings asked how the railroad right-of-way is being used by the proposed project. PI.ANNING CCJaiISSION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 7 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1 ) THE AT & SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-Wt\Y , BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VAI.LEY DRIVE & HERONOO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOlITHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HILL STREETS FR<l1 R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPI'UAL PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET -THE ''BOATYARD'' SITE (Cont. ) Ms . Sapetto stated that the applicant did not request a General Plan change . He requested a zone change, but in order for the Comniss ion to grant a zone change t o PDR with no stipulation on that being an open space, the General Plan will need to be changed. Corrm. Cunmings asked about changing the zone to Planned De"\Jeloprnent Residential/ open space. Ms. Sapetto rep lied that .the General Plan would not need t o be changed . It would be keeping it open space in the General Plan, but allowing it to becane part of that developmmt. It would not be used in the density calculation. Jim Ros enberger, 15 6 First Court, Henrosa Beach, stated that the public does not have any background material, a nd he noted concem for the lack of information available to the public. He wanted a clarification as to the use and coverage of the open space area. He 1nderstood there to be a 10 or 15% maximum coverage, and the use could not be residential. He asked what the other cities in the area are doing with their railroad right-of-ways. Conm. Peirce stated that one question that had not been answered was could the developer develop the railroad property R-1 open space General Plan. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Henrosa Beach, stated that she is dissatisfied with the public right-of-way being all~d to any private developer either for his land usage or for his density calculations. She s tated that the streets be l ong to the citizens. Allowing the developer to use this land would be depriving the citizens of a natural r esources . She urged the Corrmission to keep enough land on the east side of the tracks for Ab:h:rore in the future. Herb Schneider, 157 Ardnnre, He:rrrosa Beach, stated that he is directly behind the boatyard site, so why can't bis property be rezoned. He spoke in opposition to any type of increased den sity. Jerry Moss, 539 Second Street, Hen:rosa Beach, fe lt that the e a sterly portion of the railr.0ad r ight-of-way should be rezoned PDR so that i t becorres part of the parcel. He suggested using a deed restri ction that no impr6veIIEI1ts be put on it. Polly Sclmeider, 157 Ardrrore, Henoosa Beach, stated that her standard of living in no way irrproves with higher density . She opposes allowing the developer to use the railroad right-of-way to be used in calculating the 1nits. She stated that this project does not blend in with the surrounding neighborhood; it only blends in with Su:myglen ' s developrrent to the west. She suggested that the Rickert property be left R-1 or be zoned open space . She added that she looked at Sunnyglen's developrrent on the northwest c omer of Valley and Second, mich she described as a total block of concrete. She said it was built at 23 du/a, and the open space is driveways. PIANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 8 ZCNE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1 ) THE AT & SF RAILRQ\D RIGHI'--OF-WAY , BOUND BY S&:OND STREET, VALIEY DRIVE & HERONOO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND AND HILL STREETS FRCM R-l TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PIAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE ''Brn..TYARD' 1 SITE (Cont.) Kurt Bovee, 1209 Eighth Street, Herrrosa Beach, stated that there is no reason to increase the density in Hernnsa Beach. Rita Newkirk, 540 First Street, HerIIDsa Beach, stated that she is against any zone changes that "WOuld increase the density in south HeTIIDsa. Jerry fuss, 539 Second Street, Herrrosa Beach, stated that there are four fir etraps on the Rickert property. He suggested that the Rickert property be made contiguous with the boatyard and be rezoned from R-1 to PDR, rredium density. Gertrude Errhousen, 648 7th Street, Hennosa Beach, objected to oore housing and higher density. She suggested building horres as opposed to a townhouse­ style developrrent. Delma Peery, 720 8th Street, Henrosa Beach, stated that Sln111yglen has brought many problems to Hernosa Beach. Dick Leonard, applicant, stated that Santa Fe does not have the right to sell the land arbitrarily. They IIDJSt first obtain approval from the Public Utilities Cormrission. He added that his conceptual plan has a swim:ning pool, spa, the tot lot, and passive landscap ing and walkways which constitute 17% o f the property. That l 7o/o is in exces s of the required comron area for the Condominium Ordinance. He added that the building coverage is 36%. Mr. l.eonard stated that Sunnyglen is only interested in the first option. if Sunnyglen c onsurrnates the e scrow with Santa Fe and purchases the 35-foot strip. Public Hearing closed at 9 : 4 7 P .M. Recess from 9:48 P.M. to 9:58 P.M. Coran. Peirce presented a matrix of the project, as follows: TOI'AL UNITS 74 79 83 92 B~TYARD SITE R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 RICKERT PROPER.TI R-1 R-2 R-2 R-2 RAIIROAD RIGHT--OF-WAY OS OS R-1 R-2 PI.ANNING CCM1I.SSIONMINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 9 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) TIIE AT & SF RAIIP-.OAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VAfJEf DRIVE & HERONOO STREET ALSO 2) TIIE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & Hil.L S'IBEE1l?S FReM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET-· -· ±HE ''BOATYARD'' SITE (Cont . ) Cornn. Peirce felt it necessary to determine the use of the railroad property before considering the other properties. Cornn. Loosli felt that the railroad right-of-way should remain open space. Cornn. Donnelly stated that one of the advantages of having the railroad right-of-way zoned open space is that there wil l be better landscaping and better aesthetic value to the open space; however, he did not ~t to see any stn.1etural developmmt in that open space. He added that he would be willing to trade the applicant's owning the right-of-way and a provision in the CC &R's of maintaining it and landscaping it and integrating it rrore into the developmmt without developing on that portion of it. He felt that the applicant could landscape that area better than the City could. Corrm. Smith stated that he would not want to see the property included in PDR because it may set a dangerous precedent . Coom. Cunmings felt that the railroad right-of-way should be zoned open space. He also felt that rezoning this property rna.y set a dangerous precedent. COIIII1. Peirce felt that the developer should not have to maintain the 35-foot strip m the easterly part without doing anything with the ~sterly 65 feet. He believed that the only viable options ,;.;,ere to allow the developer to build or not ho build at all. Chun. Izant felt that if the developer is going to maintain that property, the developer would gain rrore ~lling units per acre. However, he was not willing to allow the developer nore units. Cornn. Donnelly noted that citizens will not benefit from open space in the middle of a walled corrrnunity. He preferred the concept of a 35-foot maintained, visible part of the corrm.mity without any developrrent. Cornn. Loosli stated that it may be rrore beneficial to incorporate the property into the project as PDR open space because it is part of the project. He added that the developer would not have to own it. Chrm. Izan.t agreed with Conm. Loosli' s above comrents; however, he suggested that the entire Santa Fe right-of-way in the City of Herrrosa Beach be purchased. PlANNING COMMISSIONMINUI'ES -January 19, 1982 Page 10 ZONE Cl-t.t\liGE REQUEST FOR 1) THE AT & SF RAILRO\D RIGHT-OF-Wt\Y , BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VAI.LEY DRIVE & HERONOO STREET AI.SO 2 ) THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HTIL STREETS FROM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET -THE "BOATIARD" SI1E (Cont.) Motion by Conm. Loosli, seconded by Coom. Curnnings , to change the zoning to conform with the General Plan in this area from R-1 (unzoned) to open space. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conms. Cuumings, Loosli, Chrm. Izant Corrms. Donnelly, Peirce, Smith Coom. Rue Conm. Peirce stated that he was against the motion because he saw no compelling reason for the City to mainta:in a 100-foot open space verses a 65-foot open space. Corrm. Smith stated that it wuld be a dangerous precedent . He believed there should b e no prece dents for incorporating open space land in a developable area. Comn. Cumnings noted that the rrotion was not to include it in a developable area. Cornn. Smith asked for the ITDtion to be repeated. Corrm. Loosli stated that the rrotion was to bring the zoning into confo:rmance with the current General Plan. The railroad right -of-way is General Plan open space . His rrotion was to bring this proper ty into conformance with the General Plan and zone it open space. He added that this is in regards to the 35-foot easterly strip. Motion by Conm. Loos li, seconded by Comn. Currmings , to bring the zoning of the 35-foot easterly strip of the rai lroad right-of-way into con formance with the current General Plan to open space. Comn. Smith asked if that property can be developed. Cornn. Loosli stated that it can be developed open space. Therefore, 10% can be dew.loped with t~ stories, 25 feet maximum. Conm. Cun:mings stated that by zoning it Planned Developnent Residential/open space would cause the sane effect. Cornn. Loosli replied in the negative. Corrm. Smith stated that a "yes" vote rreans that it cannot be used in the density calculation. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conms. Cumnings, Loosli, Smith, Clmn. Izant Corrms. Donnelly, Peirce Corrm. Rue PL!-\NNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES-January 19, 1982 Page 11 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) TI:IE AT & SF RAILRG..\D RIGHT-OF-w.ti,.Y, BOUND BY SEX::OND STREET, VALLEY DRIVE & HERONOO STREET ALSO 2) TIIE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND AND HII.L STREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET -THE "BOATYARD" SITE (Cont.) Cornn. l.Dosli stated that the Resolution would be that state law requires that the General Plan be consistent with the zoning and the action brings zoning into conformance with the General Plan. Cornn. Peirce asked if the only finding would be that it brings the zoning into confonnance with the General Plan. Corrm. Loosli replied in the affimative. He stated that a greenbelt to the City is fine, and this precludes developmm.t in mat is currently an open space area, and the Comnission feels it should rerrain an open space area. Ms. Sapetto rrentioned that staff has a drafted Resolution (b) for that open space. Comn. Loosli stated that a WHEREAS could be, ''WHEREAS, the General Plan designates this area open space." Ms. Sapetto stated that the above would be the third WHEREAS. Cornn. Loosli suggested adding a WHEREAS; that is, ''WHEREAS, it is stated law that zoning shall conform to the General Plan.'' Comn. Curn:n:ings stated that he would like to add another WHEREAS; that is, ''WHERE\S, the Planning Comnission was inforrred of the City Attorney's opinion regarding the taking of deve loprrent rights and the question as to whether the open space designation of the General Plan envisioned the applicant's use of the parcel to corrpute his allowable number of units in his project. '' Motion by Corrm. Loosli, seconded by Comn. Currmings, to make the Resolution, as arrended . AYES: NOES: ABSENI': . Conrns . Currmings , Loosli , Srni th, Chrm.. Izant Conrns. Dormelly, Peirce Corrm. Rue Comn. Smith asked for a clarification of the notion. Corrm. I.Dosli replied that the previous rrotion was to rezone the railroad property from an unzoned designation to open space. Comns. Donnelly and Peirce stated that t hey were opposed to the nntion because they did not agree with the Findings. Chrm. Izant asked for input on the Rickert property. PI..ANNIID CCM1ISSIONMINUTFS -January 19, 1982 Page 12 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) THE AT & SF RAILRQAf) RIG!IT-OF-WAY , BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VAI..J.EY DRIVE & HER.ONDO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOU'IHWEST CORNER OF SF.cOND & HilL STREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPI'UAL PLAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd S'IREET -THE ''BOATYARD'' SITE (Cont.) Conm. Loosli stat~d that the City of Henocisa Beach is dense enough. He recornnended rejecting the zone change and rehearing it to a low density desigpation at a future date. Corrm. Peirce was in favor of changing the zone from R-1 to R-2. Comn. Ctmnings was in favor of changing the zone from R-1 to R-2. Comn. Smith was also in favor of changing the zone to R-2 because it is consistent with the proposed project. Comn. Dannelly stated that they have addressed the p roblem of increased densi ty . He was also in favor of zoning the Rickert property R-2, rrediurn density. Motion by Conm. Peirce, seconded by Conrn. Donnelly, to rezone the Rickert property from R-1 to Plarmed Developnent Residential/ nedium density. AYES: NOES: ABSENT : Cooms. Curmdngs, Donnelly, Peirce, Smith, Chrrn.. Izant Corrm. Loosli Comn. Rue Ms. Sapetto stated that there is a drafted Resolution (a) which may be used. Motion by Conm. Peirce, seconded by Coom. Dormelly, to approve Resolution P.C. 82-06. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comn.s. Cunmings, Donnelly, Peirce, Smith, Chrrn. Izant 'Corrm, Loosli Conm. Rue Chrm. Izant asked for a staff report on the conceptual plan. Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Corrmission should review the plan and detennine whether or not it rreets the criteria spelled out previously from the Planning Corrmission. If the plan does not meet the criteria, the Planning Connri.ssion nay request that provisions be made. Conm. Donnelly asked if the applicant ~re still under 65% lot coverage since the figure is now 3.18 acres. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Public Hearing opened at 10:18 P.M. '---j Dick Leanard, 17422 S. Prairie, Torrance, applicant, stated that the revised plans are for 82 units, which neans that three of the units would have to be PIANNINJ COMMISSION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 13 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1 ) THE AT & SF RAIIROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY , BOUND BY SECOND STREET , VALLEY DRIVE & HER.ONDO STREET ALSO 2) TrlE sounIWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HIIL S'IREETS FROM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTIJAL PI.AN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET -THE ''BG.t\.TYARD'' SITE (Cont.) eliminated. He stated that the plans do not include floor plans. He m2ntioned that the density would be slightly less than 20 duf.a. He inforrred the Comnission that there are four basic plans; narrely, the two-bedroom mits at 1200 sq. ft. which constitute 16%; the double master-bedroom concept which constitute 28%; the three-bedroom at 1400 sq. ft. which constitute 26%; and the two bedroom plus a den is 1400 sq. ft. which constitutes 27%. The garages as proposed are 23 feet wide by 20 feet deep, making a square footage of 460 sq. ft. There is a stairway mit vihich would take the occupant from his garage up to the living unit above. Under that stairway, there would be 160 sq. ft. of storage area. He stated that they are proposing private patios which span across the depressed driveway on sorre. of the units. The units that do not have the patios will have balcony patios which protnrle ten feet out onto the driveway. The exterior materials to be used on the building are painted wood s iding and composition shingles. The proposed color is gray. The underside o f the balconies and the garage faces would be stucco. He added that the comron. area available to the tenant is 17%. He said it would be to his advantage and the City's advantage to landscape all the public right-of-way including the entire railroad rig..ht-of-way and charge the 1-JooEowners Association with the perpetual maintenance as long as the City has a landscape permi t with Santa Fe Railroad. He added that they would also c onstruct a bike path which wou-li b e appro ximately one-third of a mile. He requested that the nine guest parking spaces be allowed to remain on the Ardrmre right-of-way. Ee stated that electric garage door openers would corre. with every unit and would be included in the sales price. Cornn. Loosli asked if there will be any park, either public or private. Mr. Leonard replied that he previous 1 y presented a plan with a park, and the plan was rejected by the Planning Corrmission. Cornn. Donnelly stated that it was not rrade part of the detailed recormendations. Cornn. Loosli asked ¥..r. Leonardi£ he realized that 23 units of his project will have to be renoved from the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Leonard replied in the affinnative. CiDmn. Loosli asked Mr. Leonard if he realized that those units will have to go in where the plan shows open space or roads or parking. Mr. Leonard stated that he does not have the capability of designing the project. Cornn. Donnelly asked Mr. Leonard if he were aware that he has a rounded 3.2 acres on which to build a project of a maximum of 79 units. Mr. Leonard replied in the affirmative. PI.ANNING C01MISSION MINUIES -January 19, 1982 Page 14 ZONE CHANGE RE UEST FOR 1 ) THE AT & SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY , BOUND BY SECOND STREET VPJ..J..Ef. DRIVE & HERONDO STREET ALSO 2 THE SOUI'FIWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HI.IL STREETS FRCM R-1 'IO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PI.AN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd S'IREET -THE 11:ro\TYARD" SITE (Cont.) Herb Schneider, 157 Ardroore, Herrrosa Beach, noted concern for the applicant's request to use the Ardrrore right-of-way for guest parking. Polly Schneider, 157 Ardnnre, Herrrosa Beach, stated that 3.2 acres with 79 units is not less than 20 du/a. She s poke in opposition to allowing any City property for this developrrent . She fe lt that the p roject sti ll has too mmy units. She asked what benefits the City will receive by zoning this land FDR. Cornn. Peirce stated that the project is 25 du/a. Mrs. Schneider stated that there should be four garage spaces for each mit. Rita Nevlkirk, 540 First Street, Hermosa Beach, asked if the Comnission will respond at this tire as to whether or not the parking spaces will be allowed to rerrnin on the Ardrrore right-of---way. She suggested allowing anyone to use those spaces, not only the residents of the project. Jerry Moss, 539 Second Street, Henmsa Beach, stated that the developer has nade a suprerre effort to try to satisfy the demands of the Planning Corrmission. He felt that once this project is built, it will enhance Herroosa Beach. He supported the amount of density decided upon, and he supported the design of the project. He felt the project would be a great inproveITEnt to ', • southwest Hernosa Beach. Charles Eurichson, 551 Second Street, Herrrosa Beach, supported Mr. Moss's comnents. Bill O'Claire, 540 First Street, Herroosa Beach, noted concern for nine parking spaces to be used on public property. Mr. Leonard, applicant, explained that the parking could be used for the public at large. Public Hearing continued at 11:15 P.M. to February 3, 1982. Conm. Peirce stated that by restricting the entrance off o f Herondo, there will be m:ire concrete. He felt that it v.0uld be better to allow a small block of the project to come off of Second Street and Valley. Conm. Loosli felt that the Planning Conmission must address the density again. He stated that there would be less roadways and IIDre green space by eliminating sorre of the m.its . Conm. Smith supported Coom. Peirce's remarks . He added that the Pl811Iling Conmission does not have substantial data as to the impact this project PIANNING Cel-fflSSION MINUI'ES -January 19, 1982 Page 15 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) TIIE AT & SF RAILRQ\D RIGlIT--OF-WA.Y, BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VAJ.1.Ef DRIVE & HERONDO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOUI'HWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HILL STREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTIIA.L PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd S'IREET -THE "BQ\.TYARD" SI'IE (Cont. ) will have on parking. He recormBnded studying the inpact in the irmediate area in regards to traffic circulation. Cornn. Cunnings agreed with Corrms. Peirce and Smith. He felt that the original circulation plan dealt with the undergromd garage concept. He was in favor of having the applicant corre back with plans showing a different internal circulation pattern. Conm. Donnelly agreed with C,orrm. Cun:mings. Chn:n. Izant asked for input regarding the number of parking spaces provided for each 1.11.it. Corrm. Donnelly felt there should be tID parking spaces per unit. Chim. Izant stated that it is 4-2 that the Planning Corrmission would consider an alternative circulation plan with access out onto the other streets. Motion by Comn. Peirce to allow no trore than 20% of the project to be accessed from Second Street, 20% from First Street, 20% from Valley and the remaining 40% from Herondo with the result of nore green space in the project. None of these streets are to interconnect. (Straw vote.) COlllffi. Curnnings, Peirce, and Smith voted for the above straw vote. Corms. Donnelly, Loosli, and Chnn. Izant voted against the above straw vote. Conm. Donnelly voted against the straw vote because he is rrore concerned with the impact of the neighborhood. Chrrn. Izant stated that he voted against the straw vote because he felt that the traffic could be handled on Valley and Herondo, but not on the smaller streets . Ms. Sapetto stated that the Planning Conmi.ssion could have a special rreeting to review the data on the traffic circulation. The Planning Corrmission could require the applicant to allow the Planning Coornission to evaluate it at the next meeting of the applicant could get a determination on his conceptual plan. Coom. Smith requested that the Planning Comnission get the traffic and parking circulation information for that area. Ms. Sapetto replied that she vX>uld submit that information to the Planning Coomission. Cornn. Smith:,stated that he wo\tl.d be willing to attend a special workshop session to study the traffic and parking circulation. PIANNL~G COM1ISSION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 16 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) THE AT & SF RAILROAD RIGlIT-OF-~Y, BOUND BY SECOND S'IREET, VALIEY DRIVE & HF.RONDO STREET AI.SO 2) THE SOUIHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HILL S'IREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd S'IREET -THE 1100\TYARD" SITE (Cont . ) Comn. Peirce stated that he would also be willing to attend a special workshop session. Cbrrn. Izant asked what t ype of determination could be made at the workshop session. ~s . Sapetto r eplied that the Planning Cornnission could rmke a determination on the traffic circulation and guest parking on the Ardrrore stub. Chm. Izant recOIIIIEilded each Corrmi.ssion revisit the property . Coom. l.Dosli was in favor of discussing t he dens ity at t he -workshop sess i on. Coom. Cunmings fe lt that the issue of guest parking on the Ardtrore right ­ of-way should be discussed and finalized at this tin:e , and the ~rkshop session should deal only with the traffic circulation. Chnn. I z ant a sked the Comnissioner s i£ they wished to hold a special session. Cornn. Donnelly stated that no special sess ion should be he ld. Conms. Cun:mings, Peirce, Smith, and Chlm. Izant ~re in favor of holding a special session. Conm. Loos li stated that if a special session is held, he will attend. Mr. Leonard stated that he would rather cooe back with two sets of plans, one addressing the alternate accesses and one addressing the conditions as they now stand. Chim. Izant s tated that that would be acceptable to the C,oomission .. Crum. Izant aske d for input regarding guest parking on the Ardroore stub. Cornns. Cuumings and Donnelly stated that they would like to see gues t parking on the Ardnore stub. Conms. l.Dosli, Smith, and Clmn . I zant stated that they would not like to see guest parking on the Ardm:rre s tub. Conm. Peirce stated that he would lean toward not conmingling this property. STAFF REPORTS Ms . Sapetto stated that the Planning Institute by the League of California Cities is holding a rreeting on February 24, 25, a nd 26 in San Diego. She asked what Comnis sian.ers would like to attend. ,, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 17 STAFF REPORTS Cooms. Peirce and Donnelly wished to attend the ~eting. Corrms. Smith and Currrnings stated that they may be interested in attending . C(lvlMISSIONER'S ITEM'S None Motion to adj oum at 12: 03 P .M. CERTIFICATION' I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Corrrnission at their regular rreeting of January 19, 1982. , CHAIBMAN DATE r,