Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06.05.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7: 30 P .M. Meeting called to order by Chmn. Izant at 7:31 P.M. Pledge of allegiance led by Comm. Shapiro. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: CoIDinS. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant Comm. Strohecker ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Ralph Castaneda, TDC Planning APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 1, 1984. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF R.:ESOLUTIONS Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Connn. Brown, to approve P,C. 84-13. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CollDils, Brown, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Newton Comm. Strohecker Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve P.C. 84-14. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant None None Comm. Strohecker C-POTENTIAL AMENDMENT Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She noted that staff's original recommendation was to change the C-Potential development standards for the conversion of C-Potential property to commercial property. Ms. Sapetto' noted that at the meeting of March 20, 1984, the Planning Commission had requested additional information concerning the proposed floating zone and Development Standards for C-Potential properties which abut residential properties. She stated that the Planning Commission specifically asked for the standards required by the City of Laguna Beach. She noted that she had provided the Commissioners with attachments showing the development standards of Laguna Beach as well as comparison charts for the cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and El Segundo. She noted that the Hermosa Beach standards are fairly liberal when compared with the other cities. / Ms. Sapetto stated that another question that the Plann~ng Commission had was in regard to the definition of how to treat a C-Potential zone when it abuts residential. The current height requirement is 45 feet, which is considered to be excessive when it abuts commercial property. The proposed resolution calls for restricting the height to 35 feet where commercial abuts residentially-zoned property. Also, there are no required setbacks except for three feet for alleys. This project calls for a setback of at least five feet where the commercial abuts residential, These setbacks would provide a buffer zone. She noted that the Commissioners had received an additional attachment detailing the C-Potential Standards versus Current Standards, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 C-POTENTIAL AMENDMENT (Cont.) Page 2 Ms. ·sapetto further noted that the Commission had questioned whether walls and landscaping would be within the setbacks. She stated that they would, noting that the five-foot requirement would include walls and landscaping and would not be an addition to the requirement. Ms. Sapetto mentioned the concerns of what happened at Mrs. Brown's resid·ence when the foundation gave way. She stated that this occurrence was a result of the contractors failing to follow the approved plan; it was not a result of deficiencies in the building code or from the lack of setbacks. However, requiring setbacks would help to minimize the prospect of this occurring again. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Planning Commission had several options to choose from: to adopt staff's reconnnendation of development standards fo r C-P otential property and delete the requi reme nt of a specific plan, thereby requi ring Planning Commission approval on all new projects; or, keep the Code as it is n ow, where there would be a discretionary review of any project in the C-Potential zone. This discretionary review would be on a case-by-case basis. She noted that Resolutions A and B would amend the Code; Resolution C would keep the Code the same as it is now. Ms. Sapetto r eminded the Commission that when they do act on this issue, they would also be actin g on the initi al study of the EIR. She recommended that this initial EIR be given a negative declaration. Chmn. Izant referred to Resolution 84-(B). He noted that the diagram depicted a situ ation where the street would be on the right. Essentially, this zone is for any c ommerci al zone that abuts residential, He noted that if the area were flat , and a b ut t i n g residential, the height for t h e entire structure would be limited to 35 feet. Ms. Sapetto stated that Chmn. Izant's observation was correct but noted that C-Potential properties are located only on the east and west sides of the highway; therefore, there is no situation where connnercial property would be on a flat area. Ms. Sapetto noted that if this provision were ap pli cable to both sides of the highway , the situation would be a structure facing the hi ghway on the west side which would be 45 feet and would taper down to 35 feet. Ms. Sapetto suggested the possibility of the Commission studying other alternatives for the west side of the highway. She noted that the provision could be deleted from being applicable to the west side of the highway. Cormn. Brown questioned whether this would be applicable were the C-Potential zone to be redefined. Ms. Sapetto noted that what is being proposed in the Land Use El ement is to change some of the C-Potential properties to residential where it is a maj ority of the property now. Comm. Brown questioned why all C-Potential properties should not be limited to 35 feet. Ms. Sapetto noted that another alternative for this issue would be to study it together with the Land Use Element. She felt that this would be an appropriate course of action. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 C-POTENTIAL AMENDMENT (Cont.) Page 3 Ms. Sapetto reminded the Commission that they were asked to look at this issue as a result of a City Council resolution. She noted that the Conunission might prefer to leave the section as it is now and review each project on a case-by-case basis. This issue could then be dealt with in the Land Use Element and come to the City Council in conjunction with the Land Use Element. CoIIIIll. Brown felt that this would be a more effective method of dealing with the issue. Public Hearing opened at 8:45 P.M. There being no citizens who wished to testify on this issue, Chmn. Izant closed the Public Hearing at 8:46 P.M. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to delay action on the C-Potential amendment and handle it together with the Land Use Element, thereby recommending to the City Council that the lots in the multi-use corridor be examined on a site­ by-site basis. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Strohecker Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Brown to adopt P~C. 84-15 (C). AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Strohecker Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Col!Dil, Brown, declaring that the initial study on the EIR is adequate and contains no negative impacts. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms ·; Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Strohecker LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN Mr. Castaneda gave staff report. He suggested that the Commission review and consider the attached materials on alternative ways of revising the Land Use Element. Each of the issue areas is familiar to the Planning Commission based on previous input and discussion. As the Draft Land Use Element is prepared, it will become desirable to select from among the various available options. Mr. Castaneda noted that the last discussion on this issue concluded with the idea that one way to resolve the inconsistencies between the general plan and zoning wtth respect to residential land uses would be to consider all R-1 properties as low density, all R-2 properties as medium density, and all R-3 properties as high density; and, in effect, have a land use map which would reflect the current zoning pattern. Concurrently, in terms of dealing with growth and density, the possibility arose·of lowering the density limits within each of those classifications. Part of the thinking behind this proposal was that this would be an effective way of resolviµg the inconsistencies in the sense that no parcel-by-parcel zone changes would be required. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 Page 4 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Mr. Castaneda noted that a second thought was that in order to implement an effective program of resolving inconsistencies, individual property owners would have been affected. It was felt that there appeared to be a more fair and equitable approach to resolving the situation. Mr. Castaneda stated that it was felt that this approach was effective and appropriate. It was further determined that this might also be extended to other partsof the Land Use Element. There were a number of discussions centering on the fact that there are only three comme rcial zones. The question arose of having a Land Use Element that reflects that in the same or other land use categories, Mr. Castaneda noted that the Commissioners had been provided a handout sheet that would serve as a dictionary, or legend, for the Land Use Element. He noted that the information on this sheet corresponds as closely as possible to current zoning districts and the current zone map. Mr, Castaneda discussed the information contained on the handout sheet, Mr. Castaneda noted that a working map had been prepared. He then invited the Commission to go over this map. Mr. Castaneda also noted that the Commissioners had been provided with material on the current density considerations in the Land Use Element. He discussed the information contained on that sheet. Mr. Castaneda stated that in order to achieve consistency, the Land Use Element category must match the development standards in each of the zoning districts. Mr. Castaneda stated that up to now, the manner in which this has been achieved is that the Planning Department does review those projects for consistency with the Land Use Element and the General Plan, Under these conditions, the Land Use Element density ceilings are imp lemen ted regardless of what the underlying zoning is because the law states that o ne mu st achieve consistency, Therefore, those ceilings could be in force during the discretionary revi e1v p eriod. This applies . only to condominiums and not to apartments, though, Apa rtments do not go through the Planning Department; therefore, the Planning Department does not have the opportunity to review consistency. Mr. Castaneda stated that a short-range solution and a long-range solution is being suggested, He felt that it is important to achieve consistency. One suggestion is to consider apartment housing within the R-2 and R-3 zones on the conditional use, This then would allow discretionary action, As a result, apartment housing would go through the Planning Depar tment for review enabling the Planning Department to make findings as to the consiste ncy with the general plan, Mr. Castaneda outlined a possible long-range solution. This would be to include in the Land Use Element not only the recommendation for the conditional use permit but also a recommendation which would result in a review of the development standards in each of the zoning districts in order to remain consistent with the density patterns of the Land Use Element. He noted that it is possible that the medium density and high density upper ceilings could be reduced somewhat. Mr. Castaneda suggested that one possible way to proceed with this issue is to commence with the preparation of a Land Use Element Map which reflects zoning along the lines that have been discussed. He suggested leaving open the discussion on PLA.~NG COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 Page 5 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GEN'ERAL PLAN (Cont.) whether or not the ColIDilission wishes to consider lowering the density ceilings in the medium and high density categories. Mr. Castaneda discussed at length the Land Use Element Map which was displayed for the benefit of the Commissioners. Chmn. Izant noted that the point being made is that the zoning has a limit of one dwelling unit per 1200 square feet. In order to make it consistent, he noted that the 1200 should probably be raised to 1742 square feet. Mr. Castaneda concurred, stating that in order to achieve consistency with the Land Use Element, the short-range remedy would be to review condos for consistency. The development standards could be addressed as a long-range solution. Comm. Shapiro questioned the affect on those people who are in the R-2 medium density zone and whose lot is 1200 square feet. He questioned the outcome were the standards to be raised, Comm. Brown stated that they would be legal non-conforming uses. Comm. Brown felt that the only number that appears to be relevant is the maximum number. He questioned the necessity of the lower numbers, He noted that the maximum number of dwelling units per acre would be 25. Everything else would be a ratio of that. Comm, Brown questioned the purpose of the 13.1. He questioned whether there are areas that should have 13 dwelling .units per acre. Chmn. Izant stated that past discussions had centered on the idea of taking the three density levels and splitting them more finely as a possible solution to resolving the problem of the inconsistencies. He noted that this was only a theoretical approach, though. Conun. Shapiro questioned whether increasing the 1200 square feet to 1742 square feet would solve the problem of the inconsistencies. Mr. Castaneda stated that inconsistencies occur when the Land Use Element Map and the Zoning Map do not agree. He noted that this subject had been discussed at previous meetings of the Planning Commission. He noted that the problem could be remedied by having a Land Use Element Map which reflects zoning in terms of boundaries and land use categories. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether Land Use Element is synonymous with the General Plan. Mr. Castaneda replied in the affirmative. Chmn. Izant noted the importance of the general plan's being in conformance with the zoning. He further stated that the people in the City must have a price to pay; that being that all those areas which are in discrepency represent an additional build-out of approximately 600 units in the City, He suggested that this course of action is the proper direction to be taking in this matter. He suggested taking the density ranges and making the 25 a 20 and the 40 a 35, so that people at the upper end of the spectrum will not be able to increase the build-out of the City, He felt that changing the density ranges will not create a "race" between property owners and the City, because it is not possible to run out of density. He noted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 Page 6 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) that density is always based on .the property one owns himself; not on what his neighbors may own. Comm. Brown noted that in this situation somebody must pay the price, Comm, Brown further stated that density is not a range; density is exactly what it says, period. He felt that any deviations in the range would be purely mathematical. He felt that to have ranges in the density would be meaningless. Comm . Newton felt that there wou ld be one a dvanta ge to deleting the range and keeping t he upper figure; that being t ha t if there are any tiny lots in the R-2, s ome one could c omp lain that there still is a d iscrep ency between zoning and the general plan if they cannot build within the range. Comm. Newton further felt that if the density were up to 25, no one could ever complain that there was a discrepency between the gener al plan and zoning, Ms. Sapetto stated that the reason there is a r ange in the general plan is because the state . plann ing -law ·:states that it mu st confo rm with the density identified in the general p lan. She no t ed that inconsi stencies would arise with a singular number; therefore, this is the reason for hav ing the range. Chmn. Izant asked whether the other Connnissioners liked the approach of having the Land Use Element reflect the current zoning patterns. Comm. Brown replied that he favored this approach. Comm. Newton favored the idea so long as an adjustment is made for density. Chmn. Izant felt that it is important to have the zoning characteristics in harmony with whatever the final density numbers are to be. Comm. Brown requested information in regard to the current dwelling units per acre as allowed by zoning. Chmn. Izant stated that it would be necessary to have the increased or decreased numbers to reflect the maximum number of build-out, Chmn. Izant noted that rather than having numbers, it would be something to the effect that medium density represents up to X dwelling units per acre ,or lower. Chmn. Izant stated that it is important to come to a determination on what the density r a n ges should be for medium and high d ensity areas. He noted that he favored the n umb ers as presented by Mr . Castaneda . Re favored medium density as being 20 dwelling un it s per acre and hi gh den sity as be ing 35 dwelling units per acre, Chmn. Izant noted that condominium construction in the past has been constrained by the 13 to 25. He noted that apartments are not being constructed as often as in the past. Ms, Sapetto noted that duplexes are being built, though, Chmn. Izant noted concern for the build-out potential in the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 Page 7 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Comm, Brown also expressed concern over the potential build-out in the C;J.ty .. CollDD.. Brown noted the differences in lot sizes in the R-2 zones. He noted concern over these differences, Ms. Sapetto stated that it would be possible to provide information on the different lot sizes in the R-2 zone. Camm. Brown felt that it is important to know what the impacts would be before any changes are made. He wanted to be certain that no irreparable damage will be done, Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission might want to take into consideration the issue of duplexes because of the requirements as they now stand. Comm. Brown basically likeJthe concept of 11 dwelling units per acre in an R-1 zone, He felt that in the other two categories, more information is necessary as to the potential impacts. He felt that it is necessary to obtain more ntm1bers before proceeding further. Comm. Shapiro felt that it would be more appropriate to leave it at 13, instead of the suggested 11, stating that 13 would be the maximum anyway. Chmn. Izant noted that he has two goals: to acheive consistency and to reduce the damage currently done by this plan .in allowing additional build-out of a minimuiµ of 600 units. He noted concern over giving something away by build-out development. Comm. Brown felt that it was necessary to obtain information on the average lot sizes in R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones, He again noted the differences in lot sizes throughout the City. He felt that by obtaining the lot sizes and how many of each lot size, the percentages would be more effectively calculated. He wanted to be certain that no one group would be precluded from building. Ms. Sapetto stated that lot sizes depend on the different areas of the City. She noted that the closer one gets to the beach, the smaller the lot sizes are. She questioned whether the information requested by Connn . .Brown would be helpful. What would be helpful, is knowing the typical lot size according to area and how many there are. Comm. Brown stated that he was looking for figures in regard to distribution. He wanted figures as far as the distribution on each side of the highway. Chmn. Izant noted concern over the issue of speculation in the high density areas, Ms. Sapetto stated that information would be obtainable for the R-2 and R-3 zones; figures for the R-1 zone was felt to be unnecessary. Chtnn. Izant noted that figures for east of the highway are not as necessary as for those west of the highway. He noted that the lots are larger on the east side of the highway. Chmn. Izant noted that in each of the commercial zones, C-1, C-2, and C-3, the height limitation is now 45 feet. He felt that it is necessary to have a specific height requirement for each of those zones. He felt that 45 feet for C-1 zones is generally inappropriate. He suggested a height restriction of 30 feet for the C-1 zones. He felt that 35 feet would be appropriate for the downtown C-2 zones. He suggested PLANNING COMMISSION .MINUTES -June 5, 1984 Page 8 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) a height restriction of 40 to 45 feet for the C-3 zones. Connn. Brown suggested saying that C-3 is 45 feet and the other commercial zones are 30 to 35 feet. He felt that the basic constraints are the lot sizes. He noted the deep importance of parking. Comm. Newton questioned whether the potential exists of developers purchasing contiguous lots to achieve parking requirements. Connn. Brown felt that this is not a problem. Ms. Sapetto stated that there are -3-,-other major land owners in the City who have conglomerated properties. She noted that Mr. Greenwald, who owns the Sea Sprite,· also mm s quit e a bit of property along the Strand and b ack fr om the Strand. His prope r t y is design a ted as C-2. She stated that the parc el con ta ining Taco Bill's is under sole owner ship, as is the parcel containin g the Merma i d. Chmn. Izant noted that he is happy with the idea of the hotel .. He felt that it will serve as an anchor for the downtown area. But he also saw an explosion of building happening in the area. He noted concern for 45 -foot s tr uctures i n th e ar e a. He noted that the tendency will become for develo p ers to seek v a r ian c e s and build to the maximum limits. He felt that it is necess a ry to t ake pr event i ve ac tion at this time. He felt that it is important to not h av e large mas si ve s tr u c tur e s in the downtown area. Ms. Sapetto suggested an alternative idea if the hotel project is approved. She strongly recommended that the Planning Commission recommend,. along with the adopt~on of the Land Use El eme nt, the a p proval of funding to adopt and develop a specific plan immediately. She no t ed that t h is could be done ·in conjunct ion with the approval of the hotel project. She felt tha t the issues need to be loo ke d at carefully in order to avoid closing off any alternative · options. Ms. Sapetto noted that with a specific plan, uses can be designated, and the degree of development can be designated. She felt that this approach would be a great tool in addressing the concerns of the Commission. Chmn. Izant accepted the proposal made by Ms, Sapetto. He noted concern over the potential growth explosion in the downtown area. Ms. Sapetto suggested that ~he Planning Conunission immediately request of the City ' Council funding to proceed with the specific plan. Comm. Brown questioned what steps would be necessary. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would like to carry this to the ordinance stage. She stated that she would like to commission PBR to work with the Planning Department in order to adopt a specific plan iri an ordinance stage. Conun. Brown asked how long it takes to prepare a specific plan. Mr. Castaneda replied that it would take several months. CollDil. Newton questioned how long it would take to obtain a moratorium. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 Page 9 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto replied that a moratorium is an emergency ordinance and can be enacted immediately, As an emergency, this always requires four votes. Comm. Newton asked how the hotel project is proceeding at the City Council level. Ms, Sapetto replied that the project is on the June 12 agenda, She further stated that the EIR has been certified. It is anticipated that they will take action on the specific plan at the June 12 meeting. The development agreement will be discussed further, as it is still in the draft state. She also noted that it is anticipated that one additional meeting will be held in June on the project. Final decision on the project is anticipated by July. Chmn. Izant questioned whether there would be any legal inconsistencies if the Planning Commission were to recommend a moratorium exempting the hotel project. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that the moratorium can contain definitions on what it is to include, She noted that projects that have already been approved can be exempted from the moratorium. Ms, Sapetto further suggested that a moratorium on building projects in the downtown area specifically state what projects so as not to preclude any remodels, Ms. Sapetto noted that the issue of height is very sensitive. She suggested that the Commission suggest a moratorium on downtown development until a specific plan can be adopted. She felt that this alternative would address the concern of the Planning Cononission, • Chmn, Izant noted that moratoriums are also a sensitive issue, He also felt that a specific plan would be more beneficial to the City than would just arbitrarily reducing the height. He -noted that he would be in favor of the development of a specific plan and a moratorium to go along with that, He noted that, for the benefit of those concerned with the concept of moratoriums, a time limit could be set on it. He noted that it is not necessary to have the moratorium have the same time limit as it would take to develop a specific plan, Ms. Sapetto noted that moratoriums can run only for one year ,After~the ·-fir::st _ l/.5 days, a 10 month extension must be made up until the final 9afi-year limit. Connn. Shapiro questioned the contents of a specific plan. Mr. Castaneda stated that one way to think of a specific plan is to think of it as a land use element for a specific area, It allows one to get into a broader range of issues. The specific plan can be adopted by ordinance, which has the same effect as zoning. Comm, Brown noted that he would favor the idea of a moratorium and the specific plan. He felt that community participation in this issue is essential. CoI!IIll, Shapiro felt that it is absolutely necessary to hold a public hearing specifically on the concept of a moratorium. He felt that the citizens should be informed on such matters, He also felt that the public should be able to give their input on the issues of height, Chmn, Izant noted that the City Council would advertise this issue as a public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 Page 10 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) CoDl!ll. Shapiro noted that without a public hearing specifically for the moratorium and height issues, he would be unable to support such an idea. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to establish a moratorium; it can only be recommended to the City Council. Comm. Shapiro strongly favored a public hearing on the issue of the moratorium and height before any further discussion or motions take place at the Planning Commission level. Public Hearing opened at 9:21 P.M. Mike Franzel!, 15 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, strongly favored a specific plan for the downtown area. He also concurred with Comm. Shapiro in that there should be a public nearing on the questions of a moratorium and height reduction. He noted that the specific plan 'Will take time, and that he would hate to see things just rushed through. Public Hearing closed 9:25 P.M. Chmn. Izant questioned whether there would be any legal problems with c~lling for a moratorium since this issue was advertised as a public hearing on the Land Use Element. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that a separate advertisement for this recommendation is unnecessary. Ms. Sapetto further stated that there is not a great sense of urgency at this time because the hotel project has not yet been approved. She felt that it is important to consider the timing of making the recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Sapetto felt that to ask for a moratorium at this time might have a negative affect on the hotel project. Cormn. Newton questioned whether there is anything to preclude the Commission from urging that the City Council fund the development of a specific plan. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. Chmn. Izant stated that he would support a recommendation to the City Council for funding for a specific plan. So as not to jeopardize the hotel project, he favored waiting until a more appropriate time to ask for a moratorium. Comm. Brown asked how long it takes to develop a specific plan. Mr. Castaneda felt that six months would be an entirely adequate time-frame, depending on how often the Commission 'Wished to meet. Ms. Sapetto replied that it would take a minimum of three to four months to develop a specific plan. Chmn. Izant suggested that staff give a progress report to the City Council along with the request that the Planning Connnission be given authorization to begin immediate pursuit of the development of a specific plan. PLANlITNG COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 Page 11 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Comms. Brown and Shapiro concurred with Crunn. Izant's recommendation, as did Conm. Newton, Recess from 9:30 P.M. to 9:35 P.M. AMENDING THE PARKING STANDARDS TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR COMPACT PARKING SPACES Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She noted that at the meeting of April 12, 1984, the Planning Connnission requested an answer to the following question regarding the proposed amendment in parking standards: What would amending the parking standards to include provisions for compact parking spaces mean in terms of potential build-out? Ms. Sapetto continued by saying that in some cas e the amendment could result in additional floor area, However, the specific amount is something that must be determined project by project; it cannot be reduced to citing a specific number for all cases. It would depend on lot size and configuration and the number of entrances to the parking lot, Also, since this amendment concerns only lot~of 20 stalls or more it will not affect a large number of projects, Ms. Sapetto stated that staff recommends that the resolution amending the parking standards to include provisions for compact parking spaces be adopted. She asked that the Commission review the PEIR, find that this project could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and asked that a negative declaration be prepared, Public Hearing opened at 9:40 P.M, There being no citizens who wished to testify on this issue, Crunn. Izant closed the Public Hearing at 9:41 P.M. Motion by Comm, Newton, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, that the environmental study is adequate and that a negative declaration be filed, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms, Brovm; Newton, Shapiro, Chlnn, Izant None Comm. Strohecker Motion by Connn. Newton, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to amend the parking standards to include compact parking spaces. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Bro'Wll, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant None Comm, Strohecker Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to adopt P.C. 84-16~ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms, Brown, Newton; Shapiro, Chmn. Izant None Conan. Strohecker REMOVAL OF 25 du/a LIMIT IN R-2 ZONES FOR CONDOMINIUM CONSTRUCTION Ms, Sapetto gave staff report. She noted that staff recommends that Section 9.5-22(2) be amended. This can be done by rescinding Ordinance No, 81-666. At the same time, a section needs to be added requiring that the minimum lot size for three units be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 Page 12 REMOVAL OF 25 du/a LIMIT IN R-2 ZONES FOR CONDOMINIUM CONSTRUCTION (Cont.) 4,275 square feet. She stated that Section 9.5-22(3), which deals with condominium development on R-3 lots, be left as it is. Ms. Sapetto stated that Section 9.5-22(2) of the Condominium Ordinance is, in part, inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The inconsistency comes from Ordinance No. 81-666, which reads: "The mnnber of units to be allowed in this zone shall be consistent with the General Plan and shall be compatible with residential uses in surrounding area; but in no case greater than 25 dwelling units per acre." Ms. Sapetto continued by stating that there are 57 R-2 and R-2B zoned lots which fall in the high density areas of the General Plan and are subject to Section 9.5-22(2) requirements and therein lies the inconsistency. These lots, under the General Plan, should be allowed a higher density than currently allowed by 9,5-22(2). Rescinding Ordinance 81-666 clearsthis inconsistency. Ms. Sapetto stated that if the section is added, the affected lots will be subject to the same requirements 'as R-3 and RP zoned lots, -"The minimum lot size for .three units in these zones shall be 4,275 square feet, The minimum lot width shall be thirty feet as measured at the front building setback line." Ms. Sapetto stated that it is staff's reconunendation that this alternative be adopted because it has a lesser impact than other alternatives. For example, to delete the 25 du/a for R-2 and R-2B lots and allow development of three or more units on lots of 3,500 square feet would allow more intensive development for R-2 lots than R-3 lots. Ms. Sapetto stated that to reduce the lot size required for the development of three units on R-3 lots would allow for a greater degree of development than is currently allowed. Ms. Sapetto stated that Section 9.5-22(3) should be left as it is. The requirement of 4,275 square feet results in 30 dwelling units per acre, The General Plan allows 26-40 dwelling units per acre for high density areas. This is not considered inconsistent with the General Plan because it confines development within the range of the General Plan designation. Ms. Sapetto stated that when these changes are made, the inconsistencies will no longer exist. This change is merely viewed as a housekeeping measure until that time when the general plan is changed. Connn. Newton felt that the language in the resolution is confusing. Comm. Brown also felt that the language is quite confusing. Ms. Sapetto suggested the following wording for the resolution: 2. Add: "The minimum lot size for three units in R-2 zones with a general plan designation of high density residential (25-40 du/a) shall be 4,275 square feet. The minimum lot width shall be thirty feet as measured at the front building setback line." Public Hearing opened at 9:53 P.M. There being no citizens who wished to testify on this issue, Chmn. Izant closed the Public Hearing at 9:53 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 Page 13 REMOVAL OF 25 du/a LIMIT IN R-2 ZONES FOR CONDOMINIUM CONSTRUCTION (Cont.) Motion by Co1ID11, Newton, seconded by Comm. Brown, to approve the initial study on the environmental impact and reconnnend that a negative declaration be filed. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant None Connn, Strohecker Motion by Connn. Shapiro, seconded by Comm, Newton, to delete Section 81-666 and to add Section 9.522(2) and to leave Section 9.5-22(3) as is, AYES: Comms, Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: CoIDin, Strohecker Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Connn. Newton, to adopt P.C. 84-17 as amended by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn, Izant None Comm. Strohecker STAFF ITEMS Ms. Sapetto stated that the Planning Commission had received notices of resignation from Comms, Soulakis and Smith, Ms. Sapetto stated that three of the Planning Connnission appointments are up for renewal and that the City Council will be looking at applications. Ms. Sapetto also noted that the Planning Commission could make recommendations to the City Council in regard to the number of Commissioners .on the Commission. Comm. Brown felt that five Commissioners is adequate. He noted a cost savings in having only five, as well as possibly shortening the meetings. C.omm. Newton also favored the idea of a five-member Commission. Comm. Shapiro favored the idea of a five-member Commission. Chmn. Izant liked the idea of a seven-member Commission, stating that seven members provides a greater diversity of input. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm, Shapiro, to recommend that 'the City Council consider reducing the number of Planning Commissioners from seven to five members, ColDIII, Brown noted the cost savings and time saving factors of reducing the Connnission. Comm. Shapiro noted that, outside of political considerations, he would concur that there is no obvious reason for not reducing the number of members from seven to f:i.ve, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Connns. Brown, Newton, Shapiro Chmn. Izant Comm. Strohecker PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 5, 1984 STAFF ITEMS (Cont.) Page 14 Ms. Sapetto gave an update on the satell ite antenna at Cri tter's, stating that at the regu lar meetin g of April 3, 1984, the Planning Comm ission questioned why the ,satellite antenna wa s not scr een ed from view 'With a fe nce . Ms. Sa petto stated that Cri tt e r's d oe s in f act have a permit f or an antenna; and, the pe rmit does call for scr eening a round the a ntenna. The last ins p ection of th e site was March 8, 1.984. At t hat t ime it wa s ind icated tha t Cri t t er 's mu s t prov ide the required s c re e ning around the antenna. The Building and Saf e ty Depar t ment sa id th at it will c ommunic ate to Critter's the import ance and urgency o f pr oviding t he screen ing. Ms. Sapetto gave an update on the meeting of the School Board. Ms. Sapetto noted that a budget workshop will be held on July 1 at 7:30 P.M. Ms. Sape t to noted that the City Council has appointed a subcommittee on planning. The subcommittee consists of John Cioffi and Tony DeBellis. They have indicated that they would like to be active with the Planning Commission. Chmn. Izant suggested adding a specific plan for downtown to the priority list. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm. Newton requested that the Planning Department check on a building in the 1400 block of Manhattan Avenue. She noted that there is a satellite antenna on top of / a three-story building. The antenna is not screened. Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Brown, to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes "the action taken by the Planning Commiss ' scheduled meet in of June 5, 1984. Date / / and complete record of their regularly