Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1973_05_29MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, HERMOSA BEACH ON TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1973, 7 :30 Po Mo Meeting was called to order at 7 :30 p. m. by Chairman Noble. He announced the resig- nations of David Lagan and Charles H. Toole from the Planning Commissiono Comm. Watters announced his intention to resign, also, based on the same reasons as Commissioners Lagan and Toole. Comm. Watters left the meeting at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Comm. Collis, Mulfinger, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble. Comm. Watters APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Mulfinger, second by Comm. Collis, to approve the minutes of the May 14, 1973 meeting as submitted. Ayes: Comm. Mulfinger, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Abstain: Comm. Collis Absent: Comm. Watters RESOLUTION NO. P. C. 154-880 Motion by Comm. Mulfinger, second by Comm. Rosenberger, to approve Resolution P. c. 154-880 as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Collis, Mulfinger, Rosenberger, and Chairman Noble None Comm. Watters RESOLUTION NO. P. C. 154-881 Motion by Comm. Collis, second by Commo Mulfinger, to approve Resolution P. C., 154-881 as submitted. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Mulfinger, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm. Watters RESOLUTION NO. P. C. 154-882 Comm. Rosenberger questioned whether the City could require the Park and Recreation Facilities Tax of $200. oo. He felt this should be clarified by a statement from the City Attorney. Motion by Comm. Collis, second by Comm. Mulfinger, to approve Resolution P. c. 154-882 as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Collis, Mulfinger • Rosenberger and Chairman Noble None Comm. Watters -1-P. c. Minutes 5/29/73 RESOLUTION NOo Po c. 154-883 Commo Rosenberger questioned whether the dedication often feet on 16th Street would be enough to meet the demands of a collector street.. City Planner Crawford explained that 16th Street was shown as an arterial street but was deleted from the General Plan in concept and the proposed revised circulation element no longer shows it as an arterialo He said a collector street is defined as a two lane street with parking on both sides and normally has 601 right of way. He said the Commission had recommended that the re- quired dedication should be 10' as one half of a 60 1 right of way rather than ah 801 right of way. Motion by Comm. as submitted. Collis, second by Comm. Mulfinger, to approve Resolution P0 c. 154-883 Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Collis, Mulfinger, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble None Comm. Watters GENERAL PLAN -PIER A VENUE REDESIGN City Planner Crawford said that the Commission had earlier received a report from the Chamber of Commerce and now had a brief report from the City Engineer stating that the merchants on Pier Avenue were in favor of the proposed project.. Comm. Rosenberger said he did not see the name of Gil Warshaw listed among those in- terviewed or approving the project, and Mr. Taylor replied that he had been contacted and had agreed, and that it was an oversight that his name was not listed. City Engineer Taylor explained the proposed project, saying that some type of modification and landscaping plan from Hermosa A venue to Pacific Coast Highway was budgeted, but be- cause of various circumstances, especially the problem intersection with the railroad tracks at Valley and Ardmore, the decision had been made to move the easterly limits of the project to Bard Street. He described the plan, explaining that there would be no loss of parking spaces, and pointing out the areas that could be landscaped. He said that the plan would improve turning radius and also provide areas for beautification. He suggested some street trees between planters. Comm. Rosenberger wished to know why one merchant had objected, and Mr. Taylor re- plied that the merchant was located on Hermosa Avenue and felt that there was already enough landscaping, but actually was not that vehement in his objections. Comm. Collis questioned the crossing design at Manhattan A venue and asked why left- hand turns were to be allowed? Mr. Taylor said the decision had been made in response to the responses of the people in that area.. Commo Collis said it would be helpful if the Commission could review the police report stating the number of accidents at that inter- section. Chairman Noble added that such had been received, and there followed a discussion be- tween the Commissioners and Mr .. Taylor exploring the best ways that safety could be achieved. -2-PC Minutes 5/29/73 Mrs. Maggie Ruiz, Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, said that the Chamber was in favor of the beautification plan as presented, but did not want a median or reduced parking, and had not been aware that some of the areas may not be planted. Mr. Taylor assured her that the intent was t.o landscape all of them, but in some cases, it may be impractical. Motion by Chairman Noble, seconded by Comm. Collis t.o recommend t.o the City Council the Pier A venue redesign plan presented by the City Engineer and approved by the merchants with special emphasis of safety at Manhattan and Pier Avenue. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Mulfinger, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm. Watters Comm. Rosenberger asked if the staff would look into the parking between Manhattan and Hermosa A venue and City Engineer Taylor agreed. REVISIONS TO cmcuLA TION ELEMENT City Planner Crawford said the Commissioners had in their agenda material a map which was suggested as a basic revision t.o the General Plan map affecting circulation, and the proposed textual amendment. He said the resolution as presented was not ready for adop- tion because the Commission had not held a public hearing on this particular matter, but he would like comments from the Commissioners before the public hearing was held. Comm. Rosenberger said he had heard that the Valley-Gould intersection would be handled by the County or State, and Mr. Crawford said that the City was negotiating with the County. Comm. Rosenberger said he would like to discuss the collector streets, specifically Ard- more north-south section. He said he saw in the General Plan that Ardmore is designated as a collector street, and since Valley has been widened, he wondered if it might not be too expensive and that they should consider the alternative of Valley at least in the northern and southern sections of town. City Planner Crawford said this had been discussed in the past, and Ardmore had been chosen over Valley as a collector street because it is the street that intersects the cross streets that intersect Pacific Coast Highway and therefore would provide rotary traffic circulation with Pacific Coast Highway. He added that Valley runs past three of the schools and the Civic Center and the major park site in the city and it has been the Com- mission's design in the past to provide less -through traffic past those sites and more local access to 1hemo Motion by Comm. Collis, second by Comm. Rosenberger I to recommend that the Commission continue t.o study 1he circulation element and schedule a public hearing for their next regu- larly scheduled meeting if this is feasible within the time limits required. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Mulfinger, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm. Watters -3-PC Minutes 5/29/73 PRELIM.INARY LAND USE REVJSIONS City Planner Crawford said that the revisions were not available for this meeting. RECESS: 8:22 p. m. Chairman Noble reconvened the meeting at 8:34 p. m. and said he regretted that Comm. Mulfi.nger had resigned during the recess. NOTE: On June 1, 1973 City Att.orney Mirassou ruled that the meeting no longer had a quorum past this point and all items were automatically continued to next regular meeting. Following is informational onlyo ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS CONTINUED FROM APRIL 23, 1973 MEETING City Planner Crawford said that the Planning Commission had continued these amendments in order t.o get more data on how many apartment has been built within the last fifteen years to get a clearer picture, but th~t the staff had been unable t.o assemble all of the data as yet. Discussion followed concerning height limitations. Motion by Comm. Collis, second by Comm. Rosenberger t.o continue these amendments until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Ab sent: Comm. Watters Chairman Noble introduced the Mayor who stated that as Mayor he was appointing himself, with the approval of the City Council, t.o a temporary position on the Planning Commission to assure a quorum for proper transaction of business. C-73-7 Request of Vern Maynard for a revision t.o Conditional Use Permit granted October 26, 1972 for a car wash at 1000 Pacific Coast Highway, and review of Environmental hnpact Report. City Planner Crawford said that the Planning Commission had previously approved a manual car wash with a very small automatic car wash attachment at the same location, but the pro- ject was never carried out. The applicant was now proposing a completely automatic car wash with the same general alignment, but the gasoline facility would be located as four islands containing dual pumps. Mr. Crawford explained the circulation of cars in and out of the property, and added that landscaping was proposed along Aviation. He made sug- gestions including more landscaping, and the provision that no parking should be allowed on Aviation in front of the property. -4-PC Minutes 5/29/73 Public hearing opened: 8:52 p. m. Mr. Vern Maynard, said that the subject had been covered quite well by the staff and he had read the recommendations of the city staff and agreed with them. In answer to a question from Chairman Noble concerning self-service car washing, Mr. Maynard said that although the business would remain open twenty-four hours a day, the car wash would not operate any later than 10:00 p. m., would be self-service from 5:00 to 10:00 p. m., and full service during the day. Further discussion brought out that the oper- ation was fully enclosed, that there would be an 8' concrete block wall in back of the building, and the noise would be well contained. No one wished to speak in opposition. Public hearing closed: 8:59 p. m. Comm. Rosenberger asked the speed limit along that strip of Aviation and whether it was a problem enforcing it? City Planner Crawford said it was 25 m. p. h. and it was difficult to enforce it, but he didn't feel many people exceeded it at that point. Comm. Rosenberger was worried about cars coming around there at a good pace and whether a patron of the car wash would have to accelerate t.o leave the premises. Mr. Crawford said that it would always be difficult to make a left turn to leave the property, and he felt removing the parked cars would help. Comm. Rosenberger compared the situation to Pup 1n Taco, asking if accidents had occurred there, and Mr. Crawford said they had not. Comm. Collis said that the area was highly commercialized and he would like to see a commercial building that would lend more prestige at a city entrance, however, he added -that this type of use is a holding use until a higher and better use can be established and that access to a highly traveled -thoroughfare is not unusual for car washes. He said he would be in favor of tile use with certain conditions, among them a review in -three months from date of opening. Comm. Rosenberger brought up several considerations listed in tile Environmental Impact Report concerning drainage, the sewer system and tile noise factor and was assured that tile water would be recycled, but even if it were not, the sewer system was adequate as the line had recently been replaced, 1hat surface drainage would be conducted to the storm drain, and 1hat there would be a minimum of noise going out into 10th Street. He also asked for a report from the Planning Director regarding traffic safety on ingress and egress from tile property. Motion by Comm. Collis, second by Comm. Doerfling, t.o approve tile Conditional Use Permit granting the request of Vern Maynard for a revision to Conditional Use Permit granted October 26, 1971 for a car wash at 1000 Pacific Coast Highway wifu tile following conditions: -5-PC Minutes 5/29/73 lo Physical changes as shown on "Exhibit A": a. No vehicular access to 10th Street; b. Provide signs labelling driveway "Entrance Only" and "Exit Only"; c. Provide underground drainage of surface waters to storm drain system; d. Remove all existing structures; e. All electrical service to be underground. 2. Landscaping as shown on "Exhibit A": a. Provide a planter, minimum 3 feet wide, adjacent to Aviation Blvd., with per- manent irrigation, and planted with Veronica Desilor or equal, 1 gal. size, planted 3 feet on center. . b. Provide a planter area adjacent to building on 10th Street side approximately 3 feet wide, with permanent irrigation and planted with a minimum of 4 Eucalyptus Polyanthemos and 10 Dodonea Viscosa Purpurea or equal, in 5 gal. size; c. Landscaping of sign areas to discretion of applicants; d. Replace two street trees on Aviation Blvd. per previous agreement between City and owner of property. 3. Operational conditions: a. Hours of operation: 24 hours, subject to favorable report from Police Department. Car wash to close at 10:00 p. m.; b. Attendant on duty at all times business is open. c. Locat,ion, type and orientation of lights to be separately approved by Planning Director; d. No loudspeakers or amplified bells. 4. Design and colors of signs, buildings and landscaping to be submitted for approval by hnprovement Commission prior to issuance of building permit. 5. That Permit be for a period of three (3) months from time of opening or six months from date of permit and subject to review at that time, when hours of operation, lighting and operational procedures may be revised. Ayes: Noes: Comm. Collis, Doerfling1 Rosenberger and Chairman Noble None Absent: Comm. Watters RESOLUTION P. C. 154-884 Motion by Comm,. Collis, second by Mr,. Doerfling, that the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach, after public testimony, determined that granting the request of Vern Maynard for a revision to Conditional Use Permit granted October 26, 1971 for a car wash at 1000 Pacific Coast Highway with conditions as listed above would not be in vio- lation of the zoning permitted within this area and would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding property with conditions for approval as noted in recommendations of the staff as modified regarding hours of operation and time for review. Ayes: Comm,. Collis, Doerfling1 Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm. Watters -6-PC Minutes 5/29/73 DETERMINATION OF LEGAL USE Request of Mr. L. Harris that converted garage at 621 Manhattan Avenue be accepted as legally permitted use. City Planner Crawford explained that the City Council had directed the Planning Com- mission to review possible illegal conversions of buildings and under the rules set by the City Council, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, take testimony and make a preliminary finding, after which it would refer the matter to the City Attorney for review. After the City Attorney's review, it will again come before the Planning Com- mission for final determination as to whether or not there is a violation of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Crawford reviewed the report of Senior Building Inspector, Cecil Wade, which said that some ti.me between 1938 and 1957 a two-car garage of a single family dwelling was converted to become a duplex. No evidence exists in city records or from the County Assessors Office as to when this occurred. He said that the property was now in escrow for sale, and the city in reviewing the property in the past had required the applicant to remove the driveway and put in a standard curb in front of the building, as the Building Department had made the determination that the conversion was made at a time when it was not illegal to make it. He felt that the Planning Commission had several courses of action: (1) to declare illegal use and order City Attorney to prosecute, (2) to declare legally non- conforming, and (3) to declare that vested right has been gained by past actions of the city, and that therefore a right to continue the present use exists, but no expansion may be made and any future construction shall conform to then current building and zoning regulations. Public hearing opened: 9:20 p. m. Mrs. Leroy Harris, 6255 Marina View Drive, Long Beach, explained that in 1963 she made an exchange of property for the subject duplex. She said that the building had been listed with the Board of Realtors as a duplex and the owner was a real estate broker, and Great Western had lent money on the basis of its being a duplex. She said because it was now in escrow I a Report of Residential Building Record had been required and that until then she had not known that it was an illegal duplex. She said that in 1970 Mr. Trott of the Building Department had advised her to put in a sidewalk as people were parking on the driveway, and that then it would become a legal duplex. Through questioning by the Commissioners it was revealed there was only one meter for each utility, that the zoning when Mrs. Harris had purchased the property had been R-3, parking had been 1:1. Comm. Rosenberger asked whether this case would fall into the category designated as bootleg in the new ordinance passed by the City Council, and if so, what the procedure would be to handle it? City Planner Crawford said the City Prosecutor would be instructed to carry the matter to court to obtain a writ to convert back to a single family dwelling, however, the burden of proof would be on the city and not on the property owner to demonstrate that the conversion was made when it was illegal to do so. -7-PC Minutes 5/29/7 3 Mrs. Harris said that two real estate brokers had handled the exchange for her, and she would not knowingly have give up a triplex if she had not thought the building was a duplex. Mr. Harris said that Mr. Trott had informed them that it would be a duplex when the sidewalk was put in. Discussion by the Commissioners in which Commo Rosenberger said he thought it was a case of double jeopardy wherein the city had approved by the city demanding the side- walk replacement and the owners had made the requirements that the city had asked of them. Comm. Collis said he didn •t feel 1hat an employee of the city could made such a deter- minationo City Planner Crawford felt that the Building Director would have such authority. Comm. Collis asked that an opinion should be obtained from Mro Trott as to any statements of declaration that he made to the applicant. Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, second by Commo Collis, to hold over until the City Attorney has reviewed the matter before the Planning Commission will make any formal recommendations. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm. Watters CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION CONVERSIONS City Planner Crawford said that the Planning Commission had considered three condo- minium conversions in the last months and forwarded them to the City Council. He said that the City Council at its last meeting introduced an ordinance to require all condo- minium conversions to meet the current building 'and zoning requirements, and they will adopt this ordinance at their next meeting. They had imposed a moratorium of ninety days on the consideration of any conversions until the new ordinance can be enacted 1hat will more completely meet the needs of the city. He said there were two ordinances that were coming up for adoption, and an ordinance has also been enacted which states that apartment condominiums are a planned development in the R-3 zone, and condo- miniums are not mentioned anywhere else in the ordinance. He continued that the City Attorney has not determined how to interpret the status of the ordinances, but seemed to feel that any apartment building begun after the Planned Development Ordinance was adopted could not be converted unless it met the requirements of that ordinance. He added that the Planning Commission, in considering subdivisions of all kinds, must consider the relationship to the site. He concluded that he was undecided as to what to recommend to the Planning Commission, because although they had the right to consider these subdivisions as tentative maps and look at whether 1hey should be approved, the final action was in the hands of the City Council. He said legally they had forty days to make a decision before it would automatically go to the City Council, in view of the resignations and lack of sub-committees to consider the matter, it might be well to wait until City Council action before acting themselves. -8-PC Minutes 5/29/7 3. Comm. Rosenberger asked if the Planning Commission continued the public hearings and in the meantime an ordinance was enacted by the City Council, would that ordinance affect these condominiums? City Planner Crawford said it could if the Council enacted the ordinance relating to having to meet the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission would have to see the map is not in violation of the zoning ordinance, but the City Attorney may say that the applicants have obtained a vested right to a subdivision.. Request of Jo F. Wilson to create a nine unit condominium at 404 Hermosa Avenue. Public hearing opened: 10 :06 p. m. City Planner Crawford reviewed his analysis of the request, saying there was no require- ment for an Environmental Impact Report for condominium conversions0 Mr. Gordon Phillips, 840 Union Bank Building, Torrance, said he was the attorney repre- senting Mr. Wilson, and would like to clarify the problems of condominiums. He said the first step was the tentative tract map, followed by the subdivision map, approval by division of Division of Real Estate, and the fact that you do not have a condominium until the first sale, but just a subdivision.. He said normally most developers who do have condominiums make all their conveyances at the same time. He agreed another problems was management and control. He wondered if the city had any particular authority to regulate the problem at this time, because Senate Bill 514 by Senator Grunsky proposed to give cities this power to regulate conversions. He felt that owner occupancy would be more preferable, but an examination should be made because there were multiple interests that were closely attached to these conversions. He said he had made a unit count of the requests that were before the Commission and there were two hundred units altogethera He felt that sometimes there was a tendency to put the cart before the horse, and since there was time to draw the ordinance, he would hope that they would not be continued again. He thought that the only conditions which could be imposed were those relating to streets and drainage, and that they were en- titled to some decision within the statutory time allowed. Discussion followed concerning the c. c. & R. 's and the method proposed for alloting parking spaces. Public hearing closed: 10:26 p. m. Comm0 Rosenberger commented that the situation was too nebulous at this point to make a decision. Motion by Comm. Collis, second by Mr. Doerfling, to continue the request of Jo F o Wilson to create a nine unit condominium at 404 Hermosa Avenue until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Doerfling, Rosenberger, and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm,. Watters Request of Don Haggerty to create a twenty-seven unit condominium at 15-15th Street. Public hearing opened: 10:28 p .. m. -9-PC Minutes 5/2 9/7 3 City Planner Crawford said this was a long established apartment house and 1hat the Planning Commission had approved a variance in 1968 to construct the 27 units with forty-one off-street parking spaces. Mr. Don Haggarty, applicant, said the previous lawyer had covered most of his feelings and that a continuance would not be in his best interest. He felt home ownership was desirable, and that people could purchase a condominium more easily than they could a single-family dwelling. Mr. Doerfling asked what kind of management was being proposed in the c. c. & R. 1s and Mr. Haggarty said there would be a resident manager, al1hough it could be modified by the owners of the property, and 1he Planning Commission can impose conditions on them. He added that the State of California had said that apartments built in the last five years could be converted. Comm. Collis asked if Coastline Commission approval was necessary? City Planner Crawford said that the City Attorney felt that it will have to go before the Coastline Com- mission because it is a subdivision, and in this respect Environmental Impact Reports will be required, but will be accepted only from the city. Mr. Steve Selby, realtor, said he would like to support the conversions because he felt a lot of people would like to buy and live in Hermosa Beach but prices were too high. Comm. Rosenberger asked why the condominium at 2nd Street had a unit for sale already and was told that the unit was bought by a realtor for speculation, and in a second case the owner was transfered. Public hearing closed: 10:44 p. m. Motion by Comm. Collis, second by Mr. Doerfling, to continue the request of Don Haggerty to create a twenty-seven unit condominium at 15-15th Street until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Doerfling, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm. Watters Request of Ardmore Development Company to create a seventy-one unit condominium at 1720 Ardmore Avenue. City Planner Crawford said that this was a similar request to previous one. Public hearing opened: 10:46 p. m. Mr. Morgan Ralls, 455-29th Street, said he represented the Ardmore Development Co., and asked what the objection was to a condominium conversion, other than parking, because he felt that preventing a condominium conversion will not affect existing problems--the apartment will continue to exist. He said his clients were attempting to lease the railroad right of way in an effort to provide more parking, and he thought that owner-occupied units -10-PC Minutes 5/29/73 would reduce density, rather than the present multiple occupancyo He listed five adv.an- tages of the conversion; (1) greater interest of homeowner, (2) stable population, (3) pride in ownership, (4) criteria for Co c. & R's would control management, and (5) re- duction of density. In answer to a question from Comm. Rosenberger, Mr. Ralls said the parking would be assigned on the basis of the number of bedrooms, with visitor areas allotted on a first come first serve basis. Mr. Don Haggerty requested the Planning Commission to carry over consideration of the condominiwn conversions to the next meeting t.o permit the City Att.orney t.o sit in so he could answer questions. Public hearing closed: 10:55 p. m. Motion by Comm. Collis, second by Mr. Doer.fling to continue the hearing at the request of Ardmore Development Company t.o create a seventy-one unit condominiwn of 1720 Ardmore until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Doerfling, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: None Request of Don Haggerty to create a sixty-four unit condominium of 2411 Prospect Avenue .. Public hearing opened: 10:56 p. m. No one wished to speak for or against. Public hearing closed: 10:57 p. m. Motion by Comm. Collis, second by Mr. Doerfling to continue the hearing at the request of Don Haggerty t.o create a sixty-four unit condominium of 2411 Prospect Avenue until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Doerfling, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm. Watters Request of Robert Fender t.o create a ten unit condominiwn of 600 Monterey Avenue. Mr. William Ross asked that this request be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, second by Comm. Collis t.o continue the request of Robert Fender t.o create a ten unit condominiwn of 600 Monterey A venue until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Doerfling, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm. Watters -11-PC Minutes 5/29/73 Chairman Noble commented on Mr. Haggerty•s point that it would be well to have legal advice on these matters and that the Planning Commission would like to request the City Council that the City Attorney attend the Planning Commission meeting the second Mon- day in June. Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, second by Comm. Collis to withdraw his motion for a continuance and proceed to conduct the public hearing at this meeting. Public hearing opened: 10:58 p. m. Mr. William Ross said that in October, 1972 he had met with Mr. Crawford, Mr. Mirassou and Mr. Trott on his application to study the problems and clear away the uncertainty that exists with respect to condominiums. He said he was in full accord with Mr. Haggerty1s suggestion, and Mr. Crawford hasn't had time to give the matter his full attention. He said that although some applicants wanted to have the matter tested in the courts, he did not intend to do that, even though the applicants are entitled to some decision. He felt the parking division was not a legal question. Public hearing closed: 11:03 p. m. Comm. Collis said that two things came to his mind: he didn't think the condominium was the salvation of all the problems in the city, and the 11/2:1 parking was certainly one of the issues; and the real concept is the marketing of these units. He said he was familiar with several projects of ten years ago that were marketed for a young family group with no provisions for family orientation, which later became a tenement slum. He said the Planning Commission would have to determine what the needs of 1he people were that they were trying to service, and the desirability of 1hese units may not be what a home owner really wants, having been designed as rental units. He added that he was reluctant to make a carte blanc decision. Motion by Mr. Dperfl.ing, second by Comm. Ros,enberger, to continue this request until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Doerfling, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm. Watters REQUEST OF DUAINE BRICKER FOR A DENSITY OF 935. 5 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT City Planner Crawford said that under provisions of 608 of 1he Zoning Ordinance, 950 square feet are required per unit. He said in the proposal the decks are not large enough to be counted as open space and 1he parking arrangement requires paving the back yard. He said the applicant wished ten units which was above maximum density allowed in the ordinance. He said that the Planning Commission must determine whether the proposal was of sufficient quality to justify higher density. Mr. Duaine Bricker said the big question was on the square footage for underground parking, as it would cost $10,000 to $12, 000 more for the subterranean parking and pro- blems come when the costs gets to a certain point that loans are hard to get. -12-P. C., Minutes 5/29/7 3 Chairman Noble asked why he was asking for 935. 5 square feet? Mr. Bricker said that after he had been through plan check the parking requirements changed to 2 :1, and the square footage from 700 square feet to 950 square feet. He wanted to know if this was going to be a detrimental building if he had ten units as he did have 2 :1 parking and open space. Chairman Noble stated the problem as whether the Commission wanted to lower the stan- dards for the benefit of the developer and allow ten units without requesting subterranean parking. Comm. Collis said that based on what had been presented, he would not vote in favor of it, and asked for a plan of how the apartments are related to the lot, and a discussion followed concerning nine units versus ten. Mr. Bricker asked that the request be continued. Motion by Mr. Doerfling, second by Comm. Rosenberger, to continue the request of Duaine Bricker to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Doerfling, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm. Watters SCHLUMPFELDERS -REVIEW OF C-70-11 Conditional Use Permit for entertainment and dancing, subject to review should ABC license be transferred. City Planner Crawford said that when this Conditional Use Permit was granted in 1970 it was with the stipulation that should the alcoholic beverage license change hands then 1he Conditional Use Permit would be subject to review, condition #5 of P. c. 154-784. He said at that time no exterior signs advertising entertainment and dancing were approved. However, they had had paper signs on the exterior of the building from time to time. Mr. Crawford acquainted the new owner with the uses permitted. Mr. Jack Martinez, former owner, introduced Mr. Pete Bellini the new owner, and said that formerly 1here were three owners and it had been under absentee management for some time. He said that Mr. Benini was very experienced and had also purchased Pier 52 at the beginning of the year. He explained in regard to the marquee that a sign had been ordered, but when it arrived it was a foot too long and was rejected, but in the meantime the entertainer brought a great big banner. Motion by Mr. Doerfling, second by Comm. Collis to approve transfer of the Conditional Use Permit with the same conditions as were granted in C-70-11. Ayes: Comm. Collis, Doerfling, Rosenberger and Chairman Noble Noes: None Absent: Comm. Watters -13-PC Minutes 5/29/7 3 Motion by Comm. Rosenberger, second by Mr. Doerfl.:ing, to continue 1he re.main:ing items on the agenda to the next regularly scheduled meeting. So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: 12:04 p. m. to a special meeting on June 71 1973 at 7:30 p. m. CERTIFICATION I o:ing m:inutes were -~ e Planning Commission at a regular mee e 111 1973. -14-PC Minutes 5/29/73