Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1982-01-20 ." ",' .' MINUTES OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION OF JANUARY 20, 1982 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SEAL BEACH MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1982 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN COVINGTON AT 7:30 P.M. AND THE PLEDGE TO THE FLAG WAS LED BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GILKERSON PRESENT:' Commissioners Jessner, Gilkerson, Leibert, Goldenberg and Chairman Covinaton STAFF: Director Danielson The minutes of December 16, 1982 meeti ng were approved as amended by Commissioner Jessner to reflect on page 3, 'paragraph 2 under "Subjects Commissioners May Wish to Discuss" that 'the sentence should end by addi ng... "or down dependi ng on some certai n criteri a." The Director of Planning gave a report on Planning items heard by the City Council at their meeting of January 11, 1982. Items included the second reading for the sign definition; the first reading of the Commercial/Park (C/P) zone and consideration of the Vacant Land Limitations, which was referred back to the Planning Commission to consider provisions for con- struction activity on vacant developing parcels. tIr~ The Director further reported that the City Council meeting of January 25, 1982, would include Planning items of the second reading of the Commercia1/ Park (C/P) Zone and seeking approval of a $10,000 contract with BCL Associates for the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. The Director gave a brief description of a proposed Commissioner handbook. The general opinion of the Commissioners was one of acceptance and need. Discussion item (a) was in regard to Zoning Terminology in residential designations. Commissioner Gilkerson's interest in this,item was expressed by indicating that purchasers of property within the City of Seal Beach are misled by the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning designations as there are any number of R-2 and R-3 parcels in the City that do not allow two and three units on the parcel due to inadequate size. Commissioner Jessner indicated that most cities utilize the R-1, R-2 and R-3 designations with a large number utilizing the density figure after the zone, i.e., R-1-10,000, or R.2(2), meaning that in the R-1 zone, a parcel of a minimum of 10,000 square feet in area is required to place a single-family dwelling unit on the one recorded parcel. In the R.2 designation, the (2) indicates that 2,000 square feet of parcel area is required for each dwelling unit placed on a recorded parcel. Under the circumstances, consolidation of lots that are too small would be necessary to accommodate the necessary num- ber of units with required off-street parking, etc. .; Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 1982 1It~' Page 2 e::-: .~ Commissioner Goldenberg indicated that these zoning problems were the responsibility of the Planning Commission and research should be conducted into viable solutions and reported back to the Commission. Commissioner Gilkerson indicated that a designation of LD, MD'and HDwou1d satisfy the requirement for zoning designations by not misleading a developer with'designated numbers of 1,2 or 3. The Director expressed a concern about the General Plan designation of low, medium and high density and the confusion that might ensue if used for both zoning and General Plan and further wondered if the proposed designations would be definitive enough in a legal sense. Item (b) in regard to fractional density allowances, brought about a dis- cussion regarding staff researching into the problem as to what other jurisdictions are doing and bringing back a report to the Commission with several alternatives. Chairman Covington suggested a list with the advan- tages and disadvantages with regard to how the public sees it and how staff sees the problem. Commissioner Jessner suggested that perhaps some of the surrounding cities had just such a system and it would be profitable to know how they handle the problem. Some suggestions were to allow up or down on the extra unit of density based on a rounding off, if .5 or more, an extra unit would be allowed, if less than .5, an extra unit would not be allowed. (This would then present a case for lot consolidation.) Extra density could be allowed if all other zoning requirements were met such as parking 'and open space. Commissioner Gilkerson indicated that the main problem is parking and curb cuts. Further discussion ensued in regard to Long Beach who is increasing density on a piece meal basis. The Director expressed the thought that perhaps this problem could be studied as a part of the new Housing Element in that it could be related to providing an additional increment to the , I housing needs of the City. Item (c) in regard to density bonus for affordable housing, brought about the discussion and definition of affordable housing. Commissioner Liebert requested that the State legislation dealing with housing be transmitted to the Commission for their perusal. Commissioner Jessner expressed concern about the control of extra or bonus units, rents or sales. The affordable housing of the Hellman tract was discussed in that control mechanisms would be hard to be formulated for the proposa 1 . The Di rector reported on Bi 11 1160 in regard to "mother-i n-1 aw" uni ts and their pOSSible control for affordable housing. It was indicated that support data could be forthcoming from SCAG, the City's COG. Item (d) on compact car parking brought about a short discussion in terms of its usefulness in commercial and industrial developments. It was suggested that a 20% reduction in large enough projects be allowed through . . . , Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 1982 Page 3 the ordinance with a 5% additional allowance if other amenities are offered in exchange for the privilege. At the current time, it was not felt feasible to include this concept in residential cases. The Director gave a short report on budget for the Planning Commission and remarked that proper changes would be made to see that sufficient funds would be available for meeting for the remainder of the fiscal year. Chairman Covington 'stated that regular meetings would be necessary in light of the upcoming processing of the large and important Hellman tract. The Chairman asked if the audience (Mr. Stewart) wished to address the Commission on any matter and in reply, Mr. Stewart indicated that he had attended to observe only as he just recently purchased the lease on the old Sunflower restaurant and had plans for opening a new business on that premises. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.