Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1992-02-19 2-10-92/2-19-92 until Wednesday, February 19th at 7:00 p.m. to meet in a joint workshop session with the Planning Commission AYES: NOES: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo, Wilson None Motion carried Attest: I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting at 8:59 p.m. lerk and ex-off c of Seal Beach of the Approved: Seal Beach, California February 19, 1992 I The City Council of the city of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session with the Planning Commission at 7:10 p.m. for a joint study session with regard to additions and remodel of nonconforming residential structures. Mayor Laszlo called the joint session to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Laszlo Councilmembers Doane, Forsythe, Hastings Chairman Fife Commissioners Dahlman, Law, Orsini Absent: Councilmember wilson-Sharp and Commissioner Sharp Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to excuse the absence of Councilmember Wilson-Sharp from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None wilson-Sharp Motion carried I Dahlman moved, second by Fife, to excuse the absence of Commissioner Sharp from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Dahlman, Fife, Law, Orsini None Sharp Motion carried Also present: Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Curtis, Administrative Assistant Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk 2-19-92 I The Director of Development Services stated the purpose of the workshop session was to discuss the issue of nonconforming residential structures based upon previous discussions at the Planning commission level, to receive comments from the public with regard to the proposals that have been prepared thus far, provide direction to staff regarding the proposals, thereafter public hearings will be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the expansion of nonconforming uses as deemed appropriate. He noted that the information packet provided a general summary of actions taken by the Commission from November, 1990 to the present, staff reports and minutes of those meetings. - The Director explained that the'Code currently allows an expansion of nonconforming residential structures up to ten percent of the allowable floor area through the Minor Plan Review process, the floor area based upon the size of the lot, as an example in Old Town an expansion could range up to one thousand square feet of additional living area under the ten percent criteria, noted that a Minor Plan Review is a hearing before the Commission, not a public hearing, with notification to persons within one hundred feet of the subject property. He pointed out that although a request under the Minor Plan Review process is reviewed for compliance with Code, the Commission has less discretion than it does under the Conditional Use Permit process. He explained that expansions of greater than ten percent require a Conditional Use Permit with notification to persons within three hundred feet of the subject property, under that process there is provision for findings and provides the Commission discretion to approve or deny the request. He mentioned that this issue has resurfaced basically as a result of two large expansions to multi- family apartment structures proposed in 1990. The Director said the provisions of the two proposals are the result of areas of concern expressed at Commission hearings, both proposals would continue to allow the existing provisions of the Code for those types of improvements that can be made to a nonconforming structure without any review by the Planning Commission, maintenance items, windows, doors, etc., the proposals settirig forth different criteria for single family and duplex properties as opposed to triplex units and larger. Single family and duplex properties would be allowed to expand up to the ten percent if they are not nonconforming due to parking, to increase the living area for properties with three units or more there would be a requirement to provide one off-street parking space for each unit. He explained the major difference between the two proposals is that Proposal A would allow up to a four hundred square foot addition through the Minor Plan Review process, anything larger would fall under the Conditional Use Permit process, Proposal B would allow one hundred square feet of additional living space per unit up to three hundred square feet total through the Minor Plan Review, anything larger would require a Conditional Use Permit. He noted under the Minor Plan Review there is presently a fourteen day review period from the filing of an application until it reaches the Commission, which has been found to be a inadequate period of time to review the application and prepare the staff report, therefore it is proposed that that review period be extended to twenty-one days, this change would also coincide with State law where preparation of a negative declaration is required. The Director reported current Code allows modification to interior bearing walls of fifty percent through the Minor Plan Review process, however in residential structures very few interior walls are bearing walls, rather they are generally exterior walls, and I I 2-19-92 conceivably at this time the interior of a structure could be gutted and reconstructed as something totally different, therefore it is proposed that the current fifty percent be changed to twenty-five percent and that the term 'bearing walls' be deleted. He noted that modification of greater than twenty-five percent of the interior walls would then require a Conditional Use Permit, this change stemming from I a concern that a unit could be divided into small rooms for bedroom purposes. He pointed out that current Code allows the Director to grant front yard deviations up to twenty- five percent of the required setback, the opinion of staff is that that is too great a percentage to be allowed automatically, therefore is proposed to be reduced to ten percent. Mayor Laszlo inquired if tandem parking would be allowed for additions to nonconforming dwellings of three or more units. He was advised it would not. Councilmember Hastings offered that when there are two units on a twenty-five foot wide lot there is no means to add off-street parking spaces, and suggested that tandem parking be reinvestigated for three or less units, where without that option the regulations are so rigid that one could not add more than three or four hundred square feet, a ten by ten room not even large enough for a bedroom. The Director said he believed there were approximately seven or eight properties that had previously been allowed tandem parking, clarified that the Code currently does not allow for the addition of bedrooms, also that proposal B is more restrictive than Proposal A. Councilmember Forsythe expressed her opinion that if a unit is nonconforming, whether it be due to parking, setbacks, or whatever, when modifications are proposed the improvements I' should bring the dwelling into further conformity with Code rather than greater nonconformity, and questioned whether Proposal B would accomplish that. The Director responded that an issue of discussion at the Commission level was whether or not there is a desire to allow additions to nonconforming structures, at one time they were not allowed, later allowed under certain criteria, that criteria having changed several times over the years. Further, the Zoning Ordinance presently allows only a single family home on the typical size lot in the Old Town area, and for those properties built before the current standards came into effect, as an example a residential property with an apartment unit, the city has said it does not want those properties to remain as they are, left to deteriorate, thus the intent has been to encourage some improvements and upgrading so that those dwellings will provide a housing opportunity within the city. He noted that the issue that has come about is to what degree does the city want to allow improvements or remodeling without continuing to perpetrate that denser structure than would normally be allowed under the Code. Councilmember Forsythe suggested that improvements can be made to a property without enlarging the unites), if the intent is to increase rents for instance. The Director confirmed that there are a number of things I that can be done to improve a property, in years past it was the addition of closets or enlarging a bathroom, over the years the Code has been modified to allow the ten percent expansion, however concern arose with the more recent expansions of up to one thousand square feet, and what is considered to be a reasonable addition. He clarified that the proposed change to deviations of setbacks applies only to front yard setbacks, ten percent rather than twenty-five percent allowed through administrative approval. He confirmed that the nonconforming issue basically applies to the downtown area, has minimal impact on other areas of the city, however some properties on the Hill are nonconforming .~ .' . . ". ~ ", . 2-19-92 I as a result of garages having been built smaller than Code, yet a provision of the Code allows those structures to be grandfathered as legal conforming. At the request of Chairman Fife, the Director explained that ten percent of the allowable buildable area is based on the size of the lot involved, as an example a 25 foot by 117 foot lot in Old Town is allowed to have a two story structure and up to seventy-five percent lot coverage, and described the formula to calculate the buildable area on that particular lot size, a 50 foot by 117 foot lot somewhat different because those properties would be allowed a third story on the rear half of the lot, which could result in a substantial amount of additional square footage. Chairman Fife said of interest' to him was the degree that one could essentially rebuild-in- place a nonconforming structure by demolishing to within a few walls and rebuilding, where an adjacent vacant property would be required to build in compliance with Code, and the nonconforming structure could conceivably have more lot coverage, less than required parking, etc. He pointed out the importance of the second provision of the Proposals, reference to interior walls rather than bearing walls, which could have a substantial effect on the degree of rebuilding- in-place that would be permitted. Chairman Fife asked if under either proposal there would be some way to avoid a situation where a property owner removes an interior non- bearing wall between a dining room and living room, waits a period of time and removes a non-bearing wall between the dining room and kitchen, and then approaches the City with a request for structural alterations of up to fifty percent of the bearing walls, which would basically allow an entire rebuilding. The Director noted that the Minor Plan Review right can be used only once. Commissioner orsini said he believed there is more remodeling than expansion in Old Town, that the area is basically a family community where a two bedroom apartment would most likely be occupied by a couple rather than four persons, that he could look favorably on tandem parking, and questioned the application of the provision for enclosing porches and balconies to Leisure World. The Director explained that the Leisure World structures are not nonconforming due to parking, density or setback requirements, that different regulations apply to Leisure World as opposed to Old Town, that area having been built as a Planned Unit Development, similar to what is now referred to as a Specific Plan, they can not vary from the requirements of the PUD without coming to the city as would anyone else, likewise College Park East and West are single family residential areas that have different zoning requirements than does Old Town, yet Old Town is more difficult for a property owner to work with because of the smaller lot sizes, setback requirements, etc. than other areas of the community. He again confirmed that a porch or balcony of a Leisure World property would be allowed to be enclosed, however a permit to do so must be obtained from the city. I I Mayor Laszlo invited members of the audience to express their views regarding this matter. Ms. Ronda Hjelm, 225 - 14th Street, said she wished to propose a change to existing Code with regard to remodeling and additions to legal nonconforming properties, where her understanding is that currently all nonconforming properties are restricted whether they are single family, a duplex or multiple units. She noted the recent decision to remodel their residence on a 37.5 by 100 foot lot, a two bedroom, one bath home with a detached apartment over the garage which was built legally over twenty years ago. She said the property is considered legal nonconforming as are many one to two unit dwellings in the neighborhood, that status basically the result of garage 2-19-92 setbacks and/or second income units, and parking. Ms. Hjelm stated they envisioned a 900 square foot second story to house two bedrooms, a bath and laundry room, resulting in a total of 2600 square feet, including the garage apartment, on the entire lot, yet current Code allows only the addition of ten percent of the maximum square footage or 1_ approximately 560 square feet. She offered that this provision applies to all nonconforming properties without regards to the size of the current dwelling, and in her case could not exceed the allowable maximum square footage based upon their lot size of 5,625 square feet, that the only options are to tear down the apartment and garage, which she said is a low income rental unit, or try to qualify for a _ variance. This being a situation that many persons in the neighborhood are facing, Ms. Hjelm proposed that the inequities of the Code be changed so that legal nonconforming one to two unit properties be allowed to add in excess of the present ten percent limitation subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission, basic standards could include addition of greater than ten percent of the maximum floor area provided that the following stipulations are met: 1) for single family residences the additions must meet all setbacks; 2) a minimum of one legal parking space shall be provided, 1.5 to 2 spaces if the Planning Commission deems that to be feasible; and 3) for two units it would be the same as above with a one time or cumulative addition permitted to only one of the units, the other unit may not be expanded or reconstructed. She asked that consideration be given the request. Commissioner Dahlman said he believed that application could be made now for a major addition under a Conditional Use Permit. The Administrative Assistant I explained that current Code only allows major additions if the property is nonconforming solely due to density, not if there are other deficiencies such as parking, also that new tandem parking would only be allowed if there is existing ., tandem parking that had been previously approved. Ms. Kathy Cabe, 225-1/2 - 14th street, spoke in support of the proposal as stated as the tenant of the previously mentioned unit. Mr. Bruce Stark, Seal Beach, noted discussion of this issue for at least ten years, suggested that rather than addressing this matter in a patchwork manner that there be some planning as to what is desired for the Old Town area, stated that issues are always predicated on an assumed parking problem, yet it is not known if there is a parking problem or what should be done to correct it if there is, that parking becomes a problem when one can not find a parking space, yet garages are used for storage rather than parking. He claimed also that Seal Beach does not yet have a valid Housing Element to meet the needs of the State. He charged that every unit in Seal Beach is nonconforming unless it was built in the last year, Leisure World not having back doors, wiring that did not meet Code at the time of construction, garage sizes on the Hill, etc., that all nonconformities should be addressed at one time. He again expressed his view that there should be some planning before I amending the Code in this manner. At the request of the Mayor, the Director explained that the Housing Element was challenged by the Wetlands Restoration Society, it has been considered by the Orange County Superior court, the City was successful in that defense, it was appealed to the Appellate court, the city was again successful, has now been appealed to the Supreme court, that Court has until about March 7th to make their determination with regard to hearing the matter, that at this point there is an adopted Housing Element approved by the Superior Court and the Appeals Court of the State of California, and in response to a comment of the prior speaker he noted that the state Department of .! ;..' 1/:;,1,~~..:tA,.", ~ . 'i' . .' ~. r.~" . .. ~ 2-19-92 I Housing and community Development has not responded to the city's Housing Element and it is understood they are awaiting the court decisions before doing so. Mayor Laszlo noted that with the periodic changes to the building codes it would seem that nearly every house in the state could be deemed to be nonconforming. The Director indicated that to be basically correct, and explained that even though a unit may meet zoning standards it may not be in compliance with current building standards. With regard to what is desired for Old Town, he pointed out that the City has a Land Use Element of the General Plan which presently indicates that the current desire of the community is a single family home on each lot in Old Town, based on current development standards, yet the city has taken into account that since ' 1915 or earlier there are homes that exist in the area that were built to much different standards than presently exist, and the city is attempting to find a means to accommodate the maintenance of those homes to address some of the issues that Mr. stark mentioned, such as the Housing Element, where there is a significant stock of low and moderate income housing provided by those older single family and multiple units. He stated again that the City has not taken a position to not allow additions or improvements to those structures because there is a desire to not allow them to deteriorate. The Director noted that there are two divergent goals in Old Town; for those who wish to clear a property, it can only be built as a single family home, yet at the same time there is a desire to find a means to allow people to maintain their existing structures for quality living in this area of the community, that nonconforming structures have been a concern for a number of years as they will continue to be because someone will always want to do something to their property that the City does not allow. In response to Commissioner Orsini, the Director reported there are about 14,000 housing units in the city, approximately 6,700 are single family units, the majority of multi-units in Leisure World, Old Town, as well as the Rossmoor Condominiums. With regard to the intent of allowing only new single family units in Old Town, he said based upon review of the changes to the Code at the time, it appears the reasoning was that the City did not want more new multi-family units constructed in the area amid single family homes on small lots, the concern most likely the impact on parking, neighborhoods, etc., yet it has been the position of the City to allow those homes, built under different standards, to remain, be improved and upgraded, which many cities do not allow. commissioner Orsini said it appeared the City did not want someone to demolish a single family home and replace it with a mUlti-unit, yet if a multi-unit existed it could remain, and the only means to add living area is to retain the percentage of bearing walls. The Director noted that the proposals are more restrictive than current Code, relate to the size of addition and amount of interior modifications that one could make to a nonconforming structure, however explained if a property is not nonconforming, meets the setback and parking requirements, one can modify the structure as they choose so long as it meets Building Code requirements, etc. He pointed out that the nonconforming provisions under review apply only to the provisions of the zoning Ordinance, and does not take into account the lack of public improvements such as sidewalks, curbs, gutters, etc. Commissioner Dahlman took exception to the comment that this effort is patchwork, stated that this particular issue is the result of a considerable work effort by the Planning Department, those issues not considered to be controversial have already been considered, with only those that may result in considerable public input remaining. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal I I 2-19-92 Beach, said ,she believed about all. is being done that can be, expressed support for tandem parking because it may encourage more people to improve their properties, and that she would hope that the catastrophic clause, relating to nonconforming properties damaged fifty percent or more, would be considered as part of this issue. Mr. Dave Potter, 1007 Seal Way, spoke for Proposal A rather than B, said he I did not believe allowing a house to be completely rebuilt, as can be done under present Code, is the intent, mentioned that the allowable buildable area of his home is 399.6 square feet, and philosophically he felt for those persons with a small house where there is a ten percent limit on what can be built. He objected to a one hundred square foot limit per living unit, and given the lot sizes, setbacks, etc. on Seal Way, said a one hundred twenty square foot addition to the front of the living room would not even accommodate a dining table. Mr. Potter said most of the problems with the regulations over the past twenty or more years have been based on parking, noted the mention of reconsidering tandem parking, yet offered that with the thirty foot lots on Seal Way one can only get credit for two parking spaces, and if it is an older garage one can barely get one car into the garage. He suggested that if the garage were removed and replaced with a carport, parking allowed in the nine foot rear yard setback, the corners of the garage would be eliminated, provide a turning radius, then six cars could be parked on a thirty foot lot, thus from that perspective there would be no parking problem. Mr. Potter said it may be worthwhile to again look at parking, consider tandem, eight foot wide spaces in a carport, which may afford an option for duplexes. Mr. Potter also recalled this same discussion a year ago at I which time the Commission wished to resolve the issue as soon as possible, suggesting that in such cases a time certain should be established, and when a City body requests a moratorium or such, there should be consideration given ~o the fact that this City has limited staff and those kinds of matters take a great deal of staff time in addition to the daily department activity. There were some brief comments regarding aesthetics in the Old Town area, garages versus carports, garages used for parking rather than storage, landscaping, etc. Mr. Mark Hjelm, 225 - 14th Street, expressed his desire to remodel, build a reasonable sized beach home, yet said if he were to tear down the rear unit he could build a five thousand square foot home, which in his opinion does not conform to the Old Town look. with regard to the garage dimensions on a twenty-five foot wide lot, the Director stated the garage would be nineteen feet wide with an eighteen foot interior. Mr. Sergio Keusayan, 1713 Electric and 1017 Seal Way, referred to the comment that every home is legal nonconforming, noted his receipt of the notice of hearing regarding the doghouse matter and wondered how that could be nonconforming for a house that was slightly three years old. Questioning the allowable ten percent addition, he mentioned that the Seal Way property was built about 1950, the unit covers slightly more than one I quarter of the lot, the living space is limited, that a two car garage exists on the lower floor, and said it was their intent to expand into the approximate fifty feet in front of the dwelling, retain the garage and create an additional two parking spaces. The Administrative Assistant again explained that the allowable ten percent addition is based on the area of the lot, not the structure on the lot, noted that the 1017 Seal Way property owner submitted an application this date for a garage to carport conversion, therefore that property would be nonconforming due to setbacks and density given the existing duplex, and under current standards he would be allowed to add ten percent or .! ...,., ~ '..... -... - , . "1 '.: .::. ~". 2-19-92 I somewhere in the area of 370 square feet, and to build the entire lot to the setbacks it would be necessary to demolish the duplex and construct a single family home provided it meets Code. Mr. Keusayan pointed out that to demolish and rebuild would cost about $100 per square foot, where remodeling would be less expensive and provide a nicer home. Councilmember Hastings said if this property owner were to remove some of the interior walls the property could become a single family residence with the same outside measurement, then questioned if at some point in the future he would be allowed to come before the Commission to convert the duplex to a single family residence. The Administrative Assistant stated that under the proposals he would be allowed to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a major addition to the entire envelope, and if the Commission felt it were appropriate it could be granted. Councilmember Hastings said pursuant to the proposals relating to interior walls it would appear that the property owner would not be allowed to convert the unit to single family. Commissioner Dahlman responded that the only remaining nonconformity, if the duplex were converted to a single family dwelling, would be the setbacks. The Director explained that the interior wall issue falls under the Minor Plan Review Process, that a major expansion, where the property owner may want to convert the duplex to single family and the only problem remaining was the issue of setbacks, would fall under the CUP process, in other words the conversion of the duplex would not be under the Minor Plan Review process. Mr. Keusayan noted there are five members of his family, described the arrangement of his parents living upstairs and he and his family residing downstairs, and asked what is the difference between a single family home and a duplex if a single family is residing in the building. staff described the use as two separate units, each having a kitchen, and to convert to a single family unit would require an interior connection of the structures and removal of one kitchen. I I It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council and Commission members present, to declare a recess at 8:40 p.m. The Mayor reconvened the joint session at 8:50 p.m. Ms. Shelly Stervens, 13th street, said she has a single family dwelling that is nonconforming, impacted by present Code, and spoke for the amendment proposed by Mrs. Hjelm. Ms. Joyce Ross, Sunset Beach, prior Seal Way resident and owner of a 6th Street nonconforming dwelling, asked that whatever regulations are consider be fair, that some have been granted approvals on nonconforming properties that were later thought should not have been, what one person has been granted others should be allowed to have. She asked that the catastrophic clause remain, said the smaller units are being allowed to be torn down because people are not allowed to improve their properties, noted her preference for the older units as opposed to the new, large dwellings that provide no trees, shrubs, and landscaping. Ms. Ross expressed her disagreement with any of the proposals. Mr. Mike Cho, Huntington Beach, said in considering what has taken place at Commission meetings and this evening, he felt there should be some sympathy for those property owners in, Old Town that have a small duplex over a garage with a eight to nine hundred foot frontage dwelling, and are allowed to add only about two hundred square feet. He offered that the points made by the first speaker were good, in that a small frontage home should be allowed to enlarge greater than the ten percent, and suggested a cap on an addition of possibly eighteen hundred square feet to apply to the main dwelling only, thereby allowing a larger, nicer home, retention of 2-19-92 the unit over the garage as well as some yard space. Mr. Cho stated he felt the small residential dwelling issue should be dealt with first, the next step would be to consider what to do about the multi-unit properties of three, four or more units with inadequate parking. commissioner Dahlman pointed out that Proposal B does appear to give some consideration to duplexes and single units, stated he did not necessarily agree with the logic of Mr. Cho where because the front house is small the dwelling should be allowed to expand to possibly eighteen hundred square feet, and in the case where nothing exists on a lot, asked if someone should be allowed to construct a duplex. Mr. Cho replied in the negative, stating that since there are two diverging policies, the property that has an existing duplex versus the vacant lot that is allowed a single family unit only, a line must be drawn, that his suggestion was merely meant to allow a property owner with a small front residence to enlarge up to a cap of some square footage to provide a modest home without being required to demolish the existing unit and build only a single family dwelling. I commissioner orsini responded to a question from the public that there are 1,693 lots in Old Town, 988 single family dwellings, ten vacant lots, and 670 multiple units. He noted mention of the disaster clause, and stated that if multi-units were not allowed to be rebuilt as they existed and were forced to construct a single unit, that would not be fair, also inquired if the intent is to strive for all single units in Old Town or is it the intent to retain some of the duplexes and apartments, that with the present ratio of about 1.5 single family units to mUlti-units, there seems to be a reasonable mix, however said he did not feel that the multi-units should be allowed to expand beyond what now exists, and cited the Seal Way property being unable to build to the setback as being caught in a bad situation. commissioner Dahlman referred to Mr. Orsini's comments as ~ suggestion that portions of Old Town should be zoned for multiple units where it is presently zoned for single family units, that decision made in the past, yet said that is not the issue under consideration, rather it is how do we treat the property owners in an equitable manner given the various situations. He indicated his belief that Proposal B is relatively liberal as compared to the Code that existed in the 1970's and it attempts to make the situation as equitable as possible where there are inherent conflicts, that there is always the opportunity to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, and where a property owner is interested in becoming more conforming to Code they are encouraged to do so and the Commission provides a favorable audience. He noted that problems arise when one wants to maintain all of the nonconformities yet expand to the greatest extent. The Development Services Director recalled that what staff has heard from this session is that there is a desire to look at tandem parking for single family units and duplexes, for triplexes also if desired. He noted that current Code provides for an expansion of greater than ten percent under the CUP process if there is conformance with Code for everything except density, that many properties that can take advantage of that provision are nonconforming due to a setback requirement, in most cases that would be a garage setback where the property was constructed several years ago, and suggested there could be consideration of relaxing the setback requirement whereby the nonconforming portion of an existing structure could remain yet the new portion would be required to meet the current setback requirements, that necessary because under current Building Code you can not I I- . 2-19-92 I have an opening in a wall that is closer than three feet to a property line. The Director described the definition of density, pursuant to the General Plan and the Zoning Code, as the number of units allowed on a particular piece of property, as an example the old Town residential high density zone would be one unit for every 2,178 square feet of land area and the residential medium density zone would be one unit for every 2,500 square feet of land area, for College Park East, College Park West, and the Hill areas it would be one unit for every 5,000 square feet of land area, and Surfside is one unit per lot. He noted that some . comments at this meeting were not necessarily related to density, the number of units per land area, rather the size of the unit on a property, which is intensity, determined by setback and bulk requirements as currently allowed. Councilmember Hastings said by the definition of density it would eliminate anyone with more than one unit on a twenty- five foot lot, and inquired how density and intensity can be separated out. The Director offered to address density and intensity in a more definitive manner. He pointed out the portion of the staff report dealing with additional areas for consideration, specifically properties that are nonconforming and over 37.5 feet width are not allowed a third story, a second issue a need to relook at development standards with regard to setbacks and the bulk of a structure that can be built in Old Town, the issue of massiveness and compatibility to other structures in the area brought up all too often. Councilmember Hastings asked if Proposals A or B would preclude any intensity of use, and if the Codes or zones are utilized by the Planning Department as a criteria for building, that would seem to automatically preclude looking at intensity. The Director stated that their position would be that as long as the current standards are used and the intensity standards are unchanged, the nonconforming properties would fall under, those intensity standards, however if there is an intent to change the requirements in the future, it may be desireable to look at different standards for nonconforming properties to allow a reasonable sized addition based upon the intensity standards as opposed to conforming to a lesser standard than what currently exists. He noted on a high density lot in Old Town currently seventy-five percent of the lot can be covered, and there have been concerns raised that that allows too large of a structure, however if that were changed to sixty percent, used as the standard that also applies to nonconforming properties, it reduces the size that would be allowed under the ten percent provision because the total area is reduced, therefore at some future time there could be consideration given to having a different standard for nonconforming properties, sixty percent as an example, to allow a reasonable sized addition, yet not allow the full percentage as would be allowed with new construction. With regard to a time frame for accomplishing the above, the Director indicated that if staff were to begin today for just the nonconforming, considering the environmental review and public hearings, it would likely take at least four to five months, and then to commence addressing the intensity of development in Old Town, research and collection of ideas alone would probably take three to four months prior to the public hearing process. The Director noted the options for actions of the Council and commission, that the existing provisions can be left in-tact if that is the desire, or if it is felt there is need to make some changes so that the size of additions that the Planning Commission and Council have recently considered do not come forward again under the Minor Plan Review process, that would need to be dealt with, and at a later point in time if the City decides it is appropriate to I I 2-19-92 change the intensity standards, that can then be done while maintaining the nonconforming properties on some program to allow a fair amount of addition. Councilmember Forsythe indicated the problem with the prior large additions was that the properties were multiple units, nonconforming, short on parking, density and setbacks were nonconforming" yet have been allowed to add an approximate 800 and 1000 I square feet to those units, which creates an adverse effect , on the surrounding neighborhood, yet on the other hand said she did not feel that the persons present at this meeting should be deprived of improving their single family dwelling, and her desire would be to do something now that would preclude someone from coming to the city with another large expansion. The Director said either proposal under consideration at this meeting would do that, because it would require those properties that are triplex and larger, nonconforming due to parking, to provide a minimum of one parking space for each unit on the property as part of an expansion request, the single family and duplex units not included as having to provide the one parking space per unit since they generally have at least two parking spaces on the property. In response to Commissioner Law, the Director explained that the Hjelm property is nonconforming due to having two units where only one is currently allowed by Code, and inadequate parking, also, under current Code the only way application could be made for a CUP would be if the only nonconformity were the number of units. The Council and Commission determined to indicate their preferences of Proposals A and B: Item 1) allow specific alterations/improvements through issuance of building 'I permit: accepted as being the same in both proposals; Item 2) interior walls, Proposal A, ~ifty percent, Proposal B, twenty-five percent: it was noted that both proposals would reflect interior walls, bearing or non-bearing; Commissioner Dahlman said the fifty percent of interior bearing walls was one of the major reasons why it was possible under the Minor Plan Review to do a large remodeling expansion, if that is changed to twenty-five percent as proposed by Proposal B, it will resolve a major problem; there was an indication to accept Proposal B with modification to reflect application to a triplex or, greater; Item 3) continue to allow enlargements/ expansions of less than ten percent of allowable floor area if meets current parking: accepted as being the same in both proposals; Item 4) there was an indication to accept proposal A, maximum addition of 400 square feet, amended to also reflect a maximum of 144 square feet per living unit; Item 5) one parking space per unit for nonconforming structures of three units or more: accepted as being the same in both proposals; Item 6) provides additional week for staff review of minor plan review requests: accepted as, being the same in both proposals; Item 7) enclosure of existing porches and balconies: accepted as being the same in both proposals; Item 8) definition of bedroom: the Director explained that at one time it is believed the number of parking spaces were determined by the I number of bedrooms in a unit, which is no longer applicable, now irregardless of the number of bedrooms there is a minimum requirement for a two car garage, that it is proposed that the parking phrase be deleted, also that certain rooms be clarified as non-bedrooms; with regard to the responsibility to determine the intent of a room, he explained further that-pursuant to the wording of current Code it gives the City the authority to consider a potential use of a property, the definition becomes important only when dealing with a nonconforming property where the Code states you can not add bedrooms to a nonconforming structure; there was an indication to accept Proposal B, .. . ~.$ -~ /, . , 2-19-92 I with a suggestion that a breakfast room be considered as a non-bedroom; and Item 9) front yard deviations: the proposal as set forth in Proposal B was accepted. Chairman Fife noted that the allowable ten percent would not be of much help to the first speaker where that property is nonconforming due to density, parking and setback. The Director said he would propose to look at the CUP section dealing with nonconforming properties where greater than ten percent can be added if a property is nonconforming only due to density, also include some provisions regarding setbacks, however parking would need to be considered. Commissioner Fife said he was thinking in terms of an addition of up to seventy-five percent of the difference of what exists and would could be built if there were no nonconformities provided that at least two covered parking spaces be added. per dwelling unit, such as by means of a carport and possibly tandem, therefore no low income dwelling unit would be eliminated from the property. The Director noted that regulations cannot be designed based on one particular property as each presents a different situation, yet the idea of allowing some expansion based upon a percentage over what exists and what would be allowed could be looked at to determine what is a reasonable amount of addition. The Director reported the standard depth of a parking space is currently twenty feet, some on the Hill are a couple of feet less, and offered to look into the depths of parking spaces as well. with regard to the listed additional areas of consideration, specifically third stories, the Director explained that at present given a 37.5 foot wide property, nonconforming due to density or parking, technically a property owner can come to the city for a Minor Plan Review to expand that structure and go to a third story on the rear half of the property, which the Code allows in that zone even though nonconforming, and based upon Commission discussions there was an opinion that a third story should be allowed only if there is compliance with all current requirements of the city. with the concurrence of those present, the Director offered to look into the third story and intensity of use issues also. I ADJOURNMENT Mayor Laszlo, with consensus of the Council, adjourned the City Council meeting until Monday, February 24th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. The joint study session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:42 p.m. I Approved: 1 of the ty 4:~ fa,pL- Mayor ./ Attest: