Loading...
2006-09-14 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 Chairman Kretzmer called the meeting of the El Segundo Planning CALL TO ORDER Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the City of El Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California. Chairman Kretzmer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PRESENT: FELLHAUER, FRICK, KRETZMER, ROTOLO, WAGNER ABSENT: NONE None. Chairman Kretzmer presented the Consent Calendar. None. PLEDGE TO FLAG ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Wagner moved, seconded by Commissioner Fellhauer, to MOTION approve the August 10, 2006, and the August 24, 2006, Minutes as presented. Motion carried, 5-0. Planning Manager Christensen noted that staff distributed to the Commission a copy of a letter from Mr. Roger Yeaton relating to Item H-3; advised that the Commission was provided a copy of this evening's power point presentation related to Item H-3; and that the Commission had also been provided a copy of a modification to Item H-3 to correct some minor errors in the resolution and ordinance. Chairman Kretzmer presented Agenda Item No. H-3, Environmental Assessment No. 685 and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 05-03. Applicant: City of El Segundo. Address: Citywide. Property Owner: Various. Planning Manager Christensen presented the staff report of record by providing a detailed power point presentation regarding the proposed Zone Text Amendments to the El Segundo Municipal Code Chapter 15-4A concerning Single -Family Residential Zone (R-1), El Segundo Municipal Code Chapter 15- 1-6 concerning definitions, El Segundo Municipal Code Chapter 15-2-7 concerning Open Space Encroachments, and El Segundo Municipal Code Chapter 15-15 concerning parking standards to allow the use of vehicle lifts in the Single -Family Residential (R-1) and Two -Family Residential (R-2) Zones. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS, NEW BUSINESS, EA NO. 685 and ZTA NO. 05-03 The proposed project is a Zone Text Amendment to amend ESMC relating to Single-family Residential Development standards. El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 1 Commissioner Fellhauer asked for clarification of the proposed new R-1 standards for the garage doors. Planning Manager Christensen stated the only difference is a requirement for a front facing 3-car garage to have individual garage doors for each stall rather than a single 2-car garage door and a 1-car garage door, believing this will break up the large garage mass at the front of the property. In response to Commissioner Fellhauer's inquiry regarding the anticipated cost impacts for building modulation on second stories and the placement of modulation, Planning Manager Christensen stated the conservative anticipated cost for the overall construction budget would be 3 to 3.5 percent higher for a two-story structure; noted there is no set standard for the number of sections for breakups that has to be achieved; explained that the designer would have to figure out the best way to incorporate that modulation into the design of the structure; and that it would have to be equal on both sides of the property but not an exact mirror. She added that one of the concerns for staff was trying to balance the need for a resident to design a house and floor plan that works for that resident, but yet try to break up the plain, continuous height and mass of building all the way along an extended distance, but not dictating the precise location of where that would occur; and she mentioned that the primary reason for doing this is to break up the mass and reduce some of the shadowing and other negative impacts when there is close/adjacent homes at the sides of the dwellings. Commissioner Rotolo questioned if there are any plans to grandfather in those plans currently in the process for approval before the new code goes into effect. Planning Manager Christensen advised that the new ordinance as drafted would be effective 30 days following adoption of the ordinance, that there is no recommendation at this time to grandfather in already submitted plans. Assistant City Attorney Berger stated there would have to be additional language to specify that any applications received and deemed complete by the City would not be subject to this ordinance, noting that unless building permits are issued, there is no protection for property owners with regard to plans or permit applications if there is a change in the law; and stated this issue relates to the issuance of the building permits, not the completion of the application. Commissioner Rotolo noted his concern for those people currently making plans and having to change the entire layout; and he asked for clarification on the new side setback of 64", questioning if the new addition would be subject to the 64" even though the existing house is 5'. Planning Manager Christensen stated that's correct, there would be a 4-inch offset to meet code, and it would apply to one- and two-story setbacks. Commissioner Rotolo questioned if certain site limitations will apply to fully covered arbors near the front of the property line, especially if located on a El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 2 corner lot. Planning Manager Christensen advised that the arbor/trellis could be located anywhere within the front setback; but stated there are exceptions to that rule, noting there are other standards in the Municipal Code that protect traffic safety, driveway visibility, and corner visibility standards. Addressing Chairman Kretzmer's inquiry regarding the destruction of a nonconforming building by fire or other disaster, Assistant City Attorney Berger and Planning Manager Christensen explained that the nonconformity could not be permitted to increase; stated that the footprint of the building could not be expanded; and that it would have to have the same size and same general use on the same footprint as existed before the fire or other disaster. Chairman Kretzmer questioned the purpose of the floor area ratio (FAR). Planning Manager Christensen explained that generally, an FAR tool can either be used by itself or in conjunction with the lot coverage requirement that helps to frame the size of structures, what the overall square footage is, what the mass and volume is; advised that the original proposal has been modified from a .5 to a .625 recommendation so that when one applies that in conjunction with the lot coverage standards being proposed, the limitations of the floor area are not as restrictive; and that the lot coverage standard for the single -story and the combination 1- and 2-story is more restrictive because that is based on the footprint of the primary dwelling, the garage area, and the accessory dwelling, if there is one. She stated that the livable floor area is strictly the livable floor area of the combined floors of the dwelling, any livable floor area of the accessory structure on the property. She stated it sets two different standards: one is the amount of volume and how much open space there is with the lot coverage, and two, the floor area caps the overall square footage. Chairman Kretzmer stated if there are height limitations already in place and percentage of lot coverage allotted in place, why does the City need an FAR, what additional advantage is there to an FAR, questioning if these restrictions already cap what one can build. He stated he is more concerned with what he has seen with lot coverage issues, lot -line -to -lot -line dwell ings/mansionization. Planning Manager Christensen explained that the FAR is another tool that would create a limit on the overall square footage. Director Chicots explained that the FAR differs depending on the size of the square footage of the lot; and stated that without an FAR, one can end up with a large box building, noting an FAR addresses the bulk issue a bit differently than the lot coverage. Chairman Kretzmer questioned if the modulation requirements keep the area from having box type houses. Director Chicots stated the modulation requirement addresses the aesthetics and the overall look of the building and gives it architectural character; noted that the FAR is an attempt to limit the size of the bulk; and that without the El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 3 FAR, they will continue to see box type houses. With regard to rooftop decks, Chairman Kretzmer questioned if there are setback requirements all around the rooftop decks or just on two sides. Planning Manager Christensen stated the side setbacks apply to both structures and depends on how wide the structure is designed; noted that it sets the same standard as the second floor for the accessory structure; explained that one will have the 10-percent minimum, plus an additional 2 feet on the sides; and that on the rear, the limitation is 5 feet for either the second story or a rooftop deck. She stated the front is limited by the overall same dwelling standard, that there is no proposal to change the 22-foot front setback limit that exists in the code today. She mentioned that a rooftop deck is not permitted on a second story accessory structure. Chairman Kretzmer asked for clarification on the basement regulation. Planning Manager Christensen explained that at least 70 percent of the walls must be subterranean and cannot exceed more than 3 feet above the grade. Commissioner Wagner highlighted a structure with a second floor and 3 setback areas, questioning if this area could be a deck. Planning Manager Christensen stated that one could potentially have an open lattice structure on a second story deck. Commissioner Rotolo asked why staff is proposing a double car garage door and a single car garage door opening. Planning Manager Christensen stated this is to help break up some of the massing at the front of the building and massing of the garages from the front. Commissioner Wagner requested and received clarification regarding the allowance of vehicle lifts. Chairman Kretzmer opened the public hearing Tom Babbit. resident Mr. Babbit briefly addressed the FAR and basement requirement; stated the problem he has with that requirement is for hillside homes, such as his, where there is only 25 to 30 percent of the basement below the natural grade; noted that his basement will be subject to the FAR; the result of that, comparing his property to a flatter property, he would not be allowed to build as large a structure as one who owns a flatter property; that he is limited and subject to the FAR's, where the owner of the flatter property wouldn't be subject to the FAR's; and that he wouldn't be able to build a two-story structure because the FAR would apply. He suggested excluding the FAR proposal for all basements and to delete that language of 80 percent of the exterior perimeter walls must be fully below natural grade; and he alternatively proposed that it should be 70 El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 4 percent of the exterior perimeter walls that are fully below natural grade for the facing street, since hillside properties slope down away from the street. Mr. Babbit asked that when these regulations take effect, the City should consider there's a lot of money that goes into architecture fees and that changing the plans would be expensive and not insignificant; and he urged the Commission to grandfather in those property owners who are already in the process, those who already have their plans in the system. Craig Maples, resident Mr. Maples advised that he owns a construction company that builds custom homes in the area; expressed his belief the proposal needs to be adjusted; explained that with the second floor modulation being based on 15 percent of the ground floor, that by putting in this 15 percent of the first floor regulation, the City is penalizing the larger first floor by requiring the second floor to have a larger modulation; and stated that by having a larger first floor area, the City is penalizing the modulation on the second floor being greater by a larger first floor area. He stated he does not understand the modulation, believing the modulation should be a function of the second floor area, not the first floor area. He expressed his belief there should be an exception for narrow lots, stating there are a lot of 25- and 30-foot wide lots that make this a problem, that there should be fewer modulation requirements for 40-foot lots and smaller. Mr. Maples stated there are many reasons for delaying plans during the plan check phase; and stated there should be some consideration for plans already in the process before this change goes into effect. Greg Lee, resident Mr. Lee stated that the FAR is something that helps the layperson understand bulk and mansionization; noted that the FAR for Manhattan Beach is smaller than what is being proposed for El Segundo; and advised that he lived in Manhattan Beach and because of mansionization, he lost privacy and sunlight to his property, stating this negatively impacted his quality of life. He noted his support for the original FAR proposal, believing it creates less impact upon the neighborhood. Mike Doucette, resident Mr. Doucette noted his support for the revised FAR proposal, noting there needs to be some revisiting of that issue, such as limitations for smaller lots; and that only some of the limitations should apply to the smaller lots. He stated he does not understand the consistency with what the City is trying to achieve with modulation. He stated that the setbacks on alleys should be a bit different than lots which don't have alleys; with regard to car lifts, he stated the 14-foot limit needs to be revisited on a one-story garage, noting it is impossible to build unless one goes to a two-story detached garage. He stated there are more progressive things to look at in terms of the basements or the height limits; and noted that on a hillside, a 3-story home doesn't have to be bigger than a two- story home depending on how one figures height coverage and how it fits within the surrounding community and how height is calculated based on the topography of the lot. Anthony Hedayat, resident Mr. Hedayat urged the Commission to grandfather in those plans that have El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 5 \ been in the process; expressed his belief there are many well designed "box" type houses, such as Tuscan villas; and stated that modulation is specious in terms of what the City is trying to achieve, believing that the City should require shadow/sun studies instead. He stated that the modulation issue is an expensive proposal; that there should be a sun/shadow study done for a percentage of the second story to allow maximization; and he urged the City to keep the FAR issue simple, so much allowed for the first floor and so much allowed for the second floor. He stated he would support a second -story roof deck on an accessory structure, suggesting that anything located on that roof deck be hidden from view. Vice -Chair Frick noted her support to give some concession to those who are already in the plan check phase, suggesting a 30-day period. Commissioner Rotolo suggested that the date someone enters plan check could be grandfathered in, believing 30 days is too short. Vice -Chair Frick pointed out that this process began almost a year ago, that this issue has been in the newspapers and that various public hearings have taken place. Chairman Kretzmer asked for clarification on the Commission's scope of recommending a grandfather time limit. Assistant City Attorney Berger stated that the Commission's role this evening is to make recommendations to City Council with regard to whether the proposed ordinance needs amending and if so, how. He stated that if one of the concerns from the Commission is this issue with regard to individuals that have filed applications, whether or not they're subject to the new regulations, that is certainly a recommendation the Commission could make to City Council; and that would have to actually be in the ordinance. He mentioned the government code provides that there's a first and second reading of the ordinance; that at the second reading, there is adoption; and that there is a mandatory 30-day waiting period before a regular ordinance becomes effective. He noted this time period can be extended for an additional time beyond the 30 days before it becomes effective, but this is something City Council can decide. He noted his understanding of the Commission's concern this evening is for those property owners that have spent probably many months and lots of money preparing architectural plans to submit to the City for approval based upon existing regulations; and, therefore, the issue is for the Planning Commission to decide whether it will recommend to City Council that the proposed regulations not apply to individuals, for example, who have either simply applied for building permits or who have applied and received notification from the City that their application is deemed complete, which doesn't mean they're getting a building permit, but simply that staff has looked over the application, made sure the application is complete and started the clock ticking in terms of reviewing those plans, or whether the Commission wishes to have some other threshold to l recommend to City Council. `J Assistant City Attorney Berger stated that the date of the application is not the same date the application is deemed complete by the City; explained that El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 6 ordinarily, the City has 30 days to make a determination as to whether or not an application is complete; that at the end of 30 days, if the City makes the determination the application is complete, the City will notify the applicant their application is deemed complete and will now begin the process for going through and making sure the plans conform to code, etc.; and he advised that this is something the Planning Commission needs to decide, what threshold or trigger does the Commission want to make recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Kretzmer stated it could be submittal of application, substantial completion of application, complete application, pulling permits, but the Planning Commission needs to carefully define what the trigger point is. Assistant City Attorney Berger stated that otherwise, the default under state law is that a property owner is always subject to a change in law unless they have a building permit in their hands that has been issued by the issuing agency. Chairman Kretzmer stated he is concerned with somebody rushing in with an application to get in under the old ordinance, noting his intent for the application to be submitted in good faith and with a substantial amount of planning performed. He suggested that Council seriously consider between now and next Tuesday what the triggering point should be and stated the best recommendation from the Planning Commission to City Council is that the Commission has identified this as an issue and that City Council needs to define the trigger point, pointing out again that substantial cost has been imposed upon these applicants already. Hearing the Commission's concern, Director Chicots suggested the Commission direct staff to research the ongoing permit process, the plans that have been submitted for review, the plans that are in plan check, the plans that have been submitted for plan check that are out for correction, and the plans that are out for plan check that have been resubmitted and ready to issue; and that the Commission should also direct staff to obtain an opinion from the City Attorney on the triggering issue. Commissioner Fellhauer stated she understands the need to develop some regulations to curb mansionization; but expressed her belief that there are a lot of home styles that are aesthetically pleasing but are considered box type houses, such as colonial style homes, cape cod, federal, Greek revival style, Victorian, Tudor, etc.; and noted her opposition to limiting architectural individuality in this community. She stated she is also concerned with the small lots in this community and the effect of these regulations, questioning whether these proposed changes will mitigate all the issues the City is currently experiencing with mansionization — in particular, the wall modulation. She stated that architectural character and interest is subjective, noting she does not mind seeing garages situated in the front; noted she does not support this proposal in its entirety; and mentioned that she supports the use of vehicle lifts. Commissioner Rotolo stated that overall, this has been an excellent effort by the community, staff, Council and the previous Planning Commission before he came aboard. He expressed his belief there should be some relief for setbacks El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 7 on single -story existing homes. He used an example of a house now with a 5- foot setback on a 54-foot wide lot and a desire to add a bedroom/bath to the back; and stated that the requirement for this homeowner to step in 4 inches with that addition is not practical and not the intent/spirit of what is trying to be achieved. He noted his support for some consideration to be given for narrow lots, believing a property owner should be able to build a 2-story house on a narrow lot; but pointed out the effect of shading that comes with that building; and suggested that some consideration be given to that impact. He suggested that further study be done on the accessory structure height limitation of 21 feet only because a garage with a plate line of 9 feet and joists above that and a second story is already pushing 20 feet; and that this now may be limiting someone to a flat roof with a short parapet, which in his opinion is not architecturally pleasing next to a house with a hip roof. Commissioner Rotolo highlighted the proposal for garage orientation and a 3- car garage requiring 3 single garage doors to break up the front, expressing his belief the same effect can be done with a double garage door and single car garage door. He noted his concern with the practicality of having 3 single garage doors and the space that will be lost with the door jamb and the structural members that would go in between those doors. He suggested consideration of requiring a sun/shade study to address the impact of modulation on sunlight. He stated that modulating the walls will certainly help the neighbors, but by granting more lot coverage, he questioned if this would end up taking more sunlight away from the neighbor's backyard because now the house is going to extend out more and allowing a larger house to be built. Commissioner Wagner stated he concurs with many of the Commission's comments this evening; and noted it would be helpful to know how many people have applications in the plan check process at various stages before a recommendation is made to City Council and to identify a trigger point. Chairman Kretzmer stated he is always concerned with how the Commission and City protects the rights of individual property owners versus the need for the community to have protection of the quality of lifestyle, ambiance, appearance it might want overall for the community; pointed out that ownership of a home continues to be the greatest single asset people have; and noted that the need for people to be allowed to maximize the value of their property remains sacrosanct. He applauded staff for the enormous amount of work that has gone into this process; stated he is concerned with, for instance, the purpose of an FAR, believing there may be no need for it at this time; and noted that one can already build a house they want to build within the lot coverage, lot line setbacks, and maximize the value of their home. He too noted his concern with limiting the architecture of homes that might no longer be able to be built, as highlighted previously by Commissioner Fellhauer, stating that many of those architectural examples are pleasing in this community. He stated he is less concerned with big box houses than he is with big/expansive walls; and that he does not want to end up with a huge house built from lot line to lot line. He also addressed his concern that larger houses will be occupied by more people and that this will create additional traffic and parking in the City; and expressed his concern this ordinance as presented does not address mansionization effectively. He expressed his belief this can be addressed by the lot lines, setbacks, and lot coverage. Chairman El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 8 Kretzmer suggested the Commission take a 2-step process for recommendation to Council, making a recommendation on the resolution and then making additional recommendations for Council to look at the different issues. Chairman Kretzmer moved, seconded by Commissioner Rotolo, that the MOTION Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2068. Motion failed as follows: AYES: None NOES: Fellhauer, Frick, Kretzmer, Rotolo, Wagner ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The Commission discussed the need to define a point within the permitting process where those existing applicants fall under the old code versus the new code. Commissioner Rotolo asked that Council continue the process of researching the modifications to the code, taking into consideration the Commission's and the audience members' comments this evening. Vice -Chair Frick noted her concurrence with the proposal for vehicle lifts as proposed, and expressed her belief there is no need for that to be reconsidered. There was consensus to approve the proposal for the vehicle lifts as proposed. Commissioner Kretzmer asked for further consideration on the need to incorporate the element of the FAR's. Vice -Chair Frick noted her support to make exceptions for narrow lots. Chairman Kretzmer noted his support for City Council to consider exceptions to modulation, setbacks for narrow lots, and stated there should be special consideration for those properties abutting alleys as opposed to street -bounded properties. Commissioner Rotolo asked that consideration be given to some relief from the 10-percent up to 6-foot requirement for existing home additions with single stories and side yard setbacks, that there's some concession for existing homes that may not be going up two stories. Chairman Kretzmer stated that the effect and purpose of modulation on lots of all sizes is also something that is a concern for many. Vice -Chair Frick expressed her belief that most of the building over the past 5-6 years has been responsible: and stated that building a structure with a huge wall decreases the neighbor's property value by building very irresponsibly. She expressed her belief the main issue here is not the aesthetics but the effect the building has on the neighbors, their quality of life and property values. El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 9 Commissioner Rotolo noted the accessory structure height limitation of 21 feet should be further studied. Assistant City Attorney Berger noted that many individual suggestions have been made this evening, but explained that in order to help staff and Council, the Commission as a whole should indicate its preference for those suggestions; and suggested that the Commission note its support for an ordinance that would include/address 1) to whom the regulations would apply in consideration of where they stand in the permitting process and 2) whether to include an FAR. Commissioner Wagner expressed his belief that in the past, the FAR of 40 percent lot coverage on two-story homes in this City has worked well; and noted his preference to maintain the 40 percent with modulation and to delete a requirement for an FAR. Commissioner Rotolo stated that for one who is not building a large home but building a single -story addition or a second -story addition of less than a certain amount of square footage, there should be an exception for that increase in side yard, a small addition up to X amount of square feet; and that there should be a certain amount of square footage that would be exempt from the yard requirements. The following is a list of issues the Commission agreed to send on to City Council for consideration: • that City Council consider whether an FAR requirement is necessary and what is the proper determination for lot coverage • exceptions to modulation with regard to smaller/narrow lots • accessory structure height, investigating whether the 21-feet limit results in an architecturally pleasing roof • three single car garage doors versus one 2-car garage door and one 1- car garage door • effective date of the entire ordinance • consider an exception of a maximum side setback of 5 feet or 6 feet on existing homes when building a small addition • revisit the issue of modulation requirements on lots of any size, that City Council revisit the purpose of modulation with an understanding of the Commission's concern it will limit design opportunities; to define the purpose of modulation, is it for an architectural purpose, does it serve a noise reduction purpose or impact to light and air. El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 10 Director Chicots mentioned that modulation reduces impacts to neighbors. Commissioner Fellhauer noted her appreciation of the work that went into this item. Chairman Kretzmer moved, seconded by Commissioner Fellhauer, to MOTION recommend City Council reconsider as part of its ongoing efforts to deal with the zoning issues the above-bulleted items. Motion unanimously carried. (5-0) RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Kretzmer recessed the meeting at 9:47 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:57 p.m. Following the recess, Commissioner Fellhauer expressed her preference to reconsider the last motion, believing the Planning Commission should have made a specific recommendation on that item to Council; and suggested that this matter possibly be taken up at another Planning Commission meeting to make that specific recommendation for Council consideration. Commissioner Rotolo stated the Commission did make a recommendation to review those items. Chairman Kretzmer highlighted the various bulleted points that were being recommended to Council by the Commission; and suggested that anyone seeking to make a specific recommendation to City Council should attend Council's meeting wherein this matter will be discussed so they can make any further recommendations before that body. Assistant City Attorney Berger reminded the Commission that this matter was finalized and that if there is to be any reconsideration of that item, there would need to be a majority vote for reconsideration and reopening of the public hearing; and he noted some concern that those audience members who spoke on this matter left the meeting at the recess. Commissioner Fellhauer moved for reconsideration of this matter. This motion MOTION failed due to the lack of a second. Chairman Kretzmer presented Agenda Item No. H-4, Environmental PUBLIC HEARINGS, Assessment No. 702, Downtown Specific Plan Amendment 06-01, and Zone NEW BUSINESS, Text Amendment No. 06-04. Applicant: City of El Segundo. Address: All EA NO. 702 AND DSP properties within the Downtown Specific Plan. Property Owner: Various. AMENDMENT NO. 06-01 AND ZTA NO. 06-04 Planning Manager Christensen reviewed staff report and the recommendation. Amend Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Chapter VI. Responding to Commissioner Rotolo's request for clarification on basements, Development Standards Planning Manager Christensen explained that one could end up having a involving a reduction in the portion of a building that, in essence, serves as a basement because it's built maximum allowed height and number of stories in into the hill; but because the greater portion of that entire floor does not meet each of the six Districts of the definition of the basement, it would be considered a story because more the Downtown Specific Plan. than 50 percent of the structure is exposed to more than a 6-foot height limit. El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 11 She stated this is why it's labeled first story on the report and would not count as a basement; advised that it could extend all the way to the back property line or anywhere in between; that, again, it would be limited by the overall floor area that's allowed within the zone. She mentioned that on a down -sloping lot, the same thing would apply, that someone could shore out to the street as long as they didn't exceed the FAR. Commissioner Rotolo stated that the code requirement for the 45-foot limit on setback is not clear. Planning Manager Christensen explained there is a problem with that interpretation; and stated the front and street side property line is basically where the property touches the public right-of-way, where the property line limits are and that there's nothing in the current standards which define a particular distance. Planning Manager Christensen stated that in the flat lot scenario, the code is written for a maximum of two stories and 30 feet at that point and a corner lot at the street side as well; but pointed out there's nothing that defines how many feet one has to step back before one can go up to the three stories and 45 feet, which is the overall height limit within the zone. She mentioned this has always been an issue with interpretation where that point takes place and that a lot of this has been based on assessment of visibility. Vice -Chair Frick questioned if there are any structures in the Downtown Specific Plan Zone that currently exceed these proposals. Planning Manager Christensen advised there is one specific structure that exceeds this and possibly a few others that may exceed it; and stated that staff did not do a property -by -property assessment of structures that possibly would not meet this requirement. She advised that staff has not received any additional input from the current businesses and property owners in the Downtown Specific Plan Zone regarding concerns for these new regulations; and mentioned that staff did receive some phone calls seeking an explanation of what was being proposed and to obtain copies of the information. She stated that staff did not receive any written communications beyond the feedback that was obtained through the community survey. Planning Manager Christensen stated that any building which did not comply under the new standards would be subject to the nonconforming regulations; and advised that the existing structures could remain, but any new additions would have to meet the new standards. Chairman Kretzmer opened the public hearing. Gordon Stevens owner of the building at the 400 block of Main Street Mr. Stevens noted his frustration with the lengthy discussion of the prior topic and stated that several audience members left the meeting not having had an opportunity to speak on this item. He expressed his belief this matter is before the Commission only because someone approached a member of Council and said they did not like the look of his building. He stated he is willing to make a minor change to the building, if necessary, but he urged the City not to impose any unfair regulations just because someone expressed their displeasure with the aesthetics of the building. He stated that by doing so, the City is placing El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 12 inverse condemnation upon his property, taking some of its value away. He stated he spent that money based on how many square feet he could develop and stated it is not fair now after he spent the money for the City to require he cut back a percentage of the building. John Purcell representing the Alice Purcell Trust owner of the buildings at the corner of Main and Grand Mr. Purcell expressed his concern with not having received notice of this meeting until yesterday, noting he has been out of town. He stated that he served on the former Downtown RevitalizationNision Committee that was organized to help revitalize this area; commented on the difficulties with getting closure on the Ralphs property; and pointed out that a lot of people don't realize how much this Committee had accomplished. He explained that the vision agreed on included property owners, the merchants and encompassed the whole community; and everyone agreed on having a decent downtown El Segundo area. He stated that a lot of the buildings up and down the area are in different stages of condition; that some of them should be and can be remodeled, noting a perfect example is the jewelry store across the street, which added a second story very successfully and to which nobody objected. He expressed his belief that what is happening here is someone didn't care for the look of a certain building, pointing out that beauty is very subjective. He questioned whether this City needs to establish an art committee to approve the design of buildings. He advised that the reason Mike Gordon and other people like himself feel that a second or third story should be allowed is money. He stated the current ordinance was carefully crafted; and noted that they did not want to see a canyon effect straight from the sidewalk, which is why the third story should have a 25-foot setback. He stated that those buildings on an up slope and down slope, such as those across the street in the 400 block, should be able to have three stories; and that the Committee wanted to make sure the income potential was there so that property owners could finance either a remodel or add a structure. He added another reason behind those decisions was that Downtown El Segundo has a lot of offices on the first floor; that those offices don't create a lot of foot traffic and they don't create any sales tax; that if one moves upstairs to a second or third story situation, that adds income into the mix. He advised that when one remodels or tears down a building, the County Assessor will reassess the property and El Segundo ends up getting more money. Mr. Purcell stated that what's happened is the City spent the money on the Downtown streetscape; that between the income from sales tax and the income from property tax, in essence, the dream/vision is they are going to pay the City back for all the money they spent in the hardscape. He added that this idea was El Segundo would make the improvements to the street as a community and the property owners would be induced to improve the property and therefore improve the clientele. He stated this is already working. He urged the Commission to defeat this proposal. Anthony Hedayat. resident Mr. Hedayat stated that he designs construction projects; expressed his belief what's missing from the section that represents the two buildings is the width in between that gives one the relationship of how one fills that space; stated that El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 13 as he walks down Main Street, he does not think the 3 stories creates a canyon effect; that in order to get the robust condition everyone is seeking and to get the activity on the streets, which does include a retail frontage, the 3-story look is the way to do it. He stated that he likes the look of the building that supposedly brought about this proposal. He added he is not involved in any projects in this section of the City, that he is now speaking as a resident; and stated he likes a robust Main Street; and that the way to do that is to give it a little more mass on the street. Mr. Hedat explained that the relationship between the width of that street, which is at least 60 feet in a one-to-one ratio to the buildings or less, is a good relationship, a nice scale. He stated this proposal is moving the City backwards and would ruin the charm of this City. There being no further input, Chairman Kretzmer closed the public hearing. Addressing Commissioner Fellhauer's inquiry regarding noticing, Planning Manager Christensen advised that in addition to the community survey in terms of the hearing, the public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within the Downtown Specific Plan area, to all tenants they could identify, to all properties within a 500-foot radius of the Downtown Specific Plan, and published in the newspaper. Commissioner Fellhauer stated this issue should be continued to another Planning Commission meeting to allow those who departed this lengthy meeting to speak on this item. Vice -Chair Frick questioned why this change is being proposed, questioning if the speaker's assertion was correct about someone not liking the look of one certain building. Staff affirmed the response to Commissioner Frick's question. Chairman Kretzmer stated he was co-chair of the Downtown Revitalization Committee in its second phase and advised that Mr. Purcell's reciting of its history is completely correct. He noted that one of the things the Committee considered is the need to revitalize Downtown; that one of the ways to revitalize Downtown is to find ways for people to make appropriate use of their property and for them to make some money; that what they looked at was the idea of trying to get more retail on the ground floors; to get the second floors to be back office space or a good use where it would also bring in people; and they also looked hard at the idea of having loft type living space on the third floors that were set back, bringing residents to the Downtown area. He noted that people complained that if they did that, they were going to have transient type people who were going to live in those third floor spaces; but pointed out that they worked very hard, conducting numerous meetings with the public; and when the final proposal was brought before the Planning Commission and then to City Council, the current code was adopted. Chairman Kretzmer stated he would not be opposed to continuing this to another meeting to allow more public to speak on this item, but indicated that substantively, he would not be in favor of this resolution. He reiterated that he knows too much of the history here and that he does not feel there is any need El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 14 to change it at this point. He added that he also happens to like the look of 426 Main Street. Vice -Chair Frick stated there is good business reasoning behind the Downtown Specific Plan and that she also would not be in favor of this change. Commissioner Fellhauer stated her only concern is that some people left the meeting this evening before the Commission discussed this item. Commissioner Rotolo stated that most of the people left during the break and pointed out that this item was going to be the next item for consideration, believing that most of those who left were here for the residential item. Listening to the testimony of the public and understanding the history of the Downtown Specific Plan, he stated the one thing that wasn't mentioned was the parking structure; advised that the City has made a major investment in the parking structure with the intent on selling parking spaces to building owners who would venture to rebuild their buildings on Main Street with additional square footage; but in order to do that, they would need parking; and that the parking structure was built to afford those owners the opportunity to build more square footage. He stated what this ordinance would do is cut those building owners short somewhat by changing the limit. He stated that prior to the Downtown Specific Plan in 2000, there still was a 45-foot height limit with no restriction on the number of stories; that it seems like this would be changing what has been the norm in this community for a while; and given that, he stated he is fine with voting on this matter this evening. He mentioned he would be in favor of an art review body or some kind of architectural review. Vice -Chair Frick mentioned there are design standards in place. Commissioner Rotolo added that investors have made plans and purchased properties with the intent of being able to do that; stated that there should be some consideration given to how far that setback should be for the third floor, believing it's vague in the code; and suggested that the third floor setback issue be a topic for future consideration. Director Chicots mentioned that regardless of the Commission's intent this evening, this item is scheduled to be heard by City Council this Tuesday. Chairman Kretzmer moved, seconded by Commissioner Rotolo, to deny MOTION Resolution No. 2610. Motion unanimously carried. (5-0) Chairman Kretzmer presented Agenda Item No. H-5, Environmental PUBLIC HEARINGS, Assessment No. 721 and Zone Text Amendment No. 06-07. Applicant: City of NEW BUSINESS, EA NO El Segundo. Address: All properties within the Heavy Industrial (M-2) Zone. 721 AND ZTA NO. 06-07 Property Owner: Various. Amends ESMC §15-21-6 regarding nonconforming Addressing Commissioner Rotolo's inquiry regarding strong public interest on uses in nonresidential zones this issue, Planning Manager Christensen stated this relates to a concern and adds a new ESMC § 15. about businesses that cannot continue to effectively maintain their use; stated 21-8 affecting nonconforming uses within the City has limited properties in the M-2 Zone that are large scale properties; the Heavy Industrial (M-2) and the expectation is those would continue the use or bring the property into El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 15 compliance with current standards. She added this was going to be processed Zone. concurrently with amendments to the property on Vista Del Mar where the power plant site is located and then bringing this back to conclude that portion. Chairman Kretzmer asked what "actively available for lease" means. Assistant City Attorney Berger and staff explained that historically this has been interpreted to mean to be actively listed as a for lease property, to be a property listed in the listing agent's portfolio; and noted that the property owner has to bring in evidence that this is actually occurring. He stated this has been an ongoing issue not only for heavy industrial zones, but also for other nonconforming uses in other zones. He stated the way it's been interpreted and enforced has been difficult; that one of the reasons this is before the Planning Commission is to shorten the amount of time this can be determined to be active or not; and stated that if the City shortens the amount of time, people will have to turn over the property or actually have to demonstrate in good faith that they're trying to turn the property, believing this will motivate individuals to get some resolution. Chairman Kretzmer opened the public hearing. There being no public input, Chairman Kretzmer closed the public hearing. Chairman Kretzmer stated he is in favor of passing this; however, he asked that the words "actively available for lease" be eliminated. Commissioner Rotolo questioned if deleting those words takes any teeth out of the code. Chairman Kretzmer expressed his belief it puts teeth into it, the City is expecting some resolution. Assistant City Attorney Berger clarified if Chairman Kretzmer is suggesting removing the reference to a lease but allow to remain the reference to occupancy. Chairman Kretzmer suggested taking out "actively available for lease and occupancy," leaving in an exception for those properties that are being remodeled pursuant to permit. He stated that if a property is available either for lease or occupancy, if somebody really wants a property to be utilized, they have an obligation to work hard to get it done. Commissioner Felihauer noted her understanding is it can be difficult to lease out these large facilities; and stated that more time should be given to those who are actively looking for someone to lease the building. Chairman Kretzmer stated he would agree with 9 months, indicating his desire to motivate the agents so these properties don't sit idle for reasons that may serve other purposes, referring back to the Ralphs and adjoining parking lot. Vice -Chair Frick stated she would support the ordinance as presented, but deleting the words "actively available for lease and occupancy." El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 16 Commissioner Wagner stated he would support the ordinance as presented with the six month limit, and that he would support deleting the words "actively available for lease and occupancy." Chairman Kretzmer moved, seconded by Commissioner Fellhauer, to approve MOTION Resolution No. 2611, deleting the words "actively available for lease and occupancy" and allowing nine months. Motion unanimously carried. (5-0). None. None. None. Commissioner Fellhauer asked that if the R-1 Zone topic comes up again for Planning Commission discussion, that it be the only item on the agenda. Chairman Kretzmer urged everyone to attend tomorrow evening's El Segundo High School's football game against St. Monica's. None. The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2007. Gary Chicots ecretary of the Planning Commission and Interim Director of the Planning, Building Safety Department Michael Kretme the Planning Com City of El Segundc PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED BUSINESS REPORT FROM DIRECTOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Chairman of Fission , California El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2006 Page 17