Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983_09_06MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1983, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. I. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Soulakis ABSENT: Comms Smith, Strohecker ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Pam Sapetto, Planning Director; Mr. Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 1983 Comm Newton pointed out that on page 6, third paragraph from the bottom the following correction should be made "County Record" should read "County Recorder". Motion by Comm Newton, seconded by Comm Brown to approve the minutes as submitted, noting the above correction. There being no object­ ion, it was SO ORDERED. III. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION P.C. 83-22 There being p.o objection to the resolution as submitted by .staff; Motion by Comm Newton, seconded by Comm Soulakis,to approve the Resolution P.C. 83-22. AYES: Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Soulakis NOES: None ABS: None IV. .AJ.1ENDING ZONING CODE TO REGULATE PLACEMENT OF SATELLITE ANTENNAE The staff report was given by Ms. Sapetto. She stated that at the last meeting there were three changes suggested by Commission which were addressed in tonight's draft of the ordinance. However, the first item that Commission had recommended be changed, it was de­ cided that it should not be changed. She stated that staff felt that that change would significantly change the -intent and mean­ ing. She -.added that the word "broadcast" should be read as a verb and not a noun. It was staff's recommendation that it remain as it was in the original proposal. The second change, re the site plan, was included as a requirement for all applicants. The third change, under Section 1, number 4, the requirement for screening the antenna from view will be re­ quired in all instances. Public hearing was opened by Chmn Izant. There being no testi­ mony, th~ public hearing was closed. PAGE TWO • Comm Brown stated that except for .the first recommended change, he felt that the ordinance was a true representation of what Commission had intended. Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Newton, to approve the ordinance as presented incorporating staff's recommendation to keep· the wording of Section 1, number 2, as originally submitted. In answer to Comm Soulakis' question, Ms. Sapetto stated that since screening will be required in all instances that it will no longer leave the authority with the building director as to what will con­ stitute adequate screening. Chmn Izant added that it was the Commissions' intent to make a case-by-case determination of the adequacy of the screening. Chmn Izant asked that the record reflect that Comm Shapiro arrived at 7: 40 p.m. Chmn Izant informed him of the to.pie _ then under dis­ cussion. AYES: NOES: ABS: Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Shapiro Comm Soulakis None Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Shapiro, to approve Reso­ lution P.C. 83-23 as presented by staff. AYES: NOES: ABS: Chmn Izant; Cornms Brown, Newton, Shapiro Comm Soulakis None V. REDEFINING HOTEL AND MOTEL, THEIR APPROPRIATE ZONES, AND DELET­ ING (FROM THE ZONING CODE) THE TERMS BROADING/LODGING/ROOMING HOUSES. The staff report was given by Mr. Mercado. He stated that on August 18, 1983, the City Council and the Commission held a joint workshop to discuss this topic. At that workshop it was determined that for hotels and motels no kitchen facilities shall be · permitted in projects of less than 20,000 square feet, and that 80 percent of the units shall be permitted in projects over 20,000 square feet. It was decided further that boarding/lodging/rooming houses shall not be permitted uses in any zones. He added that the rationale for permitting kitchen facilities in larger projects only is based on the interest in avoiding long-term use which is a more probable outcome in smaller, older structures with kitchen facilities. He continued by saying that the rationale for removing boarding/ lodging/rooming houses from the conditional use list results from the perception that such uses have a propensity to lead to long­ term use and manifest other ill-perceived characteristics which PAGE THREE hinder the community's effort to enhance its image and fiscal viability. He added that it was staff's recommendation that the sample reso­ lution be adopted and that the resolution recommends to the Ctiy Council adoption of the proposed ordinance amending articles 2, 11.5, 10 and 8 of the Zoning Code. Comm Brown stated that it was his recollection the percentage figure arrived at during the workshop was 90 percent rather than 80 percent. Mr. Mercado stated that the minutes of that work- shop did not indicate any concensus initially, but after a lengthy discussion it was agreed that 80 percent would be the representative number. Chmn Izant pointed out that in Attachment 2, number 1, second-to-the­ last line that the words "slicing scale" should be corrected to read "sliding scale". Chmn Izant opened the public hearing. There being no testimony, the public hearing was closed. After a short discussion, there was a motion by Comm Brown, second­ ed by Comm Newton, to pass the resolution as submitted recommending adoption of the ordinance by the City Council. In answer to Comm Shapiro's question, Mr. Mercado stated that the differences between hotels and motels are that hotels will have sliding scale parking and will be required to have an 800 square foot lobby manned 24 hours a day .. In answer to Comm Soulakis' question Mr. Mercado stated that the sliding scale parking will not apply to both hotels and motels. He added that the proposed ordinance's new section 6 only applies to hotels and that the section dealing with motels will stay as it now exists. In answer to Comm Soulakis' ques-tion Mr. Mercado stated that the word "parcel" refers to land area. He added that the hotel re­ quirement of an 800 square foot ·lobby manned 24 hours a day will probably not be economically feasible for smaller projects. In response to Comm Soulakis' question Chmn Izant stated, by way of background information, that the Planning Commission originally defined hotels has having no kitchen facilities. He added that it had been his opinion that the large hotels generally didn't provide kitchen facilities in their rooms. However, with more information he found that many of the larger, better hotels provide such facilities in their more expense rooms. He stated further that he agreed with staff's analysis re the required square footage and manned-lobby, since the hotel would have to be quite large before the kitchen facilities would be provided. PAGE FOUR Comm Brown stated that the Commission did not want to preclude a large developer from coming in and .having to fit into some archaic criteria. Commission felt that the city would possibly attract a good developer and that was one of the reasons they limited it to 20,000 square feet. He felt that if a developer bought 20,000 square feet of land they should have some flexibility to determine if some of the planned units would have kitchens. He felt that that was Commission's rationale. AYES: NOES: ABS: Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis None None Motion by Comm Soulakis, seconded by Comm Newton, to pass the resolution PC 83-24 as prepared by staff. AYES: Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis NOES: None ABS: None VI. C-POTENTIAL ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY The staff report was given by Ms. Sapetto. She stated that on August 15, 1983, the BZA approved a Preliminary Environmental Impact report on amending the Zoning Code, Section 1103, to allow owners of C-Potential properties adjacent to C-3 zones the right to automatically rezone to C-3. She added that the proposal to allow owners of ·c-Potential properties along Pacific Coast Highway contiguous to C-3 properties the auto­ matic right to rezone C-3, would provide more clarity and certainty for the developer and would enhance the city's ability to compete for land development dollars for those C-Potential properties which are presently under-utilized. In addition, though no precise plan would be required for rezoning a C-Potential lot, as is now required, the developer would still have to submit such a plan to to Commission for approval of any project. It is staff's recommendation that the Commission approve the reso­ lution approving amendment of Section 1103 of the Zoning Code by allowing C-Potential properties with a common-line boundary to a C-3 zone along PCH the right to automatically rezone to C-3 prior to submission of a precise plan to the Commission. In answer to Chmn Izant's question Ms. Sapetto stated that if the property owner has the underlying C-Potential on his property and he is adjacent to a commercially zoned property along PCH, he would have the right to automatically rezone to commercial. However, it would not be blanket approval of an intended project. The project plans would still have to come before the Commission. PAGE FIVE In answer to Comm Soulakis' question, Ms Sapetto stated that she was not sure whether a property owner could go back automatically to original zoning once the property has been rezoned. It was her opinion that the property owner would have to make a formal request to reverse it. Comm Soulakis stated that he felt that once the Commission allows these properties to rezone, then the adjacent zones would be re­ zoned C-Potential, ad infinitum. Ms. Sapetto stated that that would not be the case. She added that the property would have to designated C-potential at this time and it would not go beyond the scope of what is now C-Potential. Both Comm Soulakis and Comm Brown voiced concern over the fact that if the property were rezoned commercial at the owner~ request and for some reason his proj~ct fell through that the reversion to C-potential would not be automatic. They felt that this might present some legal problem if the owner was prevented from using his land for anything other than a commercial purpose. They felt that if it was automatic one way, it should also be automatic in the other direction. Ms. Sapetto stated that the reason for this automatic rezoning was to encourage commercial. She added that any property owner would have the right to request a rezone as long as it is consis­ ten with the general plan. Mr. Mercado stated that if a project is denied initially it can be amended to comply with code require­ ments. He added that any deriial has to be based on findings. Comm Newton suggested that if a property owner is concerned with this reversal issue,perhaps the Code should allow a property owner to submit project plans along with his automatic zone change re­ quest stipulating that the zone change be contingent on approval of the plan. In response to Comm Newton's suggestion Ms. Sapetto stated that with the present Code the property owner has to submit a specific plan in order to convert his C-Potential property to commercial, and that approval of the plan would also constitute approval of the zone change. However, it was the Council's concemthat that pro­ cedure might deter property owners from converting to commercial because they did not have a guaranteed conversion. She added that under the proposed amendment the overly cautious developer would no longer have that option. Ms. Sapetto stated that it was her recommendation at this time to continue this item until the next meeting when the staff can pre­ sent commission with a draft of the proposed ordinance amendment that reflects the Commissions' concerns. Comm Brown felt that both options should be available to the pro­ perty owner. On the one hand the zone change to commercial can be automatic if that is the property owner's desire~ 0n the other hand if the property owner would prefer that the zone change be PAGE SIX contingent on the approval of his project plan that option should still be available to him. He suggested further that the City Attorney read and submit his opinion regarding the Commissions' concerns raised tonight. VII. STAFF ITEMS Ms. Sapetto distributed material to the Commission with respect to up-coming seminars sponsered by the Southwest Planning Council de­ signed specifically for Planning Commissioners. She suggested that the seminars would be helpful for the new commissioners. She re­ quested that all those interested in attending let her know so that the proper reservations can be made. Ms. Sapetto distributed copies of the minutes from the Vehicle Parking District to the Commissioners. Chmn Izant pointed out that there would be a City Council-Planning Commission Joint workshop tomorrow night to discuss the Housing Element. He suggested that everyone attend if possible so that they would be familiar with the subject matter on the oft-chance that the element may come back before the Commission. He added that it would begin at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Sapetto stated that she had submitted a request to the Planning Commission,for their consideration, to hold only one Commission meeting per month instead of two. Her justification for the request was that the Department is not getting the number of applications for sub-divisions that they had in the past. She added that those appplications are really the only items that must be discussed by the Commission on a timely basis. She felt that most of the remain­ ing business could be adequately handled in one meeting per month. She continued by saying that the Housing and Land Use Elements were now being discussed in the workshop format which seems to be a better way to deal with those items. She added that putting the materials together for the meetings was expensive. Also, if the circumstances change, Caommission can go back to the two scheduled meetings per month. She added that this month would be exempt since the proposed ordin- ance for .devel opme_nt ag.reeme.n.ts is an i tern that the City Council was anxious Loi the Commission to take action on . Comm. Soulakis stated that he had no objection with the one meeting idea, but was concerned about its effect on the public. Ms. Sapetto responded by saying that it would ·generally be just an additional two-week wait if an i tern had to b ei continued from one meeting to the next. She added that with respect to sub-divisions that those are usually handled within one meeting's time, since they are drawn to specifications and generally come in meeting all requirements. If they are continued for some reason it will usually take the applicant an extra meeting to make the necessary changes. PAGE SEVEN In response to Comm Shapiro Ms Sapetto stated that if the addition­ al two-week wait would cause an undue hardship a special meeting could then be scheduled. It was decided that the meetings would then be scheduled for the third Tuesday of each month, exempting this month. so ORDERED. VIII. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Chmn Izant asked what the status of the Appletree issue was. Ms. Sapetto stated that the item had been originally scheduled for tonights' meeting; but that they had had a problem obtaining a preliminary title report. Staff had received a $700.00 estimate for the report, and the City Attorney had requested a line-by-line breakdown of the costs. She added that after they receive the cost breakdown they will still have to get approval from the City Council for the expenditure. In answer to Comm Brown's question Mr. Mercado stated a preliminary title report was necessary in order to notify the property owners of the city's intended proceeding. He added that this report will provide staff with a current list of the surrounding property owners. Comm Brown suggested that the staff obtain a copy of the title report from the agency that the owner of the property used to close escrow, since a running record is kept. Ms. Sapetto agr·eed that that was a· good idea . Comm Newton added that the city's proceeding will impact the sur­ rounding property owners, perhaps impairing their rights, and they must be notified. She asked whether the inspection that had been requested by the owner of the Appletree at the last meeting had taken place. Mr. Mercado stated that the inspection had not been done. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15.