Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-11-03u -, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COM1ISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1982, IN THE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Cbrm. Peirce at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Conms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chlm. Peirce ABSENI': Conms . Izant, Loosli ALSO PRESENT: PaIIEla Sapetto, Planning Director; Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide APPROVAL OF MINlJI'ES Motion by Chrrn. Peirce, seconded by Comn. Shapiro, to approve the October 5 , 1982 minutes, as submitted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Cormis . Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Chrm. Peirce None Comm. Strohecker Cormns . Izan t , Loosli APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Cornn. Smith, seconded by Comn. Shapiro, to approve Resolutions P.C. 82-32 and 82-33. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENI': COIIIDB . Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Chnn. Peirce None Cornn. Strohecker Conms . Izant, Loosli 1431 MONTEREY -REQUEST OF CONSTRUCTION OF '00 C.ONDJMINilM UNITS AND TENI'ATNE MAP 1/14627 Chnri. Peirc.e stated that this item will be postponed until after Item 5. ZONING C.ODE INTERPRETATION -PER APPLICATION FOR A TWJ-UNIT HOTEL fil 1100 STRAND .AS AN ANNEX TO THE ST. FRANCIS Ms. Sapetto presented slides of the project to the Ccmnission. She introduced Alfred Mercado who gave the staff report. Mr. Mercado presented staff report . He stated that staff recomIEnded that the Planning Comni.ssion consider the definitions listed on Attachrrent I and their proposed zone designations as a basis for determining the land use status of the St. Francis "hotel'" in regards to its application to expand its operatirn. Staff also reconmended that the Corrmi.ssion adopt a resoluticm of itention, to hold a public hearing to consider anEI1ding the zoning code by introducing new definitions of hotel, notel, boarding house, rooming house and lodging house. Hotel and rrntel are defined but not distinguished. Additionally, staff recormaided PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 3, 1982 Page 2 ZONING CODE IlITERPRETATION -PER APPLICJ\.TION FDR A ThD-UNIT HOl'EL AT 1100 STRAND AS AN ANNEX TO "THE 'ST. FRANCIS (Cont. ) that the Corrmi.ssion anend the code to indicate zones for those uses.and that the Planning Comnission adopt the resolution which finds that the St. Francis "hotel" is a non-conforming use. He stated that there is presently an application for a two-unit extension to the St. Francis ''hotel.11 The true status of the St. Francis has been questioned. That is, is it a hotel, boarding house, rooming house, motel, etc. Initially, the City zoning code was thought to provide the answer. Unfortunately, it does not distinguish between hotel and note 1. Furtherroore , it does not define boarding house, rooming, house , lodging house, etc. He stated that staff had provided sorre definitions along with a statenent of where such uses are rrost appropriate. If the Conrni.ssion concured with these or modifies them then the next step is to determine the status of the St. Francis. Based on the proposed definitions, the St. Francis contains characteristics of a hote l . This interpretation is b ased on the fact that it cannot be either a boarding house, rooming house or l odging house because such are herein defined as consisting of no nore than five (5) guest rooms. Additionally, the St. Francis is consistent with the proposed definition of a hotel in that the St. Francis provides access through a comnon entrance, lobby or hallway. Most of the roOIIB at the St. Francis are occupied by long tenn residents and since it contains nineteen rooms, it does not conveniently fal l within any of the proposed definitions. Therefore, assuming that the proposed definitions are approved, then the St. Francis is operating as a non-conforming use. If the Planning Corrmission concurs with this perspective , then the current application to expand the St. Francis is invalidated by Sections 1301 and 1 302 of the Zoning Code which prohibit expansion of non-conforming use where structured alterations will occur. Public Hearing opened at 7: 36 P .M. Chnn. Peirce inforned the audience that the hotel is located each of Beach Drive on the south side of the street. The applicant wished to add two rooms on the second floor of the newly-constructed structure on the Strand to be called an annex. He noted that the pertinent question is if the St. Francis is actually a hotel, or is it sooe other designation. Pete Mangurian, 2419 Rals ton, Re dondo Beach, appli cant, stated that the slides presented t o the Conmission were not slides of the property in question. He stated that they. did not intend to call it an annex . The property is IMnaged by two persons. He stated that the property will be developed within a short period of tirrB. He noted that the owner atterrpted to sell the property as a hotel site but failed to do so. Chm.1.. Peirce asked for the address of the St. Francis hotel. Mr. Mangurian replied that the address is 24 11th Street. Coom. Smith asked the applicant if the proposed annex were 1100 Strand. 1'1r. Mangurian rep lied in the affirmative ; h0ivever, he clairred it was not an annex. He noted that the City asked how it would be run. PIA"'iJNING C<l1MISSION MilHJTES -November 3, 1982 Page 3 ZONING CODE INI'ERPRETATION -PER APPLICATION FOR A 'TIJO-TJNIT HOTEL .Kr 1100 STRA."t\JD AS A"J ANNEX TO THE 'ST. FRANCIS (Cont.) Comn. anith questioned why this item would be before the Corrmission if it were not an annex. Ms. Sapetto stated that the project was to cmrprise an annex to the s tructure. Te chnically, the applicant i s saying that it will not be the same hotel; hCY.vever, it wi l l be the s ane managerrent. She noted that the concern of the City is that --­ there nrust be a lobby and a desk clerk in that lobby at all tinEs to function as a hotel. The applicant's suggestion was that it bec:orm part of another operation; therefore, the City was defining it as an addition to the other hotel. She noted that the trouble lied with defining the use that the applicant was requesting. A hotel must contain six (6) or nnre guest rooms. If the applicant wished to make it a single entity, the Comnission should discus s it being a b oarding house and not a hotel. She stated that it would not be a hotel because it would not have a lobby, and it would not have six or nnre guest rooms. It could rreet the standards of being a boarding h ouse; however, boarding houses are not a use allowed in that zone. Therefore, it would be a noncanfonni.ng use . M'r. Mercado stated that the St. Francis is not perceived as a hotel because most of the tenants are long-term, and in defining a hotel, the tenants would be terrporary. Chnn. Peirce stated that it cannot be a hotel because it does not have six guest rooms, and it cannot be a boarding house because it is in the wrong zone. If it is an -annex to the St. Francis, the City has de~d that it does not rreet the characteristics of a hotel. Corrm. Brown asked what the project was approved as when the applicant began construction. M'r. Mangurian replied that it was approved as office space. Corrm. Br™I1 stated that it would then be considered office space. He asked the applicant why it will not be rented as office space. Mr . Mangurian replied that he has had absolutely no response to renting it as office space . He has had many requests for using the property as a restaurant. Chrnn. Peirce believed that the applicant was requesting a variance. Mr. Mercado stated that the representatives of this proposed project went before the Enviroru:rental Review Board on October 20, and the Review Board requested as follows: "The Staff Review of 10/20/82 was in response to a request to change a second floor to a two-roorr. annex of the St. Francis hotel." Cornn. Brown stated that it had nothing to do with the St. Francis hotel. Ms_ Sapetto stated that it was UJ.derstood that it was to be an annex. She stated that the applicant wishes to rent it as s ormthing other than office space because he does not wish to offer a permanent lease; therefore , his wish is to rent it as hotel space. She stated that this item was brought before the Conmission to obtain PLANNING C01MISSION MINlJI'ES -Noverrber 3, 1982 Page 4 ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION -PER APPLICATION FOR A TWO-UNIT HCITEL Kr 1100 STRAND AS AN ANNEX TO THE ST . FRANCIS (Cont.) definitions for a hotel, IIDtel, boarding house, and rooming house/lodging house. She stated that if the Corrmission concurs with the definitions on Attachment I, the proposed project would not be an allowable use. Conm. Brown asked in which zone the property was located. Ms. Sapetto replied in the C-2 zone. Chon. Peirce asked the applicant if he was before the Corrmission because he requested the project to be used as a two-unit hotel, and the Environmmtal Review Board claimed it was not a hotel. Mr. Mangurian replied in the affirmative. Cbnn. Peirce stated that the Conmission Im.1St determine whether or not the two units on the second floor are a hotel. Comn. Shapiro clarified for the audience that the construction in question is located above 'I'omboy's Restaurant on 11th Street and the Strand. No one else appeared to speak in favor of this item. No one appeared to speak in opposition to this item. Public Hearing closed at 7:50 P.M. Corrm. Brown questirned whether it IIEets the standards of a hotel at the present titre. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. Chnn.. Peirce stated that it does not neet the generally accepted standards of a hotel, although the standards are not specifically pointed out in the Zoning Code; therefore, an interpre tation rrrust be made by the Conmission. Corrm. S:-iapiro asked if the St. Francis is defined as a hotel at this tine. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is a nonconforming use. Mr. Mercado stated that St. Francis is not operating as a hote 1 at this time. He stated that he was told by a representative of the St. Francis hotel that • ,,.: • .:.: persons live there, for the rrost part, on a pennanent basis. Conm. Shapiro asked the applicant if the rent is paid daily, weekly, or m.:mthly. Mr. Mangurian replied that rent is paid, for ·the rrost part, by the week. He added that it is listed as a hotel, and it pays bed tax to the City .. Conm. Brown asked where the hotel lies in relation to the annex. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is across the street. PLANNING CQ1MISSION lffiIDTES -November 3, 1982 • .Page .5_-__ ZONlNG CODE L.'-:rI'ERPREI'ATION -PER APPLICATION FOR A 'rnO-UNIT HOTEL AT 1100 STRAND AS AN ANNEX ·ro "THE 'ST: FRANCIS (Cont.) Mr. Mangurian stated that it is 100 feet away, and it is separated by a public street. Cornn. Smith noted that there was not a specific request in either the packet or the analysis in regards to whether that particular parcel of land tree ts the zoning . He noted that they were previously informed that persons stayed on a long-titre basis; however, the applicant infonred the Comnission during the publ ic hearing that persons pay on a weekly basis. Crum., Peirce stated that the Conmission ITn..lSt detennine whether the definitions on Attac.hmmt I are definitions that the Connli.ssion interprets the Zoning Code to mean when it says "hotel, m::,tel, etc." He stated that the Ccirrmi.ssian will not be approving the applicant's request for a hotel. Corrm.. Smith asked under what category a bed-and-breakfast establishnent would cOIIE under. Ms. Sapetto replied that a bed-and-breakfast establishm2.nt would be defined as either a boarding house or a lodging h ouse. Chmn. Peirce stated that the Conmission may make m::,difications to the four r definitions listed on Attachment I. P..e noted that it did not mm.tion a garage mder the definition of a hotel. r Mr. Mangurian questioned why he was instructed to appear before the Conmi.ssion if the Conmission was not going to approve his request for a hotel. Ms. Sapetto e>g>lained that the applicant has asked for a use that is not clear in the Zcming Code; therefore, the COIIIllission needs to make an interpretat ion as to what those uses are. Once that is determined, if the project falls within those guidelines, the applicant would have a ministerial-type project. At that ti.1re, the applicant may obtain approval from the Building DepartrrEnt. If the project does not fall into the category of the interpretations, a variance will need to be requested from the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Moticm by Chnn. Peirce, seconded by Corrm. Smith, to recorrrnend t o the Building Depa.rtnEnt that the definitions listed on Attac.hnalt I of the packet be used as guidelines to determine the status of the building, whether it be a hotel , ootel, boarding house, or rooming house/ lodging house . Cornn. Shapiro noted that Mr. Alton's opinion was, as stated in Para. 3 of his rrerro, that the St. Francis was a rooming house. Crum.. Peirce stated that Mr. Alton's opinicn was not based on approved guidelines. Lee Alton, Director of Building and Safety , stated that if the project falls within the category of one of the definitions, the project may be approved. However, if it does not fall within one of those categories , a variance will be needed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. He added that the Building Departrrent was pleased • that the definitions do not contain such subjects as sheets, laundry facilities, etc. PLANNWG C<l-'lMISSION lffiIDTES -Noverrber 3, 1982 Page 6 ZONWG CODE INTERPRETATION -PER APPLICATION FDR A TI.0-UNIT HOTEL AT 1100 STRAND AS AN ANNEX TO THE ST. 'FRANCIS (Cont. ) Corrm. Strohecker ·stated that he was not comfortable with the clause under Motels relating to kitchen facilities. Mr. Alton advised the Corrmi.ssion that if they adopt or arrend the four definitions, the Corrmissian should address the question as to whether the last use in the C-2 zone is applicable, that is, that this is a use no rrore deleterious than all the uses listed above . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COl1111S. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce None COIIIIlS . Izan t , Loosli Crum. Peirce stated that the Conmission should hold a public hearing to amend the Zoning Code by redefining the definitions. Motion by Chrm. Peirce, seconded by Corrrn. Shapiro, to hold a public hearing to aIIEnd the Zoning Code by redefining hotel, trotel, boarding house, and rooming house/lodging house. • AYF$: Corrms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce NOES: None ABSENT: CoIIIllS , Izant , Loosli Motion by Chnn. Peirce, seconded by Comn. Shapiro, to approve Resolution P .C. 82-34 with the deletion of the first WHEREAS. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce None Corrms . Izant , Loos 1i 1431 MONTEREY -REQUEST ·oF C~~STRUCTION 'OF 2 CONDCMilUUM UNITS AND TENTATIVE YJAP 1/14627 11s. Sapetto presented slides of the lot at 1431 Monterey. Mr. Mercado presented the staff report. He stated that staff recomrended that the Connti.ssion adopt the resolution approving this project. He noted that this project was considered by the Enviranrraital Review Board on October 20, 1982, and was granted a negative declaration which irnplys that the project will not have a significant in:pact on the environment . He stated that this project consists of construction of two condorni.niums on a 2,902 sq. ft. lot. The project is a two-story structure over a garage. The garage contains space for two cars; den, and bathroom facilities. The first floor consists of two bedrooms, two walkways and closets, and two bathrooms. The second f l oor cons ists of a f amily room, kitchen, dining room, living r oom, and a balcony . He noted that the project IIEets all of the Condominium Ordinance requiremmt s except three, those being , that it does not ~et the minirm.Jm lot width of 30 feet, that Unit 2 does not provide 200 cubic feet of storage space, and that the trash s torage location is not indic ated in the plans . In addition, the garage floor h as con:plete bathroom facilit ies which brings to mind the potential for a bootleg unit. Staff reconnended the Comnis sion to require either that the door leading to the stairs frcm the den be rerroved. In its place PIA.1NING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -November 3 , 19 82 Page 7 1431 MONTEREY -REQUEsr OF GONSTRIJCTION OF 2 CONDCMrNIUM UNITS AND TENTATIVE MAP //14627 (Cont .) there would be a continuous wall, and the stairs leading to both floors would be rroved adjacent to the den area . The other recomnendation of staff would be , , • that the washing facilities be enconpassed within the den area. Chnn. Peirce noted concern for the height in t.l-iat in times past, the approved height is sornetines less than the height after final construction. Mr. Alton stated that he understood t1"1e Chairman.' s concern that approval of a 28-foot structure may be built to 35 feet. He stated that the Building Departrrent checks to see 'Whether the height conplies with t he rnax:imum heigpt requirement during the framing stages . He stated that he was speaking because he h eard there was a nri.scalculation on the gross floor area o f the building. Ms. Sa:r,e tto read the following definition of gross floor area from the Zoning Code: 'The tota l area occupied by a building or structure excepting therefrom only the area of any inner courts, exterior corridors, open balconies , open stairways, and designated garages. Such total area shall be calculated by rreasuring along the outside clim:msions of the exterior services of such building or structure at each floor level and adding the total of each floor level." Mr. Alton stated that the balconies and garages are easy to delete . He stated that his calculation included the stairways for this proj ect and concluded that the building is 155 sq. ft . over the 1.25 ti~s the size of the lot . He stated that the plan checker deleted the stairways> leaving the Conmission two options. Che option would be to ask the applicant if he can delete 155 sq. f t. from the building, the other option being to interpret the stairways as open stairways. The se cond option would be difficult unless the app licant left o ff the too£. Chim. Peirce asked for Mr . Alton's interpretaticn of an open stairway. Mr. Alton replied that an open stairway is any stairway open to the sky. Cbnn. Peirce asked Mr. Alton i f the stairway would be excluded on both floors to cons titute an open stairway. Mr. Alton rep lied in the affinnati ve . Public Hearing opened at 8:30 P .M. Dennis Cleland, 444 29th Street, Hernosa Beach, owner and builder, stated that the landscaping plan indicated the trash area on each unit. He stated that the stairway was not included when he made the calculaticns. He noted that the storage area on the front unit is indicated on each side of the garage, and the storage area on the back unit is indicated next to the washer and dryer. Chrm. Peirce asked for the height of the underfloor space on the unit without the den on the bottom floor. Mr. Cleland stated that it will be a stepped-up foundation on a sloped lot. PLANNING COMMISSION l1INUI'ES -NoVeIIIDer 3, 1982 Page 8 1431 MONI'EREY -REQUEST OF CONSTRUCTION OF 2 CONDQ1INIUM UNITS AND TENTATIVE MAP #14627 (Cont.) Chml. Peirce stated that it has been the Ccmn:i.ssion' s policy in the past not to have fences segregating units. He asked if the private open space would remain private open space if the fence were delete d. }1s. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that it would be conm:n space at that point. Crum. Peirce asked if COilTCOil open space were required for this project. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. Chrrn. Peirce noted concern for the unit on the fi rst floor being converted into a bootleg unit in the future. Mr. Cleland stated that the walls around it are retaining; therefore, a door could not be put in the den leading from the outside. Chrm. Peirce stated that one could have separate units if a door were put on the upstaircase and the den. Mr. Cleland stated that they had to use a split entrance, due to the subterranean garage. Conm. Smith suggested having the staircase inside the den, as opposed to outside the den. Mr. Cleland stated that he wished to keep the den separate from the garage. No one else appeared to speak in favor of the new construction. No one appeared t o speak in oppos ition to the new constructirn. Public Hearing closed at 8:37 P.M. Oum.. Peirce stated that he would like to see the Analysis changed to re flect the true values of the presented project , i.e., the floor area, the lot coverage of 61. 7%, and a height of 28 feet . He stated that the project could be made into a bootleg with the additi on of only one door. Motion by Corrm. Smith, seconded by Conm. Shapiro for discussion, to approve a resolution including staff's reconnended conditions 1/1 -11, with the additim of Candi tion f/12 which would rrodify the den unit by removing the door leading f rom the stairs to the den. Th.at door would be replaced by a continuous wall. Chnn. Peirce stated that the project does not rreet the criteria of being 1.25 tinEs the lot area. Comn. Brown believed that the situatim with the den should be anended, and he believed that the staff report should be corrected. PI.ANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -November 3, 1982 Page 9 1431 MONTEREY -REQUEST OF CONSI'RUCTION OF 2 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND TENTATIVE MAP 1114627 (Cont .) Chmn. Peirce asked if the project was 155 sq. ft. over allowable if the staii:wells were included. Mr. Alton replied in the affinnative, adding that the project is 3790.9 sq. ft. if the stairs are deleted by taking off the roof and calling it an open stairway. It would then be 154. 6 sq. ft. over allowable. Crum. Peirce stated that fences are used as a criteria for al.Jrost all projects that have coire before the Conmi.ssion. Ms. Sapetto concurred, stating that the Coomission has used fences as a criteria for several years in the past. Conm. Smith stated that the issue of the fence was not significant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COIIlIIIS • Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce None Corrms . Izant , Loosli Crum. Peirce requested that nemo be sent concerning height and lot coverage to the Building Departmmt. So ordered. Mr. Alton stated that the Building Departmmt requires a deed restriction which will not allow an exterior opening into the stiarway from the landing level. He infoITIEd the Comnission that they may also require this in the Cc.&Rs. Motion by Corrm. Sini.th, seconded by Chnn. Peirce, to adopt a resolution with wHEREASs dealing with the floor area and the other deviations of the project . This resolution also includes Condition :f/12. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cams. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce None Comns . Izant , Loosli Chrrn. Peirce infonIEd the audience that this item may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. REZONING OF THE 11THOMPSON"' "PRIAMOSll AND11BILTI-ORE11 PROPERTIES TO CPD Ms . Sapetto gave staff report. She presented slides of all three locations in question. She stated that staff's re comnendation was to rezone to cOIIJrercial r.lanned development the area conmonly known as the "Thon:pson property" and the 'Priarros property" and to await any action on the Biltmore Site until the Council received a report from the to -be-established "Blue Ribbon" conmittee set up to make recorrmendations on the Biltnore Site . She noted that on the Cornmissicn' s goals and priority list of this year is the rezoning of coome.rcial parcels over 1/2 acre to conrrErcial planned developrrent . The Comni.ssion and Council enacted this zone PLANNING CCl1MISSION MINUTES -November 3, 1982 Page 10 REZONING OF THE "THOMPSON" 1 "PRIAM.OS" A."'ID "BILTMORE" PROPERTIES TO CPD (Cont.) in 1973 with the intent of expediting Corrmercial Development by creating greater flexibility in the development standards. The Conmission and Council also created the sarre. type of zone for residential planned development and implemented it on the "Boatyard" site in 1980. The Plarming Conmission created the CPD Zone with the intent of assisting property aivners in rrore imaginative use of their land. This is particularly inportant on larger parcels of land. This is done by allCMing greater flexibility in the development standards . The IIEthod used is that at the time a property owner wishes t o develop, he will submi t his application for a conditional use permit and p ay a fee o f $75 .00. The P lanning Comnission would provide a general statement o f rrodified developm;nt criteria at the ti.rre an application is filed for a conditional use pennit to initiate a project. This would include the general perameters such as height, setba~ parking, lot coverage, any of which could be varied if mitigated. This IIEthod would not exenpt projects from any applicable State Law or local ordinances, such as environerrntal impact reports and the provisions of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act. The p roperty owner would a lso continue to have the right to develop property in accordance with the underlining zone, which would be the C-3 zone. The first property is the "Thonpson property" which is located between Pier Ave, 16th Street, Ardmore and Pacific Coast Highway, It is a parcel of about 6. 26 acres . Four point one acres are zoned for manufacturing, and 2 1/ 4 acres are zoned C-3. The parcel is entirely within the multi-use corridor which does not address a manufacturing use, only comnercial and residential. It is the intent of the general plan land use desigpation. to develop the parcel as a cormercial parcel. It is currently used as a textile manufacturer. In order to zone the project CPD-C-3, the portioo. of the property zoned manufacturing would be entirely rezoned to C-3, and the total parcel would have an overlay zone imposed upon it of CPD. With the overlay CPD, the developer is required to follow the CPD process. However, the developer will :;till maintain the right to develop at C-3 developmmt standards if no agreenent can be reached on developmmt standards. To rezone this property would bring the zoning into conformance with the general plan and ease the process and future rezoning. If they want to do it corrnercially, they will have to rezone their property. The purpose would be to allow a developer nore ease in developing the site. It will, however, exclude the manufacturing use, thereby making the manufacturing use,:legal nonconforming. The "Prianns property11 is located adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway between 16th Street and 19th Street on the west side of the highway. Approximate ly . 44 acres of the property are zoned C-3 and 1.56 acres are zoned manufacturing . A florist and tool shop are located on the portion of the property which is adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway, while just to the rear of the structures there is a single family ct.Jelling. The majority of the property is vacant. The s~ rezoning procedure applies to this property as the Thompson property. Lastly to be considered is the "Biltnore site .11 The Biltmore site is currently zoned C-2 with a cormercial-recreational land use designation in the general plan. It is entirely a vacant lot. The Local Coastal Plan has placed no specific use on the site and, in fact, states that the City should keep all options open for the site including public, COIIIrercial and residential uses. The Local Coastal Plan also states that at the titre the City determines the use of the site, an arrendrralt to the LCP will be made and presented to the Coastal Coornissian. Although the CPD Zone allCJWs all the above uses in a mixed ratio, it does not allow all the above uses as a single use, specifically an all residential use. It also does not allow some other uses which were listed for consideration PLANNING C<MYJISSION" MINUI'ES -Noverrber 3, 1982 Page 11 REZONING OF THE "THCMPSON" 1 11PRIAMOS" AND ''BlLTMORE" PROPERTIES TO CPD (Cont.) on the site. She stated that impleirenting a CPD Zone on the Biltrrore Site at this time may be premature in staff's opinion. The City Council is in the process of appointing a connrittee to examine and reconnend uses for the Biltmore Site which will then be placed on the ballot. Rezoning the property at this tine could be misleading since any proje ct needs to await the City decision process . To rezone the Thonpson and Prianns properties would bring the zoning into conformance with the general plan and at the s~ tine, it would ease the process for a potential developer on these sites. It will, h ONever , exclude manufacturing use and make manufacturing use on that property legal , non confonning. She stated that she held a ~eting with the owners of the Priarros s ite, and they were supportive of the zone change. She had not had any discussions with the owners of the Thorrpson property, hONever, it was her understanding from agents seeking to develop the property, that future connercial use of the property is being considered. She stated that she has received no opposition from any of the owners in response to the notification. Pub lie Hearing opened at 9: 04 P .M. Mike Franzel, 15 15th Street, Henrosa Beach , representing Pacifi c Hon:eowners Association , urged the Conmission to accept the staff 's reconnendation for the Bilt::rrore site. He stated that there is cons iderable interest and activity in that site, and to wait a few rrore m:mths will not make any difference. Alice Veolobos, 1560 Pacific Coast Highway, Henrosa Beach, owner of the pet clinic, stated that her clinic is located across the s treet from the land in questicn. She stated that there is no sidewalk in front of that lot, vfu.ich she clairred was rather primi. ti ve. She spoke in favor of the proposed zoning. Public Hearing closed at 9: 08 P. M. Chnn. Peirce concurred with staff that the BilttIDre site should be withheld from this particular rezoning until a study is made of the area. Conm. Smith asked what kind of impact the rezone would have on the continued use of manufacturing with regard to the Thompson property. Ms. Sapetto replied that it may continue to be used as manufacturing. The new zone refers to new construction on the site. Conm. Smith asked if the mininrum uses under CPD for the Thompson and Primros properties were C-3. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affinnative. Motion by Chim. Peirce, seconded by Corrm. Brown, to rezone the Thompson and Priamos properties. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corms . Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker , Chnn. Peirce None Conms. Izant, Loosli ( PLANNING CCl1MISSION ML""IDTES -Novenber 3, 1982 Page 12 REZONING OF THE 'THCl1PSON11 , 11PRIAMOS 11 AND "BILTMORE" PROPERTIES TO CPD (Cont.) Motion by Chim. Peirce, seconded by Comn. Strohecker, to approve Re~olution P .c. 82-35. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conms . Brown,. Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Peirce None Comm . Izant, Loos 1i STAFF REPORTS Cormn. Smith suggested establishing a policy of off-street parallel parking standards by notion. Motion by Corrm. Smith, seconded by Chrrn. Peirce, to send a merro to the Building Departrrent to consider all off-street parallel parking stalls to be 8 1 x 24'. No objections. So ordered. Ms. Sapetto stated that staff recomrended instituting a preliminary filing fee for res idential planned deve lopn:ents because at the time an application is submitted, the City has a certain tima frarre to make an approval. If the Corrmission needs tine to negotiate with the developer, it would be fair to not ask for the full fee. She had two suggestions, one being that the City could ask for a $75 .00 fee in conformance with the CPD. The other suggestion was for the City to ask for a 10% deposit of the total fee due. Motion by Chrm. Peirce, seconded by Conm. Bram, to adopt Resolution P.C. 82-36. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conms . BrO'wil, Shapiro , Smith, Strohecker, Clum . Peirce None Conms. Izant, Loosli COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Conm. Shapiro requested that staff make certain that the packets are complete before they are distributed to the Corrmissioners. Cornn. Shapiro stated that as Secretary of the Corrmission, he will not sign anything which does not have the "AYES" and "NOES. 11 Coom. Shapiro requested that the City Council change the street signs from brown and yellow to a nore appropriate connination. Motion to adjourn at 9: 42 P .M. ( PLANNING C<MITSSION MINUI'ES -Novenber 3, 19 82 Page 13 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular neeting of the Planning Corrmi.ssion held on Novenber 16, 1982. J PEIRCE , Cl I q ;vvv yL..- DATE