Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11.20.84l MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P .M. Meeting called to order by Comm. Peirce at 7:31 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Sheldon. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Comms. Compton, Newton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon Chmn. lzant Ralph Castaneda, Acting Planning Director; Linda Brown Brayton (Comm. Newton joined the meeting at 7:54 P .M.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Compton, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 16, 1984. No objections. So ordered. Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Compton, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 30, 1984. No objections. So ordered. ZONE CHANGE FROM M TO R-3 AT 142 ARDMORE Mr. Castaneda gave staff report, stating that staff's recommendation is to continue this public hearing to December 18, 1984. He further noted that this item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of October 30, 1984. Mr. Castaneda stated that after conferring with the applicant, staff recommended that this item be considered at the same time that the Planning Commission considers areas of zoning and General Plan inconsistencies. He stated that this project is located in such an area. The applicant has agreed to this continuance. Public Hearing opened at 7:37 P.M. Gerald Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 10, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Planning Commission and stated that this is a project on which he will not be voting because the applicant is his client. He noted that a zone change is being proposed from M to R-3. He noted that it would be in the best interests of the project to wait until that time when staff can provide more information on other similar areas in the City. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether Mr. Compton's addressing the Planning Commission was appropriate. He noted that, even though Mr. Compton was speaking as a private citizen, he is still a Planning Commissioner. Mr. Compton replied that he had spoken with the City Attorney in regard to this matter, and it was felt that his actions were appropriate. Comm. Peirce suggested that the City Attorney provide an opinion in writing in regard to Mr. Compton's representing his client before the Planning Commission. r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 ZONE CHANGE FROM M TO R-3 AT 142 ARDMORE (CONT.) PAGE 2 Comm. Schulte questioned whether Mr. Compton intended to speak on this issue at the Public Hearing when the issue is again addressed. Mr. Compton replied in the affirmative. Public Hearing continued at 7:40 P.M. to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for December 18, I 984. Comm. Peirce adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:42 P.M. to a workshop session with audience participation. LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION -MUL Tl-USE CORRIDOR Comm. Peirce noted that the intent of this workshop session was to obtain input in regard to the multi-use corridor. Mr. Castaneda gave staff report, stating that this workshop would be an informal session. He began by giving an orientation of Pacific Coast Highway and the multi-use corridor by showing slides depicting different views in this area. Mr. Castaneda stated that Pacific Coast Highway is a major commercial sector of Hermosa Beach, with land uses ranging from automotive sales to neighborhood shopping centers. There is almost 500,000 square feet of existing commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway with almost 60% located in the multi-use corridor. The balance of 40%, or over 200,000 square feet, is located in areas designated as General Commercial. The commercial land use totals do not include the development recently completed or under construction. Mr. Castaneda stated that, according to the current Land Use Element, there are four commercial sectors along P .C.H. These are: • Multi-Use Corridor • General Commercial • Multi-Use Corridor • General Commercial I st to 8th Streets 8th to 14th -Streets Pier Avenue to 24th Street Gould Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway Mr. Castaneda stated that these commercial sectors have numerous business establishments. Each sector has a somewhat different character in terms of predominant land use characteristics. For example, automotive and repair services are the predominant land uses in the multi-use corridor between 1st Street and 8th Street. The major commercial land use in the General Commercial area between 8th Street and 14th Street are food stores and professional/business services. The primary land use activities in the multi-use corridor between Pier Avenue and 24th Street are professional/business services and repair services. Finally, in the General Commercial area near Gould Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, the predominant land uses are food stores and automotive uses. The range of uses in the multi-use corridor include: building materials and home Improvement, food stores, automotive, apparel, furniture, eating and drinking establishments, miscellaneous retail, finance, insurance, and real estate, personal services, repair services, entertainment and miscellaneous services, and professional and business services. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 PAGE 3 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION -MULTI-USE CORRIDOR (CONT.) Mr. Castaneda stated that although there are numerous and varied commercial land uses along the Pacific Coast Highway/multi-use corridor, there are four major activity points, including the Lucky's and Alpha Beta neighborhood shopping centers; the automotive sales/repair uses, especially those located between 1st Street and 8th Street; and the new office complex at 21st Street. This locational concentration of commercial land uses will be somewhat reoriented to the Pier Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway area after construction is completed of Plaza Hermosa. He further noted that this area represents a vital contribution to the City's fiscal and economic health. He stated that approximately 16% of the City's total general fund budget is derived from retail sales taxes; 33% of that total comes from the automotive dealers and retailers in the City, most of which are located along P .C.H. Another 12% comes from food stores. Comm. Peirce requested that Mr. Castaneda provide clarification on the location of the multi-use corridor. Mr. Castaneda outlined the area in question on the large map. He further stated that, from the Land Use Element standpoint, the question is whether or not to keep the multi­ use corridor as a land use corridor. Also there is the question of whether the area should be more clearly defined and whether the goals and policies of the area should be more clearly defined, He noted that a third objective is to identify those areas that should be included, that is, boundaries of the multi-use corridor. Finally, any future actions which may be necessary if the City wishes to encourage further commercial development along this sector of the City need to be determined. Mr. Castaneda stated that these are important issues to be addressed and answered, not only for the benefit of the Planning Commission, but also for the benefit of the development community. He noted that inconsistencies will arise when the question of boundaries is addressed. He stated that there are residential uses throughout the area, either fronting along P.C.H. or adjacent to and in the multi-use corridor. Along P.C.H. there are a number of R-3 C-Potential areas. This area also includes some apartment buildings. Mr. Castaneda stressed that the first issue to be addressed should be that of the boundaries of the multi-use corridor. He stated that it is intended to allow residential, but the idea is to move towards future commercial use. He stated that several oversights and technical problems exist in regard to the discrepancies in this area. Violet lsgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the multi-use corridor being as high on the east side as was shown in the presentation. She noted that the area is very hilly and that the soil in the area is very unstable. She also asked why the City allows building to take place right up to the sidewalk. She stated that during peak traffic hours, it is very difficult to park or to see oncoming traffic. Mr. Castaneda stated that much of this points to the fact that there are many interests in terms of investing in the future of this particular area of the City. He stated that from a planning and development standpoint, this area does have a commercial future. He stated that the task is to define the multi-use corridor and to define the boundaries. He noted that there were basic alternatives: to leave the area as it is; to eliminate and change the general commercial category; redefine the definition to adjust boundaries and to set the stage for implementation by modifying development standards. He noted that if everything were the same color on the zoning map, inconsistencies would exist PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 PAGE4 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION -MULTI-USE CORRIDOR (CONT.) between the General Plan and the land use, thereby calling for a series of public hearings. Mr. Castaneda stated that what the multi-use corridor and the C-Potential zone does is acknowledge that, for some time, there will be a series of uses. From a general standpoint, residential will exist with commercial. In other words, this avoids some technical and legal problems if it were all changed to commercial. He noted that until the underlying land values are such that commercial development makes sense on any particular position, the residents themselves will have housing for a period of time. This allows any residential land use to remain without prejudging when it should be rezoned to commercial; economic circumstances will decide that, and maybe some other actions to encourage it. Mr. Castaneda turned the staff report over to Linda Brayton Brown. Ms. Brown gave a preview of the research which she has completed and that which has been of interest to the Commission over the past five years in terms of height and other standards. Ms. Brown discussed the development standards for commercial areas that abut single­ family residences. At present, there is no setback requirement in areas zoned for commercial use. The maximum height permitted is 45 feet or three stories, whichever is less. In contrast, in the single-family residential zone, the maximum height is 25 feet. Front yard setbacks are from a five-foot minimum to a ten-foot maximum. The side yard setback is ten percent of the lot, with a three-foot minimum. In regard to the rear yard, there is required ground floor setbacks of five feet and second floor setbacks of three feet. Properties which are on alleys require setbacks of three feet on the ground floor and one foot on the second floor. Ms. Brown stated that City staff, in investigating the problems related to the interface of commercial and residential use in 1981, reviewed development standards for other coastal cities. She noted that charts reflecting these comparisons were given to each commissioner. She continued her report by discussing the figures contained in the chart. Ms. Brown stated that staff reviewed the standards for the cities regarding the height, front, side, and rear yard setbacks. Subsequent to this research, development standards were formulated and adopted in the form of an interim ordinance. At that time those standards stated that the height requirements would remain at a maximum of 45 feet in C zones except where it abuts residentially-zoned property. That portion of the structure that abuts the residentially-zoned property would have a 35-foot height limitation. The commercial use would abut a residential, and a setback of at least five feet would be required. There is a stipulation which some cities incorporate in order to provide visual review for adjacent residences. Ms. Brown stated that in March of 1982 the City Council adopted these standards and some parking standards for commercial areas as permanent development standards. Because it was later determined that proper environmental procedures had not been followed, this ordinance was repealed. This is where the situation stands now. Ms. Brown stated that the City wished to reinstate those development standards, and the same standards could be adopted by ordinance once the proper environmental procedures PLANNING COMMISSION-MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 PAGE 5 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION -MULTI-USE CORRIDOR (CONT.) had been followed; however, there are other options for consideration. Many cities require setbacks that are equal to the minimum setbcick of the adjacent residential zone. The standard five feet such as exists in this City and a review of the previous research indicated that the maximum height in Hermosa Beach was higher than is generally permitted in commercial areas in other beach cities. As this City has a 45-foot height limit and an R-1 maximum height limit, this points to a difference for the two uses. An option which the Commission might consider would be to require additional setbacks in areas where commercial uses abut an R-1 zone. Setbacks might be required for buildings of over 35 feet, which would allow for more distance and privacy from the larger buildings. Landscaping could be required at lot lines in order to provide more privacy for the single-family residential uses. Ms. Brown suggested that the issue of aesthetic compatibility could be addressed in several ways: there could be a design review process required in buildings in commercial areas abutting residential to give the City on opportunity to impose conditions to make the structure aesthetically compatible with the existing development. Another possibility would be to take some of the previous language of the former ordinance to incorporate certain features. She stated that this is open to interpretation, and it may need more specific language. Ms. Brown stated that another option would be to retain the precise plan of design requirements of the C-Potential zone; whereas the standards proposed for that particular lot will become the development standards specifically. One advantage would be that there are a number of different uses and circumstances within the multi-use corridor which make it more difficult to come up with development standards. The drawback is that the City does not have a large planning staff, and this would require a greater amount of staffs' ti me Dan Withee, Withee Malcolm Partnership, 35 Malaga Cove Plaza, Palos Verdes Estates, noted that the question is one of height. He noted that height in the City of Hermosa Beach is measured differently than in other cities, stating that height in this City is measured from the lowest point. He noted concern over the method by which height is determined. Mr. Withee noted concern over the 35-foot height maximum where commercial abuts residential. He questioned the method by which this figure was determined. Ms. Brown replied that this issue was not clearly defined in the ordinance. Mr. Withee stated that in most cities in which he has worked, such as the City of Torrance, a building cannot be done without going through a precise pion. He.noted that this is automatic. He suggested that Hermosa Beach try this method, but he did note that Hermosa Beach has a smaller staff than T orronce. He noted that he was referring to general commercial buildings over I 0,000 square feet. He felt that this is a good method for securing design, and he noted that it gives the Planning Commission the ability to make comments about the design. He noted that it is not a good policy to blanket C-3 projects with no conditions. He stated, too, that it is difficult to blanket conditions on architecture. Mr. Withee felt that if staff were available, it is better to have every building judged individually. ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 PAGE 6 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION -MULTI-USE CORRIDOR (CONT.) Comm. Newton noted that at one time it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council that these guidelines, such as the breaking of the plane, appear in the zoning code so that a developer would have some indication of what the City was looking for. It was also suggested that a precise plan be required and that each project be required to go through public review. She stated that it was felt that the mixture of uses was so prevalent that each site would have its own specific problems. Comm. Shapiro noted that at that time, it was even considered that on the east side one could go above 35 feet. Comm. Newton continued by stating that it was thought that there should be design standards. After much discussion, it was thought that there should be some guidelines to give a potential purchaser or developer some feeling for what it was that the City was looking for. There were also things to be avoided, such as a 45-foot building next to a 25-foot house. A precise plan would still be required in each instance. She felt that this is still a good idea until the multi-use has turned over to a point where it is mostly commercial. She further noted that this really was not worked out in as much detail as it should have been. Comm. Newton stated that this requirement might not be necessary for properties on the highway; but any property that is not fronting on the highway and is also next to a residentially-zoned property should be subjected to individual review. Comm. Peirce noted that in the north end of town on the east side of P .C.H., there are several properties which are in the commercial corridor. These are very narrow, and they abut R-1 on the back of all those properties. He stated that a 1981 ordinance was intended to alleviate some of the problems of 45-foot to 25-foot interface. Comm. Newton questioned whether special deference should be given to those properties which are one lot removed from the highway. Comm. Peirce stated that it should be determined how deep the commercial corridor should be; after this determination, other questions, as a result of the planning decision, could be addressed. Comm. Peirce stated that he felt there are areas adjacent to P.C.H. where a wide corridor is not desirable because of the topography. He noted that in certain areas the land slopes quite rapidly up the east and down towards the west, making it attractive for more than a one-lot depth. Comm. Newton questioned whether Comm. Peirce felt that the development standards should be different than for those lots that front on the highway in those areas. Comm. Peirce believed that the normal planning would be for commercial, then high density, R-3, R-2, and R-1. He felt that it is necessary to restrict the commercial development or in some way modify it or upgrade the R-1 to a higher density. He couldn't see any difference. He felt that it would be incompatible to have those two uses side by side. Comm. Newton stated that all parcels should be treated the same with respect to the development standards actually on the highway. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 PAGE 7 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION -MULTI-USE CORRIDOR (CONT.) Comm. Peirce stated that he did not disagree with Comm. Newton's remarks, but he noted that there are a number of residential lots along P.C.H. in that area which he believed are zoned commercially. Mr. Castaneda stated that he thought everything along the highway was zoned commercially. Comm. Compton stated that by doing nothing to increase the depth of the commercial corridor, commercial development would be restricted. He noted that without the depth, parking cannot be provided. He further stated that by not allowing the commercial to go back some distance, the height would go higher and would therefore give no protection to the residences behind. Comm. Newton agreed with Comm. Compton's comments, stating that there is a problem with commercial abuttihg residential when there is only a depth of one lot off of the highway. She stated that the considerations would be different were the depth two lots. Different design standards would then apply, and some lots would be restricted to the point where it would not be feasible to develop along the lines the City is trying to encourage. Comm. Peirce felt that a decision needs to be made in regard to the zoning in the multi­ use corridor. He noted that in some areas there is no residential; to label those areas multi-use would be a misnomer. He noted that the definition of a multi-use corridor calls for a number of different uses in that corridor in that over a period of time, it would tend to propagate towards commercial usage; that is consistent with the zoning placed on that property 20 years ago. There is so-called potential. This has no designation in the City zoning code. The question is does the City want to expand the commercial section in the south end or north end of town. He noted that he would like to receive input on this issue because this is really the heart of the question in terms of how next to proceed with the rest of the decisions, whether one lot is adjacent to commercial or otherwise. Comm. Compton felt that the designation multi-use corridor means that there could be commingled uses. In other words, a four-story building could exist with commercial on the bottom floor, offices on the second floor, and residences on the third and fourth floors. He could see this as a possibility in the multi-use corridor. If this area were zoned commercial, then this would not be a possibility. Comm. Peirce noted that Comm. Compton's idea has been allowed in the past, stating that it occurred in a commercial zone. He further stated that it was questionable whether the Commission should be concerned with what happened in the City 20 years ago. He felt that the Commission should get current input as to the best use of that corridor. Comm. Peirce further stated that he felt that the Commission should base its decision on the present future. Comm. Compton noted that it is important to leave options open for the future, to not cut them off now. He felt that the concept of a multi-use corridor is an important one. Comm. Newton felt that the purpose was to provide for commercial use, but not in a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 PAGE 8 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION -MUL Tl-USE CORRIDOR (CONT.) sudden fashion thereby creating cases where zoning would be inconsistent with the general plan. In other words, she felt it would be inappropriate to designate the area commercial in the general plan while the zoning code is still residential. She felt that it should be designated in a certain manner during the transition. Comm. Peirce felt that one can define the multi-use corridor, but one should also make an effort to determine what the different sections of the City want to do. He noted the need for up-to-date input from the community. He noted that decisions should be made from this point forward. Mrs. lsgreen noted that what is being discussed is a cross-country highway. She asked whether that shouldn't be considered in the determinations. She noted that it is impossible to foresee what will happen to the highway in years to come. She further felt that those decisions would not be up to the City. Comm. Peirce agreed that this observation is an important one, but he noted that P .C.H. carries more commuter traffic than truck traffic. He noted that from a City standpoint, an area which handles a large amount of commuter traffic is looked upon as strictly commercial. He noted that the question is what the City wants to do with the area. He noted that it is that land behind the stores which is being discussed in regard to what should be done with it as far as zoning or the type of planning which is desired in 20 years. Mrs. lsgreen stated that no consideration is being given to the topography of the land. She noted that the hills are a key factor and should be considered. She stated that houses are caving in along that area. The soil is unstable, especially with the weight of all the traffic. Comm. Peirce felt that the multi-use corridor designation should be removed, and that the zoning should be left R-3 in the south end of town. He stated that his opinion was based on the topography issue. He noted that the land slopes quite rapidly from east to west. There is a slope on the east side, and that is the question. He stated that the only question in his mind related to the issue of what the City wishes to do with the west side of town. He noted that there are older houses there, and that the density seems to enlarge the commercial area to the west of P.C.H. and not to the east. Comm. Sheldon felt that the area is commercial, and residential has no place in the area. He felt that the issue has been caught up in the matter of semantics. He noted the substantial tax revenues derived from the area. He felt that the area should be zoned and land planned to encourage the promotion of commercial along P.C.H. and the eventual elimination of residential. Comm. Schulte noted concerns over the issue of topography. Comm. Sheldon felt that developers could accommodate the land use and zoning. He noted that the economics allow commercial development to be profitable. He felt that the entire area should be commercial. Comm. Newton agreed that the entire area should be commercial. Comm. Sheldon noted that the area is a major arterial commercial corridor; PLANNING ( COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 PAGE 9 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION -MULTI-USE CORRIDOR (CONT.) consequently, he recommended that the entire area be commercial. He felt that it should be clear to a developer that this is what the City wants. He liked the idea of allowing some review in regard to the issue of height and setbacks. Comm. Sheldon further stated that as much attractiveness should be given to the east side of the highway as is given to the west side, both north and south. He felt that every time a residential development is allowed in the C-Potential zone, whether it be north or south, the City is pulling away from any viable commercial development along the highway. He noted that on the west side of the highway, commercial rents are higher than along Hawthorne Boulevard or even in the Del Amo Mal I. Mrs. lsgreen questioned the prudence of discussing commercial on Pier Avenue. She explored the possibility of apartments along that area, noting that apartment dwellers are usually not the single-family type of resident. She questioned why commercial development is not encouraged on Pier Avenue. She further noted that great visual difficulties are encountered in the area because of traffic and congestion. Comm. Sheldon stated that much of the difficulty arises because of the fact that many of the lots on the south end of P.C.H. and some in the north end are only 40 feet deep. He noted the difficulty in providing parking under such circumstances. Mrs. lsgreen again voiced concerns over the issue of topography. Comm. Sheldon felt that these problems could _ be overcome through modern engineering techniques. He further stated that residential ambiance along P.C.H. is minimal; therefore, commercial development should be encouraged. He felt that multi-use should be discouraged. Mr. Withee commented that some sort of precedent should be set whereby commercial activity should exist from Rosecrans all the way to Palos Verdes. He referred to this as a "golden strand." He further felt that it is absolutely necessary to have lots which are deep enough to provide for adequate off-street parking. He addressed the issue of topography, but he stated that developers will not allow that issue to stand in the way of development, especially when the price reaches a certain level. He noted that lots with a 40-foot depth are inadequate. Comm. Sheldon felt that consideration should be given to the idea of changing zoning to a depth which would be consistent with commercial development along P .C.H. Comm. Peirce stated that adjustments were made in the south end of town on the west side of the highway. He stated that at the time, it was felt that, because of the topography, there was no desire to increase the commercial depth north of Pier Avenue on P.C.H. Comm. Newton stated that because of the topography in the north end, there is less of a height differential between commercial and residential. Comm. Sheldon stated that he has a bit of a problem is regard to the 45-foot height limitation. He noted that Manhattan Beach has been very successful with their 30-foot height limit. He noted that although he is in favor of having the entire area commercial, he would be prone to argue in favor of a lower height limitation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 PAGE 10 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION -MUL Tl-USE CORRIDOR (CONT.) Comm. Compton asked Mr. Castaneda what he considered to be a reasonable minimum depth for commercial in this area. Mr. Castaneda felt that 200 feet would be appropriate. Comm. Sheldon stated that he would like to have a map showing what 200 feet would mean. He also felt that it would be appropriate to receive input on what other cities such as Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach are doing with their zoning and general plan depth off the highway. He noted how attractive the Manhattan Beach developments are along the highway. James Fucile, 1226 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, stated that he has attempted three times to develop property which he owns in Hermosa Beach. He felt that the City should take a stand one way or the other on this issue. He feels that Hermosa Beach is an excellent city in which to do business, but he felt that it is necessary for the City to take a stand on the issues once and for al I. Comm. Peirce asked for Mr. Fucile's feeling in regard to the issue of the 200-foot depth along the highway. Mr. Fucile stated that the south end on the east portion of the highway is an area of controversy. He noted the problems of topography, but stated those problems can be overcome. He felt that the property is so valuable that the topography will not pose any major problems. He stated that P.C.H. is the "breadbasket of the City." Comm. Shapiro felt that it is time some action be taken on this issue. He felt that alternatives should be suggested and the Planning Commission should then make its final recommendation to City Council. He further stated that he is in favor of increasing the commercial zone along the highway. Comm. Schulte agreed that the commercial zone along the highway should be increased. He favored the 200-foot setback. He also questioned the 45-foot height limitation. Comm. Compton felt that 45 feet is fine so long as parking can be provided /parking require­ comrneercial preclude many buildings from building to 45'. Comm. Schulte questioned whether a depth of 200 feet would make an issue of the 45- foot height I imitation. Comm. Compton felt that this would not be a problem so long as there is a large enough parcel. Mr. Withee noted that, at 45 dollars a foot for land, it is almost mandatory that parking be underneath the building. He also felt that the way in which the City measures the height is a method which is working against the City. Comm. Compton felt that the 45-foot heiqht would be considered a plus by developers coming into the City but only if lots were large en9ugh to provide for parking Comm. Sheldon felt that there is no reason to have a 45-foot height limit if encouragement can be given to provide parking off of the highway. He noted that one of the reasons for having the 45-foot height limit is because of the 40-foot lot situation in I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 PAGE 11 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION -MULTI-USE CORRIDOR (CONT.) the City. He noted that so far as commercial development is concerned, it is the lots which are the restricting entity, not the height limitation. He felt that by widening the lots, there would be less encouragement for density by lowering the height. Comm. Newton noted that by doing this, the problem of residential abutting commercial would be mitigated. Mr. Fucile felt that increasing the depth of the zoning would enhance the value of the land. He noted that he could not prove this point, but he suggested that someone be brought in to evaluate this issue. Comm. Compton felt that it is an issue which must be dealt with. He noted those people who have bought their property because of the view, and he noted that they have vested interests in their property. He also noted that topography must be taken into account, especially in those cases where views would be obstructed. Comm. Compton stated that he would like to see a commercial zone and behind that a high density zone and behind that a lower density residential zone. He noted that he favored the idea of a good-sized commercial corridor. He was not certain that it should be zoned commercial, and he noted that he had no problems with C-Potential zoning. He also agreed with the concept of having a precise pion and review process. Comm. Peirce noted that the zoning code does not address the issue of C-Potential zoning. He felt that C-Potential is a cop-out and felt that the zoning should either be changed or eliminated. He noted the great amount of money expended by developers; therefore, he felt that the zoning should be stated in clear and concise terms. Comm. Compton noted that high-density residential is occurring at the edge of the commercial corridor. He did not view this as bad, though. Comm. Sheldon felt that it is necessary to have a map showing the zoning along P.C.H. in order to make a final decision. Comm. Compton envisioned the entire area being commercial, and further noted that engineering techniques could alleviate topographical problems. Comm. Peirce noted that the designation "C-Potential" is virtually meaningless. He felt that it has no force of code whatsoever, stating that it is really a non-zone. Comm. Peirce suggested that the time has come for the Planning Commission to arrive at some alternatives on this issue and then support a definite pion. He felt that it is the feeling of the Commission that changes should occur in the commercial corridor. He felt that a commercial plan should be in concert with the zoning. He felt that the multi-use corridor designation in the general pion is insufficient. Mr. Castanedo determined that it is the consensus of the Commission to provide for commercial development along the highway. A mixture of residential and commercial does not seem to be a goal of the City. Commercial development is to be encouraged. He noted that there is the question of how the City is to translate these feelings of land use into the Land Use Element and zoning code. He stated that one alternative would be to classify those areas that the City wishes to be commercial which are now residential. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 PAGE 12 ( , LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION -MULTI-USE CORRIDOR (CONT.) These areas should be designated as commercial on the map and through zoning. Another alternative is to retain the multi-use corridor and not look at the boundaries at this time. This can be addressed at a later time after the multi-use corridor has been more precisely defined. Comm. Sheldon asked what the best method would be for obtaining feelings on the best zoning actions to be taken in regard to the 200-foot commercial zone. He noted concern over entering into rezoning. Mr. Castaneda stated that it is first important to address the issue of the depth of the boundaries on P .C.H. He noted the concerns of topography, adjacent land use, and land ownership. He felt that it is important to see what other nearby communities are doing. He felt that all of these things should be looked at before determining the depth. He also noted the issue of height, stating that this is another area to be researched. Comm. Sheldon questioned the possibility of a joint workshop session with City Council to discuss the issue further. He noted that this would be in the interests of conserving time. Comm. Peirce felt that a joint workshop with City Council would be appropriate. He noted that he would not wont the recommendation of the Planning Commission to go to City Council as a receive and file; therefore, it would be appropriate to get Council input before making a final recommendation. Comm. Sheldon favored a joint workshop between the Planning Commission and City Council. Comm. Peirce suggested that Mr. Castaneda return with a straw man plan of the discussion thus for. Mr. Castaneda stated that he would return with five alternatives at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for December 18. He noted that if the Commission feels comfortable with the outcome, staff could then prepare a recommendation for a joint workshop session to see whether or not a series of zone changes could commence. The issue of boundaries cou l d also be addressed. The conclusion would be whether or not to proceed to the next step with Council. He felt that December would be a good month to have the joint workshop. Public Hearing closed at 9:30 P .M. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm. Shapiro requested that the large screen located behind the dais be repaired. Motion to adjourn at 9:31 P .M. No objections. So ordered. ) .J PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -NOVEMBER 20, 1984 PAGE 13 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission , of Hermosa Beach at their regularly scheduled meeting of November 20, 1984. i James Peirce, Substitute Chairman I Date