Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-08-13 ~ .' BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGf ~ Clty Councl1 Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California . The Seal Beach Planning Commission meets in session every first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you wish to address the Commission on any particular public hearing "item, the Chairman will call for public testimony first for those in favor of the project, and second, for those who are not in favor. When you see that the speaker's position in the center of the room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and when recognized by the Chairman, speak directly into the microphone by first stating your name and address clearly and distinctly for the records. State your business as clearly and succinctly as possible and then wait a moment to see if the Commissioners have any questions in regard to your comments or questions. If there are no other questions or comments, return to your seat so that the next person may address the Commission. If you wish to address the Commission on matters other than public hearings, the agenda provides for that time when the Chairman asks for comments from the pUblic. Address the Commission in the same manner as stated for public hearings, always stating your name and address first. SEAL. BEACH PLAXXIXG COMMISSIOX AGEXDA August 13. 1986 XEXT RESOLrTIOX :1434 1. fl~gg~_~f_All~gl~ll~~ 2 . RQ.IL~dl 3. R~2~~!_f~~m_~~~~~!~~r 4. ~Q.ll~~ll!_~~l~llg~~ 5. ~!!!2l1L!!H~lllg~ A. Zoning Text Amendment 2-86 Resolution :/t1432 . A request to amend definitions for and. for various forms of as hotels and motels. the Municipal Code to provide possibly. to develop regulations transient lodging facilities such Environmental Review: This project is exempt f~om CEQA review [California Government Code Section 15308] Code Sections: 28-2600(2): 28-2601;28-2602 Applicant: City of Seal Beach 6. Scheduled ~atters A~---ResoTutio~-;1426 (Variance 12-85 - Lucky Storel B. Resolution :1434 (Variance 9-86. Conditional rse Permit 17-86 - Sneden) 7. ~Q.mml~~lQ.ll_R~~!!~~!~ 8. q~~l_~Q.mm!!lll~~!lQ.ll~_f~Q.m_!h~_Aygl~ll~~ 9. ~Q.mml~~1Q.ll_~9mmYlll~~!tQn~ 10. MiQ.!!r..!!m~n! Agenda Forecast: AygY~!_~Q~_li~~: Variance 12-86 2999 Westminster (Great Western Savings) ~~2!~m!2~~_~~_li~~ crp 12-86 138 1;2 - 140 ~ain Street (Hennesse~'s. Inc.) Plan Review 17-86 312 14th Street DUller) ~~2!~m!2~~_11~_li~~ TPM 86-280 Seal Beach Blvd. and Lampso'n I Bixb~' Company) . Plan Review 18-86 411 Ocean A,'enue . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 13, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular adjourned session at 7:37 p.m. with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. Commissioner Suggs led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Jessner Commission Members Covington, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs Absent: None Also present: Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mrs. Walker, Administrative Aide Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk REPORT FROM THE SECRETARY The Director stated there were no items to report. . CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. . CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 2-86 - HOTEL/MOTEL DEFINITION The Director presented the staff report, noting that the public hearing was continued from the July 16th meeting. Mr. Knight reported that the City Attorney, pursuant to a request of the Council, proposed the redefinition of the term hotel, combining hotel and motel into one definition, and providing for ancilliary uses subject to a use permit. He reported that staff had provided the Commission with a list of businesses licensed as such in the City, the definition of hotel and motel as set forth by the transient occupancy provisions of the Code, as well as hotel/motel definitions of several other local jurisdictions. Mr. Knight stated that the definition change would simplify Code provisions and remove any arbitrary interpretation of hotel and motel, clarifying what is now unclear, that the change would have no effect on existing or proposed hotels and motels, however would define their scope of services through a use permit procedure for compatibility with adjacent uses. The Director reported receipt of petitions directed to a specific facility within the City, however not related to the discussion under public hearing. The City Attorney advised that the draft Ordinance provided Page Two - Planning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 . to the Commission further redefines the term hotel, the definition combining all transient occupancies whether they be hotel, motel, or inn. . Chairman Jessner declared the continued public hearing open and invited comments by members of the audience. Mr. George Kimball, 225 - 6th Street, attorney for the owners of the Seal Beach Inn, spoke in support of the amendment, which would permit specific properties to be considered on a case by case basis. Mr. Kimball stated it would appear that the opponents of such amendment suggest, through their communications and the referenced petition, that there be a restriction of all incidental uses of hotels in residential zones, which, he stated, could be determined to be spot zoning. Noting that there is only one hotel in the community located within a residential zone, and should the amendment be adopted, Mr. Kimball stated that his client does intend to apply for a Conditional Use Permit, proposing specific incidental services. Mr. William Bennett, President of the Seal Beach Chapter of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the amendment and its potential benefit to the City, not only to existing facilities but through the addition of hotels and promotion of businesses. He also spoke in support of considering specific problems or properties through the use process. . Mr. Bruce Stark, 204 Ocean Avenue, questioned the need to amend the definition of hotel, also for identifying services that could be provided through a Conditional Use Permit. The City Attorney responded that this matter had been referred to staff by the City Council as the result of a discussion regarding whether the Seal Beach Inn qualified as a hotel or motel, and further, whether or not there should be revised regulations governing all such facilities. He reported that a single definition is proposed covering all types of transient lodgings. Mr. Stepanicich stated that there was concern that under the Code, where a hotel is allowed in a Residential High Density zone, that incompatibility could exist between the hotel and adjacent residential uses, and that for those types of facilities under the new definition, there would be no incidental uses allowed other than room rentals unless specifically approved through a use process. He explained that at the present a Conditional Use Permit is required for a hotel in the RHD zone only, and that a hotel is automatically permitted in the C-2 zone, advising that it would be worthwhile to require a conditional use process for all hotels, or through the specific plan process which would strictly regulate the type of incidental services allowed. with regard to the deletion of a certain number of rooms required Page Three - Planning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 . to qualify as a hotel, as presently erlsts, Mr. Stepanicich stated that a particular number, which is arbitrary in nature, does not further the definition of hotel, the proposed wording defining a hotel as a building or group of buildings offering transient lodging accommodations to the general public. He advised that redefining the term hotel would remove existing inconsistencies within the Code and provides the City with greater power of regulation. Mr. Stepanicich explained that the proposed definition deletes the prohibition of cooking facilities in guest rooms, present Code allowing kitchen facilities in a motel however not in a hotel, their research showing no reference to kitchen facilities in more modern definitions. He advised that the proposed definition gives the City more fexibility on a case by case basis and greater control of transient occupancies, which are limited by Code to thirty day occupancy or less, also provides a safeguard against a hotel being turned into an apartment complex. He explained that cooking facilities had not been considered from a fire safety standpoint, noting that should such use be allowed, compliance with all building regulations for fire safety would be required. Mr. Stark expressed his opinion that the proposed definition is directed towards two specific properties. The staff confirmed that the proposed rewording would permit a hotel/motel only in a High Density Residential or Commercial zone, such use prohibited in all other zones. The City Attorney advised that an additional change may be considered to require the use process in the C-2 zone also, and emphasized that for a hotel located in a RHD zone the only basic use that would be allowed would be guest facilities, incidental services allowed only if specifically approved. . . Mr. Robert Cook, 441 Central Avenue, questioned why a workshop was not being conducted on this issue, as he had understood would occur, rather than under publi6 hearing. Mr. Cook read the Council action requesting that the staff and Commission look into redefining motel and hotel, and to develop a bed and breakfast definition that would also address the needs of country inns, that action in response to a communication relating to the Seal Beach Inn. The Commission pointed out that it is appropriate to address and review the definition of hotel and motel at this time in view of the ongoing negotiations and potential future' development of additional facilities, pointing out that the matter under consideration is not directed towards any particular existing facility. Mr. Cook referred to existing businesses that currently pay a bed tax and are properly licensed for transient occupancy, specifically questioning the payment of such tax by the Happy Holiday Motel, the Oakwood Apartments and the Marina Motel. With Page Four - Planning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 . . regard to discussing this issue during a study session, the City Attorney clarified that at the previous meeting there had been a discussion of whether to hold a study session or a public hearing, the recommendation being that the discussion be under public hearing with all persons invited to participate and express their views. He pointed out the legal notice requirements for Zoning Text Amendments versus broader public notice requirements for other matters, and recalled that the directive to the staff had been to provide notice to those property owners who had requested same. Mr. Stepanicich explained that this hearing is not being held to consider the application of a specific property owner, the matter under consideration being the definition of hotel pursuant to a directive of the City Council, advising that the hearing process may be informal in nature in order to obtain input from any member of the audience. Mr. Cook recalled that the Commission was to be provided with a variety of materials dealing with bed and breakfast facilities and country inns, which he noted had not been provided. He stated that the proposed definition, if adopted, would apply to all such facilities in the City, and would allow intensification of use, suggesting that the existing definitions not be changed. Mr. Cook questioned the effect of this definition on the General Plan if a change is made to the Zoning Ordinance that could allow intensification of use. The City Attorney responded that the Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan, and that the proposed change of definition would not be inconsistent with the Plan, noting that a hotel use would not be allowed on a particular property if it were not consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Cook continued, speaking to potential impacts on the environment should any intensification of use occur at the existing facility located in a residential area, suggesting that that particular facility should not be included under the proposed hotel definition category. Mr. Cook reported he had previously communicated possible violations of the Code by the Seal Beach Inn, to which the City Manager had indicated may be pertinent to this discussion, and suggested that the Commission be provided that information. Mr. Cook concluded that he felt the Commission should be considering separately a definition of hotel in commercial zones, and a definition of a transient occupancy facility in a residential zone that is highly restrictive and not through a Conditional Use Permit process. Barbara Rountree, 316 - 13th Street, questioned the payment of bed tax to the City by motel and hotel facilities, specifically by a facility located in the 300 block of Seal Beach Boulevard and a complex on Marina Drive at Fourth Street. Staff reported the facilities listed within the staff report were taken from business licenses designated . Page Five - Planning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 . as a hotel or motel. The Commission responded that staff may investigate the facilities mentioned to clarify their status and requirement to pay the transient occupancy tax. . Warren Gay, 220 - 5th street, spoke in opposition to any change that could cause intensification of use, particularly in a residential area, and likewise opposed the change of definition. Marilyn Zahm, 220 - 5th Street, also opposed any potential intensification of use in residential zones, specifically activities at the Seal Beach Inn with the potential for impact on the neighborhood. Bruce Stark, 204 Ocean Avenue, questioned the equity of the CUP process for commercial versus residential improvements, stating there is less consideration afforded residential properties, parking impacts, etc. In response to Mr. Philip Ramer, 223 - 5th Street, the City Attorney stated that under current provisions a hotel would be allowed in an R-3 zone with the limitation that kitchen facilities not be allowed, where under the proposed Zoning Text Amendment a hotel would be allowed only through the CUP process with incidental uses specified within the CUP. Mr. Ramer suggested a definition of hotel and motel be developed that is restrictive to residential areas, expressing specific objection to activities at the Inn. Mr. Don Nuss, 225 - 5th Street, stated the current operation of the Inn tends to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses, however previous intense uses and parking problems were unacceptable. Mr. James Wehner, 502/504 Central, questioned the initial decision to allow the Inn at the site where it presently exists, and although it has been functioning as such over a period of time, expressed his opinion that the parking and noise generated from activities taking place at that site are not suitable for a residential area. Mr. Cook inquired if an additional study session would be held on this issue, with the Commission provided information relating to bed and breakfast facilities and country inns, and questioned the validity of a single definition for transient lodging regardless of its location. Mr. Cook also inquired as to the current procedures and requirements of the Code relating to signs. . Mr. Michael Martin, 401 Central Avenue, spoke in support of the Seal Beach Inn and the improvements that have been made to the site, describing those improvements as a benefit to the community, and stated he had never been troubled by noise, parking or activities taking place at the Inn. Mr. Martin confirmed he had no economic interest in the Inn. Mr. Gerald Oates, Manager of the Radisson Inn, explained that there are numerous types of transient occupancy facilities all of which serve the same purpose, reporting that even Page Six - Planning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 . the hotel and motel associations do not have definitions of those facilities, the various designations having originated from marketing terms. Mr. Oates spoke in support of the definition as proposed. Ms. Laura Hanson, 207 -6th Street, stated that as an abutting neighbor, she had not realized any disturbance from activities taking place at the ,Inn, however some parking problems had existed which the Inn is attempting to alleviate. She stated that if the parking can.be resolved activities should not be restricted at the Inn. The staff reminded the Commission that the focus of discussion at this meeting is the definition of transient lodgings and where those lodgings should be located, rather than the merits of a specific facility. Ms. June Berryhill, 308 Central Avenue, expressed her opinion that the City needs more of the asthetic quality that exists at the Seal Beach Inn which benefits the immediate neighborhoods and recalled the condition of the property and problems that existed at the location prior to the present ownership. She noted that churches have activities similar to those that have been conducted at the Inn and within the vicinity of residential areas. There being no other communications, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. . Commissioner Perrin stated he would support hOlding a workshop on this issue if, in fact, it had been requested and if additional information was to have been provided. Commissioner Covington stated he felt that substantial questions and concerns were expressed at this hearing that warrant further consideration by the staff, and suggested that if the Commission were to vote against the definition as proposed, a study session could be scheduled at a future date. Mr. Covington noted that the six cities surveyed and reported in the staff report appear to be beach or lodging oriented however their definitions of hotel appear to be more limited than that proposed by staff. He suggested additional definitions would be of benefit, possibly from those cities that the City Attorney has recently dealt with or has researched. He recommended that any definition should address whether its application should apply equally to locations. in residential high density and commercial zones, also any difference between existing uses versus facilities that may be developed in the future. . Mr. Covington moved to deny proposed ZTA-2-86 and to direct the staff to gather additional data for consideration at a future study session. In response to Commissioner Sharp, the City Attorney explained that if the proposed definition were approved, existing properties would be subject to the new definition and regulations upon the effective date of the adopting Ordinance. He noted that if reference Page Seven - Planning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 . is made to the Seal Beach Inn, as an example, the Inn would continue under present status until they apply for a CUP to qualify as a hotel, and until granted, they would continue as a legal non-conforming use. Mr. Covington added that if the definition were approved, the Inn could apply for a CUP, where it does not presently have that right, and in comparison with the definition that exists, the proposed definition could permit a broader scope of uses that may make possible an intensification of use. The City Attorney responded that the proposed definition and procedure would not add to the services a hotel could provide, nor does it expand the services that can be provided under existing Code with the exception of an existing use that has cooking facilities, such as the Inn, and under the definition proposed could not qualify as a hotel except through the CUP process. He explained that under existing Code there are presently no limitations as to what services a hotel or motel can provide, therefore becoming a matter of interpretation, the purpose of the broader definition being to determine what uses would be permitted, while not increasing the permitted uses. The City Attorney reported, as a historical note, a potential dispute that exists between the Inn and the City, the City contending that the Inn is a legal non- conforming use, under present definition qualifying only as a legal non-conforming motel, the Inn, in turn, contending there are long established uses of the property that are grandfathered, that position having been rejected by the City, and on that basis a cease and desist order had been issued for activities at their location. He acknowledged that the change of definition was initiated due to the conflict with the Inn, however the intent was to look at a definition with a broader focus, the definition not aimed at a particular facility, but intended to unify all such uses under one definition on a city-wide basis. He also noted that the Happy Holiday facility had not been taken into consideration when the regulations were being proposed. Mr. Stepanicich suggested that a determination is necessary regarding transient occupancy facilities in Residential High Density Zones, which currently is a permitted use, clarifying that the purpose of the proposed definition was not to expand the use of hotels or motels, merely to streamline such definition. Commissioner Sharp noted that all residents in the area of the Inn and interested parties had been notified of this meeting and hearing, have been given the opportunity to express their views, and questioned if there would be sufficient new public testimony to warrant an additional public input session. Members of the Commission indicated that there may be public input from persons in the vicinity of future proposed developments. Discussion continued. The City Attorney recommended that prime . . Page Eight - Planning Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 . consideration should be focused on where a hotel would be allowed to be located, the definition proposed being similar to other cities he had researched with the exception of whether or not there should be a minimum number of guest rooms required to qualify as a hotel, and whether or not kitchen facilities should be allowed. He requested specific direction from the Commission as to what additional information the Commission would desire to be addressed. Members of the Commission requested information to aid in their decision relating to determining the specific zones where a hotel could be located, specifically the RHD zone, taking into consideration existing and future facilities, and the potential impact on surrounding uses. . Covington moved, second by Perrin, to deny Zoning Text Amendment 2-86 (Resolution Number 1432), a proposed definition of hotel. The Chairman inquired as to the status of ZTA- 2-86 if the motion to deny were approved and after receipt of additional information from the staff and subsequent hearings, the definition were deemed to be appropriate. The City Attorney advised that the Commission would have the option of referring this matter back to staff with specific direction as to the additional information requested, after which the Commission could hold a study session and public hearing, or if the motion to deny were approved, there would be no further action on the matter. The Director suggested it would be appropriate to refer the matter to staff for further study with direction to set a public hearing for a future date, with a study session prior to said hearing. The motion was withdrawn with the consent of the second. . Covington moved, second by Perrin, to postpone consideration of ZTA-2-86, and that the staff be directed to conduct further research and provide the additional information as discussed, the matter to be set for public hearing at the earliest possible date, with said hearing preceded by a study session. Mr. Sharp asked for a clarification of the additional information requested. Mr. Covington restated his requests for 1) staff research regarding the definition itself, whether the number of rooms should be specified and whether kitchen facilities should be considered; 2) staff comments as to whether or not the proposed definition versus the existing defintion would be or could be deemed to be an intensification of use; and 3) pros and cons regarding the application of the new definition to facilities located in commercial and RHD zones. Chairman Jessner asked that the impact of such facilities in a Residential High Density Page Nine - P1anni~g Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 . zone be addressed. Mr. Perrin requested that the adoption date of regulations of other cities be provided. vote on the motion to refer back to staff for additional research and information: AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Sharp Suggs Motion carried SCHEDULED MATTERS . RESOLUTION NUMBER 1426 - VARIANCE 12-85 - LUCKY STORES Resolution Number 1426 was presented to the Commission entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE 12-85, A REQUEST TO ALLOW A MAJOR STRUCTURAL ALTERATION AND REMODEL TO A GROCERY STORE ON A COMMERCIAL SITE WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING (12121 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD." Commissioner Sharp advised he would be required to abstain from voting on this matter as he was not present at that meeting, and Commissioner Perrin also noted he was absent from that meeting. The City Attorney suggested that Commission members not present at the subject hearing could review the tape of the hearing which would allow their vote on this item at a subsequent meeting. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Commission, to postpone consideration of Resolution Number 1426 until the next meeting. RESOLUTION NUMBER 1434 - VARIANCE 9-86 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-86 - 302-l5th STREET - SNEDEN Resolution Number 1434 was presented to the Commission entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE 9-86 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-86, TO ALLOW THE USE OF A 34 FOOT LONG, TANDEM STYLE GARAGE WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A TWO STORY ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FIVE FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A REQUEST FOR A MAJOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 1434 was waived. Covington moved, second by Perrin, to approve Resolution Number 1434 as presented. AYES: NOES: Covington, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs Jessner Motion carried COMMISSION REQUESTS There were no Commission requests. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. . Page Ten - P1anni~g Commission Minutes - August 13, 1986 . COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS The Commission was reminded that a Planning seminar was being held the following day. The Director stated the Commission would continue to be advised of upcoming workshops and seminars. ADJOURNMENT The Commission, by unanimous consent, adjourned the meeting at 10:41 p.m. . .