Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-10-01 .. SE~I BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGEN~") ~ ~ Clty Council Chambers ~ ....-. 211 Eighth Street - - Seal Beach. California --. flhe Seal Beach Planning Col1lllli.ssion 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 i.n favor. When you see that the speaker's posi.tion 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 tht: 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 fi.rst. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 1, 1986 1. Hotel/Motel workshop, 6:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING, 7:30 P.M. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Report from Secretary 5. Consent Calendar A. Resolution #1437 Reflects Planning Commission approval of Variance 13-86, Plan Review 18-86 on September 3, 1986. AYES: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs NOES: None ABSENT: Perrin .- B. Minutes of August 6, 1986 C. Minutes of August 13, 1986 6. Public Hearings 7. Scheduled Matters 8. Commission Requests 9. Oral Communications from the Audience 10. Commlsslon Communlcations 11. Adjournment Agenda Forecast: October 15, 1986 Z.T.A. 3-86 Alcohol Sales CUP 14-86 91111 Ocean (Haley) CUP 15-86, VARIANCE 14-86 151111 Marine (Sullivan) .- .. VARIANCE 15-86 41115 Opal Cove Way (Yates) November 5, 1986 CUP 16-86 B-53 Surfside (Moe) . Seal Beach Planning Commission Regular Adjourned Workshop of October 1, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in a workshop session on Wednesday, October 1, 1986 at 6:20 p.m. Present: Commissioner Covington (acting as Chairman) Commissioners Sharp, Suggs Absent: Chairman Jessner Commissioner Perrin Also Present: Edward Knight, Director of Development Services Quinn Barrow, City Attorney Pam Walker, Administrative Aide Ginger Bennington, Secretary to City Manager . HOTEL/MOTEL WORKSHOP Mr. Ed Knight, the Director of Development Services, presented background on the workshop. He pointed out that at previous hearings for this matter, three issues arose. Staff was requested to research: 1) if there were a number of rooms to be set aside for a hotel/motel definition and if kitchens were allowed, 2) if the change would be in and of itself an intensification of use in the community and 3) the pros and cons regarding the application of the new definition to the facilities located in the RHD zone. Staff surveyed 20 coastal cities regarding this concerns; 17 answered. The overwhelming consideration whether they used a separate hotel and motel definition or whether they combined the two, showed that a minimum number of rooms (approximately 6) were used. In most cases, kitchens were allowed. Regarding intensification of use, the definition itself would not cause the intensification of any use in the community. It would allow any proposed or current hotel or motel within the community to apply for a CUP to modify or somehow intensify their use to what currently exists. For any proposed hotel in either commercial or RHD, they would be starting from scratch with a CUP as opposed to the current practices where they are allowed as a permitted use in the commercial zone and in the RHD they would be allowed with a CUP for hotels. The DWP and State Lands site have their own definition of what a hotel or motel is; i.e., visitor-serving facility that has accessory uses, restaurant, banquets or meeting rooms. One key point coming out of review of the survey, reported Knight, is that the same zoning and development criteria for hotels and motels is applied to everyone of the cities surveyed regardless of whether their definitions differed. Seal Beach is unique in that it only allows hotels in the RHD zone and not motels and only allows motels in a commercial zone and does not allow hotels. Staff investigated bed n' breakfast inns. Knight indicated those cities having the inns seemed to have a straighforward zoning requirement which varied significantly from a hotel or a motel. Inns are allowed in almost all residential zones, an owner/manager must be in residence, one meal (usually a breakfast) is provided, there is a maximum length of stay, there . 2 . is usually a maximum amount of guest rooms, (between 4-8) and on- site parking must be compatible with residential area. Staff concluded that the bed n'breakfast concept is entirely different from a hotel or a motel and should not be included in the hotel or motel definition. It should, if considered by the City, have its own ordinance and set of standards. Staff's recommendation was to conduct the workshop and receive direction from Planning Commission to readvertise the public hearing for ZTA 2-86. . Acting as Chairman, Mr. Covington invited the audience to make a comments on the proposed definition. Mr. Knight read the definition to the audience; i.e., hotel means building or group of buildings offering transient lodging or accommodations to the general public and incidental services that are customarily provided by a hotel such as food service, recreational facilities, retail services provided for the convenience of hotel guests, and banquet, receptions and meeting rooms. The incidental services provided by a hotel shall be limited to the services permitted by the applicable conditional use permit, when a conditional use permit is required for a hotel by this chapter. Knight further stated staff is recommending that use permits be required in the two zones where hotels and motels are permitted, which is the RHD and C2 zones. He indicated there are 3 hotels that operate in the City: the Radisson Inn, the Seal Beach Inn and the Bay Motel. The Bay and the Radisson are in C2 zone, the Seal Beach Inn is in RHD. The Happy Holiday is located in the C2 and would require a CUP and on a limited basis. The Oakwood Garden Apartments offers rooms to let on a daily or weekly or monthly basis, therefore, if they wanted to continue to expand or change that operation, they would be required to have a CUP as well. In response to questions by Mitzi Morton, Covington explained that everything would stay just as it is now until the present facilities that qualified under the definition sought to make any improvements or changes in status. These facilities would have to apply for a CUP, which would allow Planning Commission, staff and Council to make a case-by-case evaluation of what that enterprise is now doing or proposes to do differently in the future. Marjorie Bettenhausen stated the term motel came into existence in the late 40's and early 50's. The motels and the hotels realized that they were performing the same functions, i.e., a visitor service to transient occupants. A great deal of study has been done by the industry itself to try to define the difference between resort, hotel and motel and courts, inns and found it was impossible. That basically it is a marketing position that a property takes. A motel, stated Marjorie, seems to be a little more commercial, more sterile, less personable and their is a closer proximity of the automobile to the room itself, however, the industry itself says they are all visitor serving facilities for transient occupants. Robert Cook pointed out that Councilmember Risner stated at the Council meeting of September 22, 1986, when speaking of the State Lands parcel, "And we do want a hotel, not a motel on that site . 3 . and we do recognize it is a major entry into our city and we want quality so I agree with you." Cook felt Mrs. Risner distinguished between a hotel and a motel, as did most persons. Cook further explained that this issue came about as a consequence of an application by the Seal Beach Inn to add accessory uses that were not permitted. He indicated the Inn had been engaging in accessory servies which were not permitted, and were consequently given a cease and desist order from the City. When the Inn applied for a conditional use permit to have those uses, the City Attorney indicated it could not be done since they were a nonconforming use in a residential area. Cook felt that the only purpose in the workshop tonight was to provide a vehicle for which the Seal Beach Inn can add accessory uses. Cook felt the City should determine its policy before changing a definition; i.e., whether to comply with the General Plan or to allow further incursion into residential areas. Cook indicated that the definitions in the zoning code as they now exist, protects the residents against further incursion of intensification of use by transient facilities. Mrs. Cook explained the residents will have to constantly be on guard to check every notice, every new request for special events for which the Seal Beach Inn makes application. For clarification purposes, Ed Knight explained virtually south of Pacific Coast Highway and from Main Street west to First Street is all zoned RHD. An individual who is able to consolidate lots and create enough of a lot to provide parking and all the other zoning code requirements, would have the right to build high density according to the code. However, Knight pointed out the way the zoning code is set up now, not too many lots in the Old Town area qualify for that. Knight further indicated the only Rl property is the Gold Coast area which is south of Ocean. Covington felt that he, as most people, were not aware that downzoning while increasing the minimum standards for Rl, at the same time established the potential of RHD for all the property if it were consolidated. Mrs. Bettenhausen stated that the Seal Beach Inn was built in the 20's way prior to the definition of the word motel. Then it was on the outer edges of town and considered commercial property. The residences built up around the property and in the 1950's at the time that the word motel came into being, the zoning was changed. The Bettenhausens felt they had spent 10 years working hard to make the Inn an asset to the City. She felt it important to state that the intent is not to expand and to spread allover town, not to commercialize and not to intensify use. After some discussion, the City Attorney indicated there is no longer a distinction that would help justify or rationalize calling one facility a hotel and another facility a motel in the State code. . . Maureen Ramer, 223 5th Street complimented staff on quality of report. She cited several concerns: that only 4 cities surveyed permitted hotels and motels in high density residential zones - only 4 out of 17 that responded. Of 11 cities responding, 3 . 4 cities permit hotels amd motels in residential zones - again a minority. She also noted that half of cities responded used same definition for hotel and motel, the other half distinguish between it. Her recommendation was to maintain a status quo that hotels and motels not be permitted in residential areas that they be permitted in C2. If this position were taken then it would not be necessary to continue to have the policing of conditional use permit applications. Her position is that hotels motels not be permitted in residential areas, but that existing businesses would continue to exist, but that would take away the CUP which would set the stage for intensification of use. She felt that the fact that a cease and desist order was issued in March is evidence that there was intensification of use and it was inappropriate for the current zoning. Ms. Ramer felt this is not just an issue with the current owners but a concern of who would ever run the facility after the fact and what those individuals would do who do not have the same level of integrity and interest in the City as the Bettenhausens. The City Attorney indicated that a CUP allowed transfer from one owner to another as long as use did not intensify nor any substantial changes occurred. It was further explained that the CUP can be tied to the operator, not to the property to allow for greater control by the City. . Mitzi Morton felt the definition of a hotel should include a minimum of 50 guestrooms. She also preferred that hotels not be allowed in residential areas without a specific plan. Mrs. Cook felt that hotels serving food and alcohol, located in a residential area, are inappropriate for a residential area. Mr. Don Nuss felt that all that all facilities and activities occurring on a transient serving property should be restricted to what is required for the guests so registered. Trudy Thompson felt that since Seal Beach is a small community and only 4 hotels exist at the moment, the Commission should consider these individually as opposed to making a general set of rules. Barbara Rountree stated that at a Residential Homeowners meeting on September 25th, following a discussion of commercial business, a vote was taken unanimously that any commercial business must respect the life style of the surrounding neighbors. She explained that all of the Association members compliment the Seal Beach Inn for its attractive gardens and buildings, but that no acceleration of use should occur there, and that any application for increased use should be carefully considered by the Planning Commission because of the sensitive location of the buildings to the surrounding residents with limits placed on such activities. The recommendation was that no hotels and motels should be built in a residential area. According to Barbara Rountree, 16 people voted unanimously. Bruce Stark felt that the definition as proposed would allow the transient facilities to provide all services noted in the definition, that it would open the door for increased services. Mr. Stark also indicated that the enabling . . 5 ordinance should be brief and concise recognizing the conditional use permit process as the method for determining approval or denial of special circumstances. Mr. George Kimball, attorney for the Seal Beach Inn and resident of 6th Street felt the proposed definition would not imply the right of facilities to provide each service noted in the definition. He expressed the hope that the definition as proposed would be approved as it would provide the Planning Commission and the public to review each hotel/motel's position on its own merits. He also stated that the reason the Seal Beach Inn opted to provide small functions was not primarily to generate revenue, but to promote the operation of the facility. Josie Greely, design consultant for the Inn, explained the type of operations to be found at the Inn. A member of the audience provided the Commission with a calendar of events advertised for the Inn. Mr. Cook read details of a newspaper clipping and magazine ad regarding the Seal Beach Inn which states that 4 weddings per month could be accommodated and that a 2-star chef was in residence for catered events. Before ending the work session, Commissioner Covington took a vote on the following issues: . 1) How many believe the zoning as it presently exists for requirement of hotel/motel should remain as it is? Eight (8) responded in the affirmative. 2) How many are in favor of the proposal that transient lodging be permitted in C2 and/or RHD? Fourteen (14) responded in the affirmative. 3) How many feel transient lodging should not be permitted in RHD or areas contiguous to same but that it be only permitted in C2? None responded favorably. Commissioner Covington ended the study session at 7:58 p.m with the consent of the Commission. It was noted that a public hearing on this matter will be held. Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting of October 1, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, October 1, 1986 at 8:00 P.M. Commissioner Suggs lead the Salute to the Flag. Roll Call Present: Chairman Jessner Commissioner Covington, Sharp, Suggs Commissioner Perrin Absent: . Also Present: Edward Knight, Director of Development Services Quinn Barrow, City Attorney Pam Walker, Administrative Aide Ginger Bennington, Secretary to City Manager Chairman Jess~er apologized for missing the study session, . 6 indicating he would review the tape of the proceedings. Report from Secretary None at this time. Consent Calendar Commissioner Covington moves to approve consent calendar; Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried Public Hearings None Scheduled Matters None . Commission Requests Chairman Jessner asked if Commission and staff felt there were enough suggestions to formulate and recommend alternatives. Commissioner Covington suggested staff or Commission provide wording for ordinances representative of tonight's session or to provide alternative ordinances to be decided upon at a public hearing. After some discussion, the following determinations were made. Covington requests staff advertise public hearing on definition of hotel/motel for November 5th meeting; Sharp seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried Covington requests staff and City attorney to impose the input from tonight's study session and the Planning Commission comments into the appropriate number of alternative ordinances for presentation at the Planning Commission meeting of October 15, 1986 so Commission can then authorize which of those it wants to be included. Suggs seconds. AYES: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs NOES: None ABSENT: Perrin Motion Carried The City Attorney requested the notices should state the Planning Commission is working on considering the appropriate zones in which hotels and motels should be established. . Mr. Knight indicated he would be preparing a status report on the Commission's list of future activities. Chairman Jessner mentioned the 4th Street Stub End memorandum . 7 received from Dudley Hemphill. Mr. Covington concluded from the memorandum that the constructed fence is another form of what currently exists on the property, that it permits total access of emergency vehicles and the maintenance and care of the fence would be at the property owner's expense. Mr. Covington felt the best interests of the City were served in having this matter brought before the Commission by Mr. Bruce Stark. It was the consensus of the Commission and so ordered by the Chair to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of October 1, 1986 at 8:50 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. . .