|
M I N U
T E S REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEDNESDAY, February 15, 2006 CITY
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. ROOM
213, CITY HALL |
1. CALL TO ORDER: The
meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner
Pugh led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL
CALL: Present: Barbara Brown
Darrell Clarke
Julie Lopez Dad
Jay P. Johnson
Hank Koning, FAIA
Terry O’Day
Gwynne
Pugh, AIA
Also Present:
Kyle
Ferstead, Commission Secretary
Fire
Chief Jim Hone, Fire Department
Sarah
Lejeune, Senior Planner
Alex Parry, Civil Engineering Associate, EPWM Civil
Engineering & Architecture Division
Amanda
Schachter, Planning Manager
4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S
REPORT:
Ms.
Schachter gave the Director’s Report. Ms. Schachter reported that there were no
planning related items at last night’s City Council meeting. At their next meeting,
the City Council will hold a hearing on the Downtown Design Guidelines. She
then announced the forthcoming scheduled Commission meetings: March 1 (policy
discussion), March 15 (development review), April 5 (policy discussion) and
April 19, 2006 (development review).
5. PLANNING COMMISSIONER
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Commissioner
Dad announced the California League of Cities conference will be held March
22-24, 2006 in
Commissioner
Clarke announced he attended last week’s Architectural Review Board (ARB)
meeting. He commended staff for clearly giving the ARB the Commission’s
concerns on the
Commissioner
Pugh announced he will be attending the American Planning Association (APA)
conference in
6.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consent Calendar
6-A. November 16, 2005
Commissioner
Pugh asked staff if the discussion with the Police Department regarding alcohol
use is being arranged. Ms. Schachter stated that staff is in the process of
scheduling that discussion.
Commissioner
Pugh made a motion to approve the minutes for November 16, 2005, as submitted.
Commissioner Clarke seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with
Commissioner Dad abstaining.
6-B. January 18, 2006
Commissioner
Clarke made a motion to approve the minutes for January 18, 2005, as submitted.
Commissioner Koning seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with
Commissioners Brown, Dad and O’Day abstaining.
7. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL
ACTION: Consent
Calendar
* Continued
since November 16, 2005.
7-A. Tract Map 04-035,
Commissioner Dad made a motion to
approve the Statement of Official Action for Tract Map 04-035. Commissioner
O’Day seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioners
Brown, Koning and Pugh abstaining.
7-B. Tract Map 05-020,
Commissioner O’Day made a motion to
approve the Statement of Official Action for Tract Map 05-020. Commissioner Dad
seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioners Brown,
Koning and Pugh abstaining.
7-C. Tract Map 05-025,
Commissioner O’Day made a motion to
approve the Statement of Official Action for Tract Map 05-025. Commissioner Dad
seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote with Commissioners Brown,
Koning and Pugh abstaining.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Continued
Items from January 18, 2006
8-A. Tract
Map 05-027 (Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map 062808),
The Commission had no ex parte communication disclosures for this
item.
Associate Planner
Chair Johnson asked if the four
units on-site are under Rent Control. Mr. Albright answered in the affirmative.
The applicant, Harvey Goodman,
addressed the Commission regarding the Tract Map.
One member of the public, Carolyn
Ghio, addressed the Commission regarding the proposed project.
Chair Johnson thanked Ms. Ghio for
coming down. He asked her where her unit was located. Ms. Ghio stated her unit
is on the southeast side and is a one-story house. Chair Johnson explained how
the approval of tract maps works and that the Commission is bound by the code
to approve the tract map. He recommended Ms. Ghio voice her concerns at the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing as well as meeting with the applicant.
Mr. Goodman spoke in response to the
public comment.
Chair Johnson asked Mr. Goodman if
he is willing to meet with neighbors regarding their concerns. Mr. Goodman
stated he is willing to meet and that this project is still early in the design
process.
Chair Johnson closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Pugh made a motion for
approval. Commissioner Clarke seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Johnson,
Koning, O’Day, Pugh.
8-B. Appeal 05-012 of the Zoning Administrator’s
Denial of Use Permit 05-001,
The Commission made the following ex parte communication disclosures:
Commissioner Koning disclosed that he visited the site on January 18, 2006, at
approximately 1:45 p.m. Commissioner Dad disclosed that uses Cingular. There
were no other disclosures.
Principal Planner Paul Foley gave
the staff report. The City’s telecommunications consultant, Jonathan Kramer of
Kramer.Inc. was present to comment on the proposal and answer questions from
the Commission.
Chair Johnson asked Mr. Kramer about
the “pole and adjacent tall residential building” and whether the uplift light
would shine into said residential building. Mr. Kramer stated that the light
would be directed straight up and this was considered in the analysis.
Commissioner O’Day commented that
the other examples presented are helpful, but are smaller than what is
proposed. Mr. Kramer stated that other examples were located adjacent to
highways and the proposed flag pole is meant to project over the trees and area
buildings. He stated that the City did ask the carrier if there was another
technology available and the applicant’s response what that they were not
required by law to consider an alternative. He further stated that other
technology is available. Commissioner O’Day commented that other appeals of
this type have show less intrusive antenna arrays. Mr. Kramer stated that each
carrier has different objectives and use various types of antennas.
Commissioner Koning asked if a lower
flag pole could be used. Mr. Kramer stated that the original design was two
canisters, fifteen feet off the roof. He stated that the issue is the need for
either horizontal or vertical separation. Commissioner Koning asked Mr. Foley
whether the flag pole is functional or grandfathered. Mr. Foley stated that
flagpoles are permitted to be a certain height.
Chair Johnson asked if it would be
possible to co-locate this wireless facility on another building in the area.
Mr. Kramer explained the problems with co-location and stated that the proposed
“faux flag pole” design cannot be co-located. He stated that the carrier was
asked to do a co-location survey. Mr. Foley added that, according to the
applicant, there were no landlords willing to host a wireless facility in the
area. Chair Johnson asked if there are
other wireless facilities in the vicinity. Mr. Foley stated he did not know.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
explained the legal framework for approval of wireless facilities as follows: the
Zoning Administrator (or Planning Commission on appeal) must make the Use
Permit findings, including that the
antenna is compatible with and relates harmonious with the surrounding
neighborhood. He stated that the aesthetic impact of the proposal is important
in assessing the finding. He further
stated that “non-parabolic antenna finding requires that there are
topographical conditions nearby (such as tall structures) that unreasonably
obstruct or otherwise unreasonably interfere with effective transmission or
reception and the cause of the obstruction or interference was not created by
the applicant.” He stated that the Commission has typically made this
non-parabolic antenna finding based on a showing by the applicant that the
technological requirements of the project are in conflict with the Code and
there are not viable alternatives within the proposed service area that would
meet both the transmission needs of the applicant and comply with City
regulations, or there are not reasonable alternatives that would be less
impactful than the proposed project. He stated that when the project has
aesthetic impacts, the Zoning Administrator has given careful consideration to
alternative options which would minimize the impacts. Lastly, the Zoning
Administrator’s decision made findings relative to whether or not the proposal
was necessary to close a significant gap in coverage and whether or not this
was the least intrusive means. He stated that these are not necessary to make
the local findings, but they are relevant in addressing and compliance with
federal (FCC) regulations should the Use Permit be subject to denial based on
the inability to make local findings.
Commissioner O’Day asked if the
burden of proof for viable and reasonable alternatives rests with the
applicant. Senior Land Use Rosenbaum answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Pugh asked staff what
would happen if an applicant requested installation of a 50-foot flag pole. Mr.
Foley stated that the maximum permitted is 27-feet in this area.
The applicant/appellant’s team
included Julian K. Quattlebaum, attorney for Cingular Wireless, 100 Ocean Gate,
Suite 1400, Long Beach, California; Farhad Deylami, radio frequency engineer
from Bectel Communications; and Justine Robinson of MII Titan, Cingular’s agent
in this application. The team made a presentation to the Commission, then was
available for questions.
Chair Johnson asked Mr. Quattlebaum
about illuminating the flag. Mr. Quattlebaum stated that he understands the
lighting is only required for the American flag and a
Commissioner O’Day commented the
proposal deviates marginally from the Use Permit findings in that the flag pole
is twice as tall as permitted by Code. Mr. Quattlebaum stated that the proposal
is within limits for a cellular antenna and is only eight feet taller than
permitted. Commissioner O’Day asked about the five different designs attempted.
Mr. Quattlebaum stated that there were five sites and designs, not just sites.
Mr. Deylami stated there were actually seven sites, but two failed
structurally. Commissioner O’Day asked how the sites qualify for a proposal.
Mr. Deylami explained that the current design is a four-antenna per sector
design (twelve total antennas). Mr.
Robinson explained that Cingluar has been pursuing this site since February
2004 and all the possible buildings on
Commissioner Clarke asked where the
closest Cingular sites are to the proposed site and if they are at capacity.
Mr. Deylami stated that the “yellow spots” on the handout are existing AT&T
sites (
Commissioner Koning commented that the
illustration of the flag pole shows a smooth pole, however the photographs
submitted by Mr. Kramer show a faceted pole with access panels. He asked if
this will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) if it moves
forward. Staff indicated the proposal requires ARB approval. Commissioner
Koning commented that the proposed 42-feet of antenna within the flag pole
would be better if there was no flag. Mr. Quattlebaum stated that staff’s
objection has been that the proposal looks like a monopole.
As there were no requests to speak
from the public, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. He invited questions
to staff.
Commissioner Pugh asked counsel to
clarify the Federal regulations in regards to permitted heights, etc., beyond
the Zoning Ordinance limits. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that
staff included this issue in the staff report as regards FCC jurisdiction.
Chair Johnson asked Mr. Kramer if
the cell splitting issues was logical in this case. Mr. Kramer stated that
several carrier use cell splitting and the DAS systems. He stated it is not new
technology nor is it a solution.
Commissioner Clarke commented on the
coverage map provided by the applicant and it appears to show a coverage gap in
Mr. Quattlebaum demanded rebuttal
time. Mr. Deylami stated that the issue is not bathroom coverage and explained
why cell phones do not work in certain situations.
Chair Johnson again closed the
public hearing. He stated he favors denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning
Administrator’s determination based aesthetics regarding the flag pole.
Commissioner O’Day made the motion
to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s determination.
Commissioner Clarke seconded the
motion. He stated the request for more coverage seems valid, however there
appears to be a variety of better antenna alternatives than a faux flag pole.
He stated that staff did a good job on the staff report.
Commissioner Koning commented that
he had assumed the flag pole would be neat and clean looking, but the depiction
presented was otherwise.
The motion to deny the appeal was
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Johnson,
Koning, O’Day, Pugh.
8-C. Text Amendment 05-005, City-wide. Text Amendment 05-005 to add Section
9.04.08.02.080(g) to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to allow the modification
of a side yard set back requirement in the R-1 district with Architectural
Review Board approval for an existing building in such cases where the
combination of contiguous parcels creates additional parcel width and requires
a proportionately greater side yard setback. The text amendment applies to
existing buildings which would be affected by this condition. [Planner: Sarah Lejeune, AICP] APPLICANT: Dan Palmer.
This is a quasi-judicial matter, so
no ex parte communication disclosures are in order.
Senior Planner Sarah Lejeune gave the
staff report.
Chair Johnson stated he had many
questions regarding this item. He stated his understanding that this would
apply to all R-1 properties citywide, including in
Commissioner Clarke commented that
sideyard setbacks have increased in the North of Montana area. He stated that
the building currently on the site is conforming to current setback
requirements. Ms. Lejeune stated that based on recent changes, the house is
actually legal non-conforming. Commissioner Clarke stated that the request is
to build an addition that would straddle the property line of the adjacent lot.
Ms. Lejeune confirmed that the addition would straddle the current property
line, which is why the lot tie is being requested. Additionally, the request
would not comply because it would create a greater non-conformity.
Chair Johnson asked staff why a
variance could not requested. Ms. Lejeune stated that this is not a substandard
lot, so no variance request is possible.
Commissioner O’Day asked staff to
describe the rational for the provision that only one side of the property can
be non-conforming. Ms. Lejeune explained that it has to do with limiting the
potential for future non-conformity. Commissioner O’Day asked if new
construction would have to conform with setbacks and existing adjacent
structures when the lots are tied. Ms. Lejeune answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner O’Day asked if there could be a case where one might want to tear
down two structures that have a non-conforming sideyard setback and then
rebuild with conformance on both sides but not be able to then tie the lots together.
Ms. Lejeune stated she did not think so.
Commissioner Clarke asked staff
about other structures and second story rearyard setbacks and compliance. Ms.
Lejeune stated that all new construction must conform under the current Zoning
Ordinance and this proposal is focused on sideyard setbacks.
The applicant’s representative,
attorney Rosario Perry, and the project architect, Mojdeh Memarzadeh, were
present to discuss the Text Amendment.
Commissioner Koning asked staff if
the applicant could not add a second floor to the one-story structure. Ms.
Lejeune explained that if the second floor complies with current setbacks and
is not over the conforming section of the structure, then a second floor could
be added.
Chair Johnson asked if the property
will be reassessed by the
Commissioner Koning commented that
he worked on developing the North of Montana development standards and this
issue was considered.
No members of the public submitted
request to speak forms, so Chair Johnson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Clarke asked staff to
explain a reference on page four of the staff report that says “not physically
increase the non-conforming sideyard setback.” Senior Land Use Attorney
Rosenbaum stated the Text Amendment only addresses one of the sideyard setbacks
and the “physically increase” refers to no real change in the setback.
Commissioner Clarke asked how one can be assured that the appropriate setbacks
will be maintained with this Text Amendment. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that ARB will only review the one issue of the setback. Commissioner
Clarke asked for assurance that there will be no exception to the 30% sideyard
setback. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that this is correct and
language can be added to clarify this point. Commissioner Koning agreed the
clarification could be added. He suggested it should be under G-1 as follows:
where only one of the sideyard setbacks of the existing structure shall remain
non-conforming and the proposed combination of parcels not physically increase
the non-conforming sideyard setback and the combination of setbacks shall
comply with existing …”
Commissioner Clarke asked about
accessory buildings. Mr. Foley stated that all new construction must comply
with current standards.
Commissioner Koning made a motion for
approval with the additional note about the combined sideyards conforming to
code requirements and redividing parcels issue.
Commissioner Clarke seconded the
motion.
Chair Johnson expressed his view
that he is very skeptical and nervous about this Text Amendment and he is
concerned about some downsides.
Commissioner Pugh shared Chair
Johnson’s concerns, especially as this could result in some very large parcels
and structures.
Commissioner Koning stated that the
issue raised by Commissioner Pugh was reviewed during the North of Montana
development standards process.
Chair Johnson repeated the motion
for approval with the following amendments: at the end of section one “and the
combined setbacks shall comply;” and that these conditions would only apply
with the combined total being 120-feet or less (Condition #4).
Ms. Schachter asked if the
applicant’s language would be included in the motion. Commissioner Koning
stated that the language is part of the motion. Senior Land Use Attorney
Rosenbaum stated that staff did not support the language as it was not necessary
and suggested that staff would clean up the language.
Commissioner Clarke asked for the
sequence for tying two lots if no construction is to occur. Ms. Schachter
stated that the City prepares the lot tie agreement and it is recorded with the
County. Commissioner Clarke asked whether Mr. Perry’s language should be
included in the motion. There was some discussion on this issue. Ms. Schachter
stated that the concerns can be forwarded to the City Council with clearer
language. Chair Johnson stated that motion will include the untying lots
provision and ARB review.
The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Clarke, Dad, Koning, O’Day,
Pugh; NOES: Brown, Johnson.
[The Commission took a break from
9:45 p.m. to 10:05 p.m. Commissioners Brown and Pugh left the meeting during
the break.]
9. PUBLIC
HEARINGS: Consent Calendar
The Consent Calendar items were
approved in one motion. Commissioner Dad made the motion for approval.
Commissioner Clarke seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Johnson,
Koning, O’Day, Pugh.
9-A. Conditional Use Permit
06-001,
Approved on Consent Calendar.
9-B. Tract Map 05-024,
Approved on Consent Calendar.
9-C. Tract Map 05-026,
Approved on Consent Calendar.
9-D. Tract Map 05-028,
Approved on Consent Calendar.
10.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10-A. Tract Map 04-001,
The Commission had no ex parte communication disclosures for
this item.
Associate Planner Scott Alright gave
the staff report.
Chair Johnson asked staff about
parking perpendicular to the sidewalk and how this would impact parking
requirements. Mr. Albright stated that parking must meet code requirements. Chair
Johnson asked about parking on-site. Mr. Albright stated that there are two
parking spaces per unit plus two guest parking spaces. Chair Johnson asked if
there are handicapped spaces on-site. Mr. Albright stated he did not know.
Chair Johnson asked if the site had been “Ellised.” Mr. Albright answered in
the affirmative. Chair Johnson asked if the lots are tied. Mr. Albright
answered in the affirmative. Chair Johnson asked for the lot size. Mr. Albright
stated that the lot is 14,082 square feet.
Commissioner O’Day expressed concern
with vehicle trips on
The applicant’s representative,
Harvey Goodman, was present to discuss the project.
Chair Johnson asked Mr. Goodman if
he is willing to work with the neighbors. Mr. Goodman answered in the affirmative.
There were no requests to speak from
the public, so Chair Johnson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Clarke made a motion
for approval. Commissioner Dad seconded the motion.
The
motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Koning, O’Day; ABSENT: Brown, Pugh.
10-B. Text
Amendment 05-004. Text Amendment 05-004 to modify Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC)
Section 9.04.18.040 by adding text to paragraph (b) and a new paragraph (i) that allows for the
continuation of existing hotel and motel uses located in residential districts
within the Coastal Zone which have been continuously operated since prior to
the adoption of the SMMC section 9.04.18.040(b) which requires the amortization
of commercial uses in residential zones. [Planner: Sarah Lejeune, AICP] APPLICANT:
Darius Nourafchen. PROPERTY
OWNER: They Amini Trust and Darius
Nourafchen.
This is a quasi-judicial matter, so
no ex parte communication disclosures are in order.
Senior Planner Sarah Lejeune gave
the staff report.
Chair Johnson asked Ms. Lejeune to
define “useful life” of a structure. Ms. Lejeune explained the intent of the
language so that if the structure built for a specific use, this permits the building
to continue in the same use until the building either deteriorates or the use
ceases. Chair Johnson asked about improvements of property and verify that
adequate parking is on-site. Ms. Lejeune stated that the applicant has not
applied to do improvements and staff would verify parking requirements in such
a case. Additionally, she stated that if there is no new square footage or
units proposed, then the existing parking is retained. Chair Johnson asked if
this Text Amendment would apply to any other hotels in the area. Ms. Lejeune
stated that this Text Amendment only applies to hotels and motels which do not
have an entitlement such as a Conditional Use Permit, Development Review Permit
or Development Agreement. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented that
there is some ambiguity in the Code and this proposal is a clarification of the
non-conforming use subsection (b). Chair Johnson commented that the original
building permit says this is a hotel/motel. He asked if it was built as an
apartment building or was always a hotel/motel. Ms. Lejeune stated that staff’s
impression is that it was always a hotel. She referred the question to the
applicant.
The applicant’s representatives,
attorneys Chris Harding and Kevin Kozal, were present to discuss the Text
Amendment.
Chair Johnson asked Mr. Harding
whether the original permits were for a hotel or apartments. Mr. Harding stated
that he has not obtained the original building permits, however the rooms are constructed
like a hotel/motel, not an apartment, and are very small. Chair Johnson
commented that he had heard this property was on the market last year and asked
whether it was in escrow. Mr. Harding stated that the current owner has owned
the property for a very long time and simply wants to make improvements to his
property.
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr.
Harding to comment on his proposed clarification of the Text Amendment. Mr.
Harding stated that his proposed changes have been reviewed and agreed to by
staff. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that one addition will be the
adding of wording “of this subjection(j)” at the end.
There were no requests to speak from
the public, so Chair Johnson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dad made a motion for
approval of the Text Amendment per the wording on the sheet presented to the
Commission. She stated that she was involved in the writing of Proposition S
and this application fits the intent of Proposition S. She expressed hope that
it may apply to other properties in the area. She also stated that the language
is good and the Text Amendment is good for the preservation of affordable
businesses.
Commissioner Clarke seconded the
motion.
The
motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
Clarke, Dad, Johnson, Koning, O’Day; ABSENT: Brown, Pugh.
11. DISCUSSION:
11-A. Input,
discussion and possible action on policies, process, materials, timeline,
participation strategies and related issues pertaining to the Shape the Future
2025 and Motion by the Ocean projects.
Commissioner
Clarke reported on the subcommittee (with Commissioners Koning and Pugh) being
interviewed by the consultant team regarding the Zoning Ordinance format and
process on the previous Friday at the Main Library.
12. WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS:
12-A. Planning Commission
Caselist
12-B. Cumulative Projects List
13. FUTURE
COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS None.
14. PUBLIC INPUT None
15. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:49
p.m. Chair Johnson stated that the City Council unanimously passed a proposed
ordinance opposing the continuing war in
APPROVED: JUNE 21, 2006
|
|
Help Us Shape the Future!
Be part of the effort to update the City's Land Use
Element and Zoning Ordinance and help create a vision for Motion
by the Ocean:
The City of |
|
