Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01_05-16-2019_ZA_Minutes - DRAFT NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH CORONA DEL MAR CONFERENCE ROOM (BAY E-1ST FLOOR) THURSDAY, MAY 16 2019 REGULAR MEETING—3:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER—The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Staff Present: Patrick J. Alford,Zoning Administrator Rosalinh Ung, Senior Planner David Lee,Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland, Assistant Planner Joselyn Perez, Planning Technician Liane Schuller, Consultant Planner II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES The Zoning Administrator reported that staff requested Item Number 5 be continued to May 30, 2019. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2019 Action: Approved ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2019 Action: Approved IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 Annual Review of Uptown Newport Development Agreement No. DA2012-003 (PA2014-039) Site Location: 4311-4321 Jamboree Road Council District 3 Rosalinh Ung, Senior Planner, provided a brief project description stating that this is an annual review of Development Agreement (DA)for Uptown Newport Planned Community for the development of a mixed-use residential project consisting of 1,244 residential units, two one-acre public parks, and 11,500 square feet of retail uses. Ms. Ung provided information on the terms of the DA and a summary of development activities. She concluded that the applicant is in good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of the DA and First Amendment. Applicant Tom Bitney, on behalf of Uptown Newport, LP, stated that he had reviewed the staff report and concurs with staff recommendation. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. Action: Approved Page 1 of 4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 05/16/2019 ITEM NO.4 Tida Thai Day Spa Minor Use Permit No. UP2019-013(PA2019-030) Site Location: 3848 Campus Drive, Unit 105 Council District 3 Liz Westmoreland, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the application is for a minor use permit to allow massage use in an existing office suite.The name of the business includes"day spa," but the permit is actually for massage; no personal service restricted uses are proposed.Staff described hours of operations and project characteristics. Applicant Panutai, stated that she had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator asked the applicant what the rooms would be used for since there were only three massage technicians and six treatment rooms. She explained that the rooms have to be cleaned after each use, employees can quickly move to the next room for a new customer and it allows the customers to relax after treatments and not rush out of the room to accommodate the following guests. She said there would be three massage technicians and a receptionist. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed.The Zoning Administrator asked staff if they had any concerns regarding parking or if the applicant's discussion of the use changed staffs thoughts on the parking demand. Ms. Westmoreland responded that staff compared the proposed use to an office use. Each of the proposed massage rooms would typically be used by an individual person, resulting in a similar or higher demand than the proposed massage use. Action: Approved ITEM NO.5 Argent LLC Lot Merger No. LM2018-006(PA2018-261) Site Location: 1601 East Bay Avenue(APN 048 23140 and 048 231 41) Council District 1 Action: Continued to May 30, 2019, Zoning Administrator meeting ITEM NO.6 Ackerman Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-006(PA2019-008) Site Location: 2016 East Ocean Front Council District 1 Liane Schuller, Planning Consultant, provided a brief project description stating that the requested coastal development permit(CDP)is to allow the addition of a 334-square-foot,attached storage area(bicycle garage) and a 414-square-foot guest room above. A CDP is required because the additions exceed 10 percent of the existing square-footage. Staff clarified that no kitchen facilities are proposed, and no public parking is being removed in conjunction with the project. Applicant representative Cole Becker stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. Action: Approved Page 2 of 4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 05/16/2019 ITEM NO.7 Sessions Sandwiches Patio Expansion Coastal Development Permit No. CD2018-094 and Minor Use Permit No. UP2018-022 (PA2018-241) Site Location: 2823 Newport Boulevard Council District 1 The Zoning Administrator asked staff to explain why the item is being heard by the Zoning Administrator,when the approval of the previous minor use permit was made by the Planning Commission. Staff stated that the Zoning Code specified that a change to an approved project may only be approved by the original review authority for the project,which in this case is the Zoning Administrator. David Lee, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the application is for a minor use permit and coastal development permit to add a 130-square-foot outdoor dining area to an existing restaurant. The proposed outdoor dining area is located within an existing parking space and will result in a loss of one parking space. Mr. Lee provided background for the restaurant including previous discretionary approvals. Mr. Lee described the existing parking demand and the re-evaluated parking rate for the restaurant. There is no intensification to the nonconforming parking lot. Mr. Lee described hours of operation and operating characteristics. The addition of an outdoor dining area also requires a coastal development permit. Mr. Lee stated that the restaurant is located a large distance from the beach or harbor and is not located near a public viewpoint designated by the Coastal Land Use Plan. Staff requested that the Zoning Administrator add a condition of approval specifying the type of alcohol license allowed (Type 41)and prohibiting the sale of alcohol for off-site consumption.Staff also requested that the Zoning Administrator delete a condition of approval which limited the service of alcohol to inside the establishment, since the Police Department has no objections to alcohol service in the outdoor dining area. The Zoning Administrator clarified with staff that the parking ratio for the restaurant would change from one space per 40 square feet of net public area (N.P.A.) to one space per 44 square feet of N.P.A. The Zoning Administrator questioned staff regarding the provided parking study's winter time observation and how parking would be affected the remainder of the year. Staff believes that the statistics provided in the study are representative of the parking situation for the majority of the year. Applicant Matt Meddock of Sessions Sandwiches stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator asked the applicant about fixed seating within the restaurant. Max Schlezer of Sessions Sandwiches answered that half of the seats are fixed and the remaining half are movable tables and chairs. The Zoning Administrator asked the applicant why there is one less parking space than what the previous approval described in the parking lot. The applicant responded that the new black top faded, which resulted in the previously striped out space re-appearing. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public,Brian Park,spoke and stated that he objected to the project due to the oversaturation of alcohol in the neighborhood,as well as high crime rate. Mr. Park also expressed concern about the proposed alcohol service on the patio and believes that the previous approval of alcohol service by the Planning Commission intended to restrict service to inside of the establishment. Mr. Park requested that the application be heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Park suggested that the project be approved without alcohol service on the patio or limited hours of alcohol service on the patio. The Zoning Administrator asked Mr. Park about previous problems since the restaurant was permitted to sell alcohol. Mr. Park stated that he had made multiple phone calls to the police regarding fights, noise issues, and an illegal window installation. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. The Zoning Administrator asked staff what the adjacent land uses are. Staff described the surrounding land uses and stated that there is a mixture of commercial, mixed use and residential properties. Page 3 of 4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 05116/2019 The Zoning Administrator asked staff if there is reconsideration of the proposed parking rate after the information provided by the applicant. Staff stated that the parking ratio of one space per 44 N.P.A. is appropriate and that the parking study supports it.The Zoning Administrator asked staff if the restaurant's use create parking issues for the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes that it would not. The applicant provided the Zoning Administrator an e-mail from Police Chief Jon Lewis which clarified the Police Department's stance on the project. Due to the Planning Commission's previous placement of a condition of approval that restricted alcohol service to inside of the restaurant,the Zoning Administrator referred the application to the Planning Commission. Action: Referred to the Planning Commission ITEM NO.8 717 Marigold Partners, LLC Residential Condominiums Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-002 (PA2019-041) Site Location: 717 Marigold Avenue Council District 6 Joselyn Perez, Planning Technician,provided a brief project description stating that the request is for a tentative parcel map for two-unit condominium purposes. There had been a single-family residence which has been demolished and a new duplex is currently under construction. The proposed development is consistent with zoning code including height, setbacks, parking, and floor area. The project is consistent with the lots R-2 Zoning designation, which allows for two-unit residential development. The tentative parcel map would allow each unit to be sold separately as condominiums. There are no waivers of the subdivision development standards. The project is located outside of the coastal zone and does not require a coastal development permit. A representative of the applicant, Buzz Person, stated via email that he had reviewed the conditions with his client and approved of them. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. Action: Approved V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. VI. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 3:38 p.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on May 9, 2019, at 11:25 a.m. on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on May 9, 2019, at 11:20 a.m. Patrick J. Alford Zoning Administrator Page 4 of 4 Zoning Administrator-May 30, 2019 Item Nos. la,2a,3a,4b, 5a, 7a-ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED May 30, 2019, Zoning Administrator Agenda Comments Comments submitted by: Jim Mosher( I immosher(aDyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Draft Minutes of May 16, 2019 Page 1, middle paragraph of Item 3: "Applicant Tom Bitney, on behalf of Uptown Newport, LP, stated that he had reviewed the staff report and concurs with the staff recommendation." Page 1, end of paragraph 2 of Item 8: "The project is consistent with the Jets lot's R-2 Zoning designation, which allows for two-unit residential development." HT 2- Pedicini Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-009 • I considering consistency with the LCP, it seems relevant that the proposal to construct a single rest nce on a 3,578 square foot lot creates a density of 12.2 dwelling units per acre, which is within a range, 10.0-19.9 DU/AC, required for the RSD-C land use designation. • Although b ing built to the maximum allowable height, it is good to see the mass/footprint of the structure is le than allowed, leaving some room for a private yard and not anticipating the adjacent public operty can be used for that purpose. Item 3. Stack Res ence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2018-110 • In considering consisten with the LCP, it seems relevant that the proposal to construct a single residence on a 30,524 squa foot (0.7 acre) lot creates a density of 1.4 dwelling units per acre, which is within the range, 0-5. U/AC, required for the RSD-A land use designation. • It is good to seethe digital simulate s showing how the proposed development will alter public views (Attachments ZA 4 and ZA 5). Ithough it may not be relevant to the present hearing, they make me wonder what is wrong with the xisting house and why it needs to be replaced. Item 4. The Milan Panic Family Tru Residence Coastal Development • In considering consistency with the LCP, it seem elevant that the proposal to construct a single residence on this 13,628 square foot (0.31 acre) lot eates a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. Unless I have miscalculated, this is inconsisten ithin the density range of 6.0-9.9 DU/AC required by the CLUP for the RSD-B land use designatio nd quoted on page 1 of the staff report and in Section 1.6 of the resolution. • On page 2, in Table 1 (and at the top of page 10), the reference a 3-car garage is a bit confusing since the applicant's own project description (on page 2 refers to a 6-car garage, and the drawings on pages 41 and 43 appear to show as many as 11 rs. • On page 3, the staff report says "The maximum bay water elevation is 7. et (NA VD 88) and may exceed the current 8.55 feet (NAVD 88) top of bulkhead elevation du ' g high tide or storm events." In other words, an 8.55 foot bulkhead does not provide entirely dequate protection when the "bay water elevation" is 7.7 feet. I am, therefore, unable to fol w staff's reasoning that a 10.6 foot high bulkhead would provide adequate protection in a sce rio in which the 7.7 feet increases to 10.6 feet. It would seem to me the new seawall would ha to be at least as much over 10.6 feet as the present 8.55-foot wall is over 7.7 feet.