Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_01-19-2017 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS— 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2017 REGULAR MEETING—6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER—The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer Chair Kramer announced Commissioner Lawler received the Orange County Business Journal's Businessman of the Year award for real estate. III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Erik Weigand, Commissioner Ray Lawler, and Commissioner Bradley Hillgren (late) ABSENT: Secretary Peter Zak Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski;Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Police Department Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe; Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager;Associate Planner Makana Nova; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle; and Administrative Support Technician Patricia Bynum IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Director Wisneski reported the applicant for Item Number 6 requested the item be removed from the agenda. Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to remove Item Number 6 from the agenda. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Weigand, Lawler NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Hillgren In response to a Commissioner's question, Deputy Director Wisneski clarified that staff did not expect the item to be presented to the Planning Commission. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to approve the minutes of December 8,2016 with Mr. Mosher's comments. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Lawler ABSENT: Zak, Hillgren 1 of 9 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 THE VILLAS AT FASHION ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(PA2016-179) Site Location: 4200 San Joaquin Plaza Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager reported the Villas at Fashion Island is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow a cafe and poolside cocktail lounge with a Type 57 ABC license, which allows alcohol service to members and their guests only. Members are defined as residents of the community. The plan shows areas for proposed alcohol service. The cafe is part of a fitness center and includes an outdoor patio. The cocktail lounge, located adjacent to the pool, would include alcohol service to the pool. The cafe would offer beer and wine only for onsite consumption and offer offsite sales. Proposed hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.daily. Interior net public area totaled 1,150 square feet along with a 650-square-foot outdoor patio. The cocktail lounge would offer beer, wine and liquor for onsite consumption. Proposed hours of operation for the cocktail lounge are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and for the pool 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The proposed lounge contains 1,300 square feet of interior space,and the pool area contains approximately 12,000 square feet. Michael Ayaz, representative for Irvine Company, indicated staff had vetted the project intensively. The addition of an ABC license is an amenity. Pilot programs at Irvine Company's Mission Valley and San Diego properties have been successful. Irvine Company does not foresee any issues or problems at the Villas at Fashion Island location. The Police Department contacted the jurisdiction where a similar Irvine Company operation is located and found no alcohol-related issues. Irvine Company agreed with all conditions of approval. In reply to Chair Kramer's inquiries, Mr. Ayaz advised that two distinct areas, the pool and connected lounge and the cafe, were the only areas where alcohol would be served or consumed onsite. While the lounge appeared separate from the pool, they are closely connected. The ABC Department considers the entire property to be contiguous because it is owned by the same entity. The property met the Department's contiguous requirements in terms of licensing as well as duplicate licenses that could be necessary for the separate cafe and pool/lounge areas. The demographic of the project would likely not be college age. Employees will receive training to prevent underage drinking. Currently, Irvine Company will be the operator. In response to Chair Kramer's question, Assistant Planner Crager replied that changing to a third-party vendor would not affect the Planning Commission's approval. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Mr. Ayaz reported the alcohol license allows consumption of alcohol in the cafe, the fenced patio, the pool area and the lounge. Irvine Company agrees to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and to discuss proximity to the pool with potential lessees of units near the pool. Irvine Company is not proposing late-night service or loud music. The lounge is intended to serve several purposes, including a place for residents to host parties. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiries, Assistant Planner Crager explained that a Type 57 license allows for onsite consumption of beer,wine and liquor and offsite sale. However,conditions of Approval for the project allow onsite consumption of beer and wine only for the cafe and offsite sale. The lounge would have onsite consumption of beer, wine and liquor and no offsite sale. Offsite sale allows a customer to purchase beer and wine and consume it offsite. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Mr.Ayaz noted the cafe is a market as well. Irvine Company agrees with Planning staff and the Police Department that distilled spirits will not be sold at the cafe and agrees with the condition not to sell or consume distilled spirits in the cafe and to sell beer and wine to go in original, sealed containers. A full line of alcoholic beverages will be offered for onsite consumption at the pool and lounge. Open or sealed containers of beer and wine purchased in the cafe will not be permissible in the pool and lounge. The concept of membership includes rules for members and their guests. There will be ramifications for breaking the rules. Chair Kramer noted the ABC license is not a typical restaurant or bar license. In reply to Commissioner Lawler's inquiries, Mr. Ayaz stated Irvine Company would have 24-hour security at the facility with personnel stationed at the gate and patrolling the area. 2 of 9 In response to Commissioner Lawler's question, Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe explained that Condition of Approval 39 is a standard condition of approval applied to all alcohol establishments. It means that a radio or television station will need a special events permit to hold an event at the facility. A private party with radios or televisions is permissible without a special events permit. Deputy Director Wisneski added that the key language is electronic media broadcast, which indicates some type of broadcast from the facility. The Condition of Approval will not preclude members from having televisions. Mr. Ayaz agreed with staffs interpretation. If Irvine Company staff has any questions about an event, they will contact Planning staff and the Police Department. Chair Kramer felt the language as written is too broad and requested it be rewritten. Assistant City Attorney Torres agreed to clarify the condition. Mr. Ayaz requested Condition of Approval Number 30 include quotation marks around the Municipal Code definition of a bar. Assistant City Attorney Torres agreed to do so. Commissioner Weigand stated the market/cafe is a good concept to lessen traffic. Chair Kramer and Commissioners Dunlap, Weigand and Lawler reported no communications with the applicant. Vice Chair Koetting advised that he had met with the General Manager and taken a tour of the property. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Lynn Swain reported the first notice residents of Big Canyon received indicated the licenses were Type 41 and Type 57 licenses. The Type 41 license had been removed. Because the conditional use permit expired after 24 months, she questioned whether the applicant could reapply at the end of 24 months to serve alcoholic beverages and make it a public facility. The possibility of drunk drivers is very concerning to residents of Big Canyon. Police Civilian Investigator Joe did not believe a membership-only club would have a significant impact on the number of DUls in the area, but she did understand residents' concern. For the most part, guests will be staying for quite some time as they are visiting residents of the apartment complex. Deputy Director Wisneski clarified that Condition of Approval Number 2 stated if the use permit is not exercised within a 24-month period, then it will expire. If the applicant initiates the activity, the use permit would run with the property. Jim Mosher advised that the ABC description of a Type 57 license states the authorization for offsite sale is limited to beer and wine. He questioned whether the Conditions of Approval are enforceable. There is some vagueness as to the City's authority to supersede rules and conditions. Deputy Director Wisneski reported the use permit could be more restrictive than the alcohol license. The Conditions of Approval are enforceable by the City Municipal Code. Police Civilian Investigator Joe added that the ABC Department reflects on the City's CUP and bases its conditions on the City's CUP. The ABC Department will not issue a license prior to the City issuing a CUP. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Mr. Ayaz reiterated that Irvine Company agrees to the Conditions of Approval. Assistant City Attorney Torres suggested deleting "radio, television, video, film or other electronic media"from Condition of Approval Number 39 and adding quotation marks around"bar,tavern, cocktail lounge or nightclub" to Condition of Approval Number 30. The Planning Commission agreed. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to adopt Resolution No. 2042 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-045 with revisions to Conditions of Approval 30 and 39, and to find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. 3 of 9 Alternate Motion made by Commissioner Dunlap to adopt the Resolution and revisions with the exception of sale of distilled spirits in the cafe. The applicant could return in the future to request sale of distilled spirits. Chair Kramer announced the Alternate Motion failed for lack of a second. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Weigand, Lawler NOES: Dunlap ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Hillgren Commissioner Weigand advised that he rode with the Police Department on December 30,2016 and invited fellow Commissioners to do the same. ITEM NO. 3 STOLZ RESIDENCE ADDITION (PA2016-198) Site Location: 2003 Yacht Defender Associate Planner Makana Nova reported the item is for a request to modify setbacks. The view side of the property is regulated as a front setback. The property lines are shorter along Yacht Defender and the property lines do not extend to the toe of the slope as they do in the rest of the community. There is an approved setback map for the tract, and setbacks were established for each property to create variation. The Planned Community text provides relief from the lot-specific setbacks through Director approval; however, staff felt the Planning Commission should review the application. The subject property has a 25-foot setback on the view side and a 20-foot setback on the street side, which are the deepest setbacks of all properties on the street. In response to Chair Kramer's question, Associate Planner Nova advised that the intent of the setbacks is to create variation and articulation along the street and view sides. Associate Planner Nova continued that staff considered whether the proposed addition would achieve the variation of the community, whether the addition is appropriate, and whether any public or private views are impacted by adjusting the setback. The property is not afforded the slope setback that other properties have. The modified setback will be 17 feet 8 inches, which will match the line of existing development. There are several encroachments into the existing view side. The Planned Community allows a 3 or 20-foot garage setback, and the subject property has a 3-foot setback. On the street side, the home is set back 20 feet. The applicant wants to build an addition over the existing garage and modify the setback to 8 feet with a balcony that would extend to the 3-foot setback of the garage. The applicant proposes enclosing the existing deck located on the view side with a 33-square-foot addition. The addition will not contribute to lot coverage because the deck is already considered part of the lot coverage. The second part of the addition will extend over the existing garage and add 301 square feet for a guest bedroom or an artist studio. The project pulls back the existing eaves to help reduce overall lot coverage. A small portion of the addition on the street side will extend over a new area and contribute to overall lot coverage. Because there is a net reduction in lot coverage, staff does not consider lot coverage an issue. Relief from the setback requirement on the view side is appropriate because it is still restrictive, because the requested 17-foot-8-inch setback is larger than on most properties located along Yacht Defender, because there will be no view impacts, and because the line of development will not extend beyond neighboring properties. On the street side, the home will align with existing development. The City has approved several similar additions throughout the community. The homeowner's association has approved the proposed design. One neighbor inquired about the project and has been satisfied with additional information. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry,Associate Planner Nova explained that the 45-square-foot area off the garage, shown in purple on Sheet A.1.4, is part of the second-floor addition that will extend beyond the line of the existing garage. It is a section of the bedroom that projects beyond the garage. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Associate Planner Nova suggested the original developers may have included the slope as part of the greenbelt. The homeowner's association has provided a letter approving the design, which is placed in the file. The current setbacks were in existence at the time the property was developed. The applicant has indicated that the home was a model home for the development and did not conform with setbacks at the time of its construction. 4 of 9 Commissioners reported no communications with the applicant. Chair Kramer opened and closed the public hearing with no public comment. Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to Section 15305(Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, and to adopt Resolution No. 2043 approving Staff Approval No. SA2016-019. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Weigand, Lawler, Dunlap NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Hillgren ITEM NO. 4 MITCHELL RESIDENCE ADDITION (PA2016-201) Site Location: 1911 Yacht Colinia Associate Planner Makana Nava reported the request is to modify the front setback. The setbacks are intended to vary between 5 and 18 feet along the street. The subject property has a 10-foot setback along the street and a 3-foot garage setback. The proposal is to modify the street setback to 6 feet. The addition will be a 162-square-foot closet in the master bedroom. The overall lot coverage with the addition will comply with the 50-percent maximum lot coverage. The addition will not affect any private views. The homeowner's association is reviewing the project. Staff felt the addition will be compatible with the neighborhood and provide sufficient variation along the street. No comments were received from the public regarding the project. Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. Chair Kramer opened and closed the public hearing with no public comment. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiries, Associate Planner Nova advised that the applicant had not yet obtained approval from the homeowner's association. Typically, staff will not require approval from the homeowner's association but felt approval was important because the project is located in a private community. Thus, a condition of approval is included in the draft resolution requiring homeowner's association approval. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, and to adopt Resolution No. 2044 approving Staff Approval No. SA2016-022. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Weigand, Lawler, Dunlap NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Hillgren Deputy Director Wisneski noted the Director had chosen to refer the previous two staff approvals to the Planning Commission for review. In response to her question, Chair Kramer indicated staff should continue to present this type of application to the Planning Commission for review. ITEM NO. 5 SWEENEY/LEGGETT LOT SPLIT AND ALTERNATIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION (PA2016-006) Site Location: 401 Heliotrope Avenue and 2820 Bayside Drive, Corona del Mar Principal Planner Jim Campbell reported the request was to subdivide the subject parcel to create two lots. The parcel currently contained two condominiums. The new lot line would be located down the middle of the property with a slightjog to maintain separation between the buildings in compliance with the Building Code. In dividing the lot, setbacks would shift and the existing structures would not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Therefore, an alternate setback determination is provided with the application to address setbacks and floor area. 5of9 Mr.Campbell went on and noted that the alternate setback determination will establish setbacks largely consistent with the existing development, except for Bayside Drive, and will affect the maximum allowed floor area. The two lots created by the division will not meet the Zoning Code's minimum standard for new lots. However,the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Code allow deviations if the lots are not smaller than the original lots. The two lots created by the division will be larger than the typical lots of the original Corona del Mar subdivision and meet the standards for the creation of smaller lots. Mr. Campbell also noted that the designation of two-family residential will not change, but the underlying lots could be developed as two duplexes today if the two existing condominiums were demolished. The General Plan accounts for this additional potential density, and as a result, the subdivision does not require a General Plan amendment. Staff felt the facts supported each of the findings to create the lots. The new lot arrangement is consistent with the area because there are other lots along Bayside Drive with a similar orientation. This type of development will be exempt from environmental review. Edward Sweeney,applicant,stated the project is complicated and thanked Principal Planner Campbell for his help. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Mr. Sweeney advised that his goal is to have two lots to build two single-family residences facing the park. The person who bought the unit on the corner wanted a single-family residence rather than a condominium. He has submitted the application at the request of the other owner. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Principal Planner Campbell indicated the parkway commonly known as Bayside Park is located in a public right-of-way. The house to the west has had the access through the parkway similar to the 2820 Bayside Drive unit for several decades. The house in the rear could not get access from the alley without the arrangement. In terms of maintenance, the landscape area in front between the driveway and the units is maintained by the property owner; the City maintains the driveway. In response to Chair Kramer's questions, Principal Planner Campbell stated the house in the rear(2820 Bayside Drive) does have vehicular access from the driveway in the park through a grassy driveway. The area is in the public right-of-way, and the City controls the use of the right-of-way. All private improvements in the right-of-way were subject to encroachment agreements. One of the Conditions of Approval is a replacement agreement signed by both owners so that it applies to both of the new parcels. In reply to Chair Kramer's inquiries,Assistant City Attorney Torres advised that generally no consideration is paid for an encroachment agreement. An encroachment is given on the condition that it could come out at any time the City deemed it needed the property back. Generally, there is not a payment such as an annual rent for an encroachment.Generally,an encroachment agreement contains a maintenance requirement. Maintenance of the property could be thought of as consideration. Chair Kramer related that he continues to have questions regarding access and is not satisfied with responses regarding the relationship between the City and the applicant and the neighbor. Access is germane to the Planning Commission's approval of the application. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Principal Planner Campbell reported that theoretically the buildings could be converted to or replaced with duplexes. Given the recent construction of the new buildings, staff does not expect that in the foreseeable future. A conversion or replacement project will have to comply with duplex standards in existence at the time the project occurred. A four-car garage and smaller units could be possible as a future project. In the analysis,staff reviewed the possibility of one or two additional units and believed it will not create a significant impact to the area. The goal of the application is two single family units on separate parcels, but changing the designation from R-2 to R-1 will require a General Plan amendment. In reply to Chair Kramer's inquiries, Principal Planner Campbell indicated the rear parcel will need alternative access to the garage if the City reclaimed its land. Building permits allow the back house access off the Bayside Drive driveway, which is part of the public right-of-way. Additional access from the existing alley would require building a structure to extend the alley and modifying the building,which is theoretically possible but not likely given the most recent construction. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Principal Planner Campbell explained that Condition of Approval Number 4 mainly changes the entitlements and permits for the buildings to reflect single-family rather than 6 of 9 condominium. The applicant will pay a small administrative fee for the permit, but the fee will not be based on construction costs because no physical changes are proposed. Commissioner Hillgren arrived at 7:44 p.m. Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher was concerned about the rear lot having access through a public park but was unsure what the Planning Commission could do to resolve the issue. It would have been helpful for the staff report to reference previous hearings so that new Commissioners could understand the history of the parcel. Because the property is located in the Coastal Zone,the Planning Commission should consider whether the application needed a coastal development permit to proceed. Principal Planner Campbell reported staffs interpretation of the Implementation Plan suggested division of the parcel does require a coastal development permit. Staff believed the project is consistent with the Implementation Plan. Obtaining a coastal development permit is a procedural step that will have to be satisfied. In reply to Chair Kramer's question, Principal Planner Campbell advised that staff is seeking the Planning Commission's authorization of the parcel map and the alternative setbacks. The coastal development permit will be sought at a later date with a hearing before the Zoning Administrator, unless the Planning Commission wished to continue the item and hold one hearing for all matters. Deputy Director Wisneski added that when the City obtained jurisdiction, a coastal development permit will be required for condominium maps and subdivisions such as this. Because this project is further along, staff chose to present it to the Planning Commission first. A coastal development permit will be required subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator before staff can record the tract map. In response to Chair Kramer's questions, the applicant understood that Planning Commission approval does not mean the legal action is final and agreed to the Conditions of Approval. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiry, Chair Kramer stated the coastal development permit is a ministerial matter. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 and to adopt Resolution No. 2045 approving Newport Parcel Map No. NP2016-001 and Staff Approval No. SA2016-020. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Weigand, Lawler, Dunlap NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hillgren ABSENT: Zak In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Assistant City Attorney Torres related that every encroachment agreement requires indemnification of the City. A claim for an accident would probably go against a homeowner's insurance policy. VIII. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 6 UPTOWN NEWPORT PLANNED COMMUNITY PARK IN-LIEU FEE CREDITS (PA2016-120) Site Location: 4311 -4321 Jamboree Road Chair Kramer announced Item Number 6 has been continued indefinitely. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS 7 of 9 ITEM NO. 7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO.8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Director Wisneski announced the City Council would be dissolving the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee as the committee's duty is complete. Staff anticipated an update to the City's 2006 General Plan in the next budget year. A new committee will be created to assess the General Plan update process. Staff will likely engage Planning Commissioners in the committee. In reply to Chair Kramer's question, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated the budget for updating the General Plan will be considered in June and become active in July. Staff anticipates an 18-month process for a comprehensive update including an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)and would recommend an extensive committee. Chair Kramer was pleased the City Council had taken up the matter. Because the General Plan update is within the Planning Commission's purview, the Planning Commission could be heavily involved in the update. He encouraged Planning Commission discussion regarding makeup of the committee. In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiry, Deputy Director Wisneski reported the City Council would determine formation of the committee, but staff would recommend at least two Planning Commissioners be part of the committee. Deputy Director Wisneski noted the City Council will review the Village Inn appeal the following week. The Planning Commission's next meeting is scheduled for February 9, 2017 in the Civic Center Community Room. The Harbor Commission requested to share its vision for the harbor and links to land uses. If the agenda was lengthy, staff might move the Harbor Commission item to February 23, 2017 to ensure the Harbor Commission has ample time. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Deputy Director Wisneski advised that the third Mariners'Mile public workshop at Marina Park is scheduled for January 26, 2017. She invited the Planning Commission to attend as members of the public. In reply to Commissioner Weigand's inquiries, Deputy Director Wisneski explained that in approving the most recent Use Permit for Lido Bottle Works, the former Use Permit was not rescinded. The City Council has not publicly discussed televising Planning Commission meetings. Assistant City Attorney Torres added that the Council will discuss the issue at its next meeting. Chair Kramer shared his support for televising Planning Commission meetings and requested staff relay his support to the City Council. Deputy Director Wisneski suggested Chair Kramer email his comments to City Council as staff has no direct method to provide them to the City Council. Chair Kramer requested the minutes reflect his support. ITEM NO. 9 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT None. ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None. X. ADJOURNMENT—7:58 p.m. 8 of 9 The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, January 13, 2017, at 1:15 p.m. in the Chambers binder, 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 Friday, January 13, 2017, at 2:20 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary 9 of 9