Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/20020 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley - All present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director - - ____Robin._Clouson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Todd Weber, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary • Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve the minutes of February 7, 2002 as revised. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Public Comments: Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, February 15, 2002. Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 Cannery Lofts 501 -507 & 500 -512 30th Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue • (PA2001.128) Request for the Cannery Lofts Mixed Use Development that consists of 22 individual commercial and residential units proposed for 16 existing lots to be located on properties along both the north and south sides of 30th between Villa Way and Lafayette Street and two lots on the east side of Lafayette Street along the Rhine Channel. The property is located in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area and is zoned SP #6 (RSC & RMC) District. Site Plan Review No. 2001 -001 is only associated with the 4 buildings proposed along the Rhine Channel. Use Permit No. 2001 -022 is associated with all of the proposed buildings as they would exceed the base height limit of 26 feet. Newport Tract Map No. 2001 -002 requests to subdivide one lot, which was the result of a previous merger of 7 lots, recreating the previous. subdivision pattern. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2001 -003 is associated with the feasibility of including 'affordable housing within the project as required by the Zoning Code and Housing Bement or the payment of an in -lieu fee. The project requires the consideration of a Traffic Study prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Chairperson Tucker distributed an agenda for this item that included a: summary of the past two hearings, staff input, summary of previous public testimony, questions from the Commission, new testimony, and straw votes. He then noted the following points: • Two previous public hearings involved physical nature of the project, and CEQA related information. Public testimony was taken at both meetings. • Tonight's hearing is to hear everything else not heard yet and to resolve final issues. • Staff is to document concerns from other departments. Mr. Jim Campbell then summarized the staff report: • Planning Department issues of MND responses, Coastal Residential Development Permit, landscaping requirement. • Building Department issues of occupancy separation walls, trellis wall, disabled parking. • Fire Department issues being resolved with the 301h Street lots fully sprinklered. • Public Works issues of authority, hydrology, parking, pedestrian circulation, non standard improvements. Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern of the significant number of outstanding issues on this item at this third hearing. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern about the outstanding issues as well. Chairperson Tucker stated this is a complex project with many parts. We need to INDEX Item 1 PA2001 -128 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 see what issues are outstanding offer we refine a set of conditions for this project, get a straw vote and then determine if we are ready for a final vote. Continuing, he asked about: • Coastal Commission comments regarding residential uses not being part of the certified Land Use Plan. Ms. Temple answered that when the City adopted the Specific Plan, staff included the concept of residential mixed use throughout the Cannery Village area. These comments may be referring to the fact the base land use designation contained in the LCP. The RMC designation doesn't talk about the possibility for residential. However, in the specific area description furtheron in the LCP it does introduce that concept. I believe the writer of the comments did not delve deep enough into the Certified Land. Use Plan, so the comments are erroneous. Continuing,- Chairman--Tucker--stated--that', there area few items that are outstanding: • the landscaping mentioned in the staff report; there is an increase in the amount of turf block that will be used to meet the requirements for the Lafayette lots. Is that a condition? • the occupancy separation walls; the metal trellis frame covered had • to be modified. Is that a condition? • Wall included does not extend fully where the third level covers the second level. The applicant indicated that the necessary changes will be incorporated in order to comply with the Building Code. Is this a condition? Mr. Campbell noted that condition 10 suffices for the concern of the occupancy separation walls and that condition 41 requires compliance with the landscape requirements of the Specific Area Plan. At Commission inquiry, he stated that specific language regarding turf block can be added, and then explained the term 'turf block'. Continuing, Chairman Tucker asked and was answered: • Disabled parking - the parking easement is answered in condition 11 that deals with design and can include verbiage to the reciprocal language as well. Chairman Tucker noted that the easement, if it is done, would have to be prior to the loan on the property, or the loan would have to subordinate to that easement so it would not go away due to foreclosure and becomes prior to the mortgage. Staff and Commission noted the following: • Condition 8 - address fire suppression sprinkler system subject to the Newport Beach Fire Department. • • Condition 26 - addresses hydrology and hydraulic study approved by the Public Works Department; covers both private and street INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 drainage. Verbiage to be added to specifically address public improvements. • Finding 2 for the use permit that refers to 9 foot 4 inch wide spaces needs to be changed to 9 foot 6 inch. • Condition 12 - dealing with trash storage to be screened from public view and /or stored in residential garages. • Condition 20 - separate water service and sewer lateral connections. • Variance request due to landscape requirement deficiency. Applicant revised project to include turf block that increases landscaping. This meets the minimum standard, therefore a variance is no longer necessary. • Condition 5 - deals with the City's not having a certified LCP; projects of this nature need to receive approval by the Coastal Commission through the Coastal Development Permit process. All commercial projects in the Cannery Village go to the Coastal Commission. Chairman Tucker then gave a synopsis of previous public testimony from the two previous meetings. Public comment was opened. Ken Schofield, 1355 Page Lane, Redlands owner of a building at 29th and Lafayette, as an architect noted: • Testified that the drainage gutter appears to be 36" wide. • Changes to the separation walls and how the building appearance is affected. • Increasing the parking width two inches per unit that on 30th Street will add 1 '/z feet to the project; how will that fit into the building design? • Handicap parking situation is problematic. • Commercial trash, how is that being handled as there seems to be no place for it on the site. • Noted that the mixed use is wonderful for the area, however, the design and 'cookie cutter' type design does not fit in the Cannery Village area. Lucille Kring, representing 'ORACLE' 1619 W. Lorraine, Anaheim distributed a letter to the Commission and noted the following concerns: • Height is not compatible with the neighborhood. • Elimination of view corridors. • Tandem parking is problematic. • Coastal access. • Architectural compatibility. • Urban runoff and other water quality impacts. • Affordable housing. • Public safety. • Recommendations from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) i L J • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 Chairperson Tucker discussed side yard setbacks; view corridors; affordable housing; in -lieu fees; urban runoff-and fossil filters; and the purpose of CEQA for disclosure. Ms. Temple added that this project in terms of both construction and operation will be required to meet all of the new water quality permit requirements. Page 10 of the December 6}h meeting refers to Code Section 20.65.055 that establishes four findings that must be made to approve a use permit to the secondary permitted height limit. Chairperson Tucker then read the findings for the public. He concluded noting that the Commission must find that the architectural treatment of the buildings will result in a superior design product. This is a key item on the height issue. Brett DeValier, 1201 Estelle, owner of a business at 409 30th Street spoke in support of the project. As aresident of Newport Beach °he - has seen-this arecrgrow -and change in the last 35 years. This area needs this project and it would be unfortunate if the City turned it down. Carol Plotkin, 509 31 s+ Street, spoke in support of the project. As a business owner with her residence above, stated she is very concerned about several buildings that are old and run down in her area and asked for more positive development in this area. At Commission inquiry, she stated that she has parking for ten in the back of her building. Tom Blurock, 3000 Newport Blvd., stated his support of the redevelopment but noted that the applicant is asking for so many exceptions; buildings are too high; concrete walls on the end of the street and the architecture changes the scale of the neighborhood. Philip Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive, speaking for the applicant, noted the following: • Master plan approach produced this project that is in compliance with the Cannery Village Specific Plan. • Our detractors are measuring us with standards that deal with aesthetic judgments. • We would like to be measured against the standards of the Specific Plan that provides circumstances for alternative height standards. • We are prepared to accept all the conditions and we believe they address all of the issues that have been identified and are part of the public record. • We recommend that the Environmental Mitigation Measures that need to be done and the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be adopted. • In our reading of the conditions, there are no matters that are outstanding. • • This applicant has the some opportunity as others, to seek certain exceptions to published standards. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • February 21, 2002 INDEX • This application includes in one entitlement procedure a Tract Map as well as a use permit with multiple conditions that are very detailed. Kevin Weeda, the applicant, stated: • He has worked diligently on this project for almost a year going through the issues and coordinating with staff. • We are prepared to accept all the conditions as is. • We are really talking about a discretionary approval for height. • The opponents to our project have made the height their issue because they do not like the aesthetics of the project. • We think we have designed a project that is intelligent and meets all of the Specific Plan guidelines. The original building design were 35 feet tall at the first Development Review Committee meeting almost a year ago. • We minimized the height based on conversations both with staff and -- --some -Commissioners and came up with a roof height of 31± feet. These are two -story loft residences on top of one story commercial, essentially the buildings are three stories tall. • 31 feet is what we are allowed to build without coming before the Planning Commission. • Most of the new buildings in that area are 31 feet or taller. • The project is not the tallest in the village. • Park area at the end of the street enhances the area. • Offered to improve the street and change some of the materials. By doing so, we will raise some of the elevations and solve some of the drainage issues that currently exist. • We are being penalized for assembling lots and trying to do a master plan rather than developing individual units. Commissioner Kranzley stated that he met with Mr. Weeda that day. He then asked about varying the materials on the fagade. Mr. Weeda then displayed and explained a slide depicting the material sketch. He then displayed a sample of trellis wall that will be used on the Lafayette units only. It is not recommended to have plant materials on it. Discussion then followed on variation of facades and the cost of project. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kiser confirmed with staff that the project could by right be built to 31 feet as long as the average does not exceed 26 feet at the mid point of the roof. Commissioner McDaniel noted: • 49 conditions on this project, which means that someone else will be looking at these issues. I don't know what I am voting on. I am having some difficulty voting on a project that I am not really sure what it will look like. I would like to know about the drainage, the landscaping, • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 etc. • Loss of parking. Now, there is very little parking and with the addition of the commercial application I am more concerned about the lack of parking. • Trash storage is still an issue. • Assessment District, I am uncomfortable with how that works. Commissioner Tucker noted: • Trash pick up is all in the alleys. The condition is that it is` to be screened. Ms. Temple added that there is no specific location provision for a conventional dumpster situation. In places in the older commercial districts with alleys, there have been some challenges managing the trash situation there because the City does not provide pick up of the commercial trash. Many times the property owners get together and come up with arrangements of sharing and joining im order to not use the large dumpsters. I am not sure there is going to be room to do that, so the condition of approval is worded in such a fashion that if that can't happen then they will have to pull their trash cans into a place that is screened from the alley within the commercial part of the building. The residential is much easier to deal with because they have garages where they can store their trash • cans. Commissioner Kiser noted: • The most difficult part of the process of approving the project tonight is the completion of resolutions and conditions in such a way as to miss nothing, because the resolutions and conditions were very incomplete as of the start of our meeting. • 1 am not a fan of the architecture, but would not deny the project because of that. • These are going to be fee lots without any CC and R's having to do with the exterior treatments and further improvements. Ten years from now the project will look much more eclectic because each individual owner will put their own facade on. These things are not going to remain the same. • The model that is on exhibit tends to make the project look big, and bulky, because the model stands alone. The project will actually be built between other structures and will fit into the Cannery better than the model would suggest. The floor area ratios of the project between .997 and 1.047 is significantly below the maximum 1.25. There is no additional square footage gained from the additional height. The applicant has met my height concerns. I will support the project. It would be a very positive development for Cannery Village. . Commissioner Agajanian noted his concerns: • Tandem parking. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • February 21, 2002 INDEX • Loss of street parking. • Architecture is done well, however, is concerned with the bulk. • The character of the area would probably be better served if the entire project were divided into the original lots and built lot by lot. • The Lafayette units are detached and I have design concerns about them. • The economic rationale as a master plan project, I am concerned about the profitability of developing on a lot by lot basis. • Our choice is whether the additional height requirement that is being asked for weighs beneficially with the treatment of the entire project, and I think it does. • Supports the project although it is not a perfect project. Commissioner Gifford noted: • This project is exciting and renewing in the village. --The architecture, is, ............... .... - ...... • Looking at the findings we need to make for the increased height, the height intrudes minimally. This project meets and exceeds the criteria for allowing that to happen. • Supports the project. Commissioner Kranzley noted he does not like the project because: • The project doesn't fit into the Cannery area. • The design is monotonous and clearly not what is envisioned for the Cannery Village. • 1 understand that a different design would not come before the Commission. I respect the fact that he did not do that. • 1 believe we should ask for more. • 1 re -read the Specific Area Plan and this project fits within its guidelines. • My problems and comments about this project are moot because it is allowed under the Specific Plan. • The Specific Area Plan has been in place for 25 years and quite frankly has not worked. Clearly today, Cannery Village is worse than it was 25 years ago, with the loss of shops and restaurants, etc. • If this proposal fits within those guidelines, we . should look at the Specific Area Plan. • 1 will reluctantly be in favor of this project. Commissioner Selich stated his support of the project noting: • The Commission is not charged to get into architectural review. • Trash is being handled just as is being required of everyone else. • Parking on site makes up for removal of on- street parking. • Tandem parking is a concern, however, we have to take what we can get in this older area. • Chairman Tucker stated his support of the project noting our job is statutory in nature. It is not our place to decide how somebody is going to design their • . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 project. The applicant has designed his project with materials as allowed by the guidelines called for by the Specific Plan. He then asked for a clean up of findings and conditions. Commission and staff noted the following changes: •i Resolution, Section 1 - add, The applicant seeks approval of a Site Plan Review, Tor Lafayette Avenue lots'. •S Resolution, Section 2 - add, public hearing held also on February 21, 2002. :• Resolution, Section 3, under Site Plan Review - change word, 'disable' to 'disabled' parking. This appears throughout, change all. % Resolution, Section 3, under 'Consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program', remove duplicate 'consistent with' in the last line of 1. and insert 'listed in Exhibit A' after ...project plans... -C� Resolution, Section 3, under 'Consistent with the Cannery Village.. - Add as the third sentence, 'Further, nothing in the architecture will minimize the variety and individuality of uses in Cannery Village.' 1% Resolution, Section 3, under 'Use Permit for Building Height, #I - add a third sentence to say, 'There are three foot setbacks between buildings on the 30th Street lots where no setbacks are required.' h•• Resolution, Section 3, under 'Use Permit for Building Height, #2 - • change 9' -4" to 9'6 ". v Resolution, Section 3, under 'Use Permit for Building Height, #6 - add, 'and creativity of design', to the fourth sentence. The next sentence, delete, 'Typically' and say, 'The design of a 26 -foot high mixed use building with the some floor area would likely be wider and more boxy in appearance. Resolution, Section 3, under 'Use Permit for Building Height, #7 - the last sentence should read, 'the presence of other buildings of comparable height in the area, etc... Resolution, Section 3, under title of Site Plan Review for 2908 and 2912 Lafayette Avenue, put a dash instead of an ampersand. >a Resolution, Section 3, under 'Site Plan Review for 2908 and 2912 Lafayette Avenue' #6 - Sentence starts with, 'Public coastal access, strike 'to the' Zoning Code. The next sentence at the end add, 'by the applicant'. •'a Resolution, Section 3, under 'Tract Map for 501 30th Street - #9 substitute subdivision with project. :• Resolution, Section 4 - second line says '....and Approves Site Plan Review...' •: Conditions of Approval: o All the corrections presented in a memorandum prepared by staff dated 2/21/02. o #4 - delete. o # 10 - add, 'The trellises on Lafayette lots will be set back to • comply with the Uniform Building Code requirements. City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 INDEX o #11 - additional wording, A reciprocal use and access easement for the parking spaces between Lots El & E2 and between Lots E3 & E4 shall be required. Any reciprocal easements associated with the provision of disabled parking shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. Owners shall provide proof of recordation of the reciprocal parking easement and a title commitment dated after the date of recordation showing the agreement being recorded prior to any financing on either property and /or that any existing mortgage has agreed to such subordination. '.' Ms. Clauson added that there is language that can be added to require the document to be recorded to anything. Ito be included). Owners shall provide proof of recordation of the reciprocal parking easement and a title commitment dated affer the date of recordation showing the agreement being recorded prior to any financing on either property and /or that any' existing mortgage -has-agreed- such subordination. o #16 - how is that enforced? Staff answered as a response to a complaint basis with Code Enforcement supervision on a lot by lot basis. o #17 - staff explained that the Specific Area Plan requires the dedication to be made and the easement is to be recorded. A dedication is not part of the subdivision and would be a dedication of an easement. o # 21 - intersections of 'private' drives. o #25 and #33 seem to be the same thing. Staff answered that one of the conditions refers to a subdivision surety and the other one refers to the overall public improvements. o #25 - delete . ..... record a parcel map or,' because there is no parcel map. o #26 - insert in the first sentence, '....and public Improvements '..., ' o #27 - repeats part of #34, 1 recommend we delete #27. o #30, the next to the last line, change wit to with. o #34 - very last line change 'increased'. o #35 - repeats parts of #38 with reference to encroachment permit. Mr. Edmonton stated these are both correct. Any work in the public right -of -way is done under an encroachment permit. Since this project includes proposals for non - standard improvements for delineation, those types of improvements, if the City is going to maintain them, we would not use the non- standard improvement method because it will be approved as part of the plans and the City is responsible for it. The purpose of a non - standard improvement method is to make the private properly owner responsible. o #36 - insert 'and the' in the last sentence referring to non - standard approvals only. o #41 - delete sentence, ..Trees shall be planted in accordance with 10 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 the provisions of Chapter 13 of .... And insert, 'The landscaped areas of the Lafayette Avenue lots depicted on the drawings shall be Increased by expanding the area devoted to turf block in front of the residential garage aprons within the front yard setback area so that the 50% landscape requirement is met ' o #42 - Commissioner Kiser asked for and received a definition of what does the term 'walpak' and 'zero cut -off' type fixtures mean. o Mitigation Measures - Noise #47 - change the hours from 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday. o Add, #51 - The frellis walls shall not be planted with vines or other plant materials. Staff indicated that this is something that is very important to the Fire Department, because it would potentially become a fire hazard. Chairperson Tucker then asked if the Commission found the answers to the response to comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration sufficient. He was answered yes. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve the Cannery Lofts (PA2001- 128) by adopting Resolution 1551 entitled, "A Resolution of the Planning • Commission of the City of Newport Beach Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving Site Review No. 2001 -001, Use Permit No. 2001 -022, Newport Tract Map No. 2001 -002 (Tentative Tract Map. No. 16292), Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2001 -003 & Traffic Study No. 2001 -004 for properties located at 501 -507 & 500 -512 30th Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue (PA2001- 127)." (Exhibit No. 1) as attached with the findings and conditions as modified this evening. Commissioner McDaniel stated there are issues that could have been addressed that were not resolved, therefore he will not support this project. Ayes: Kiser, Agajanion, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: McDaniel ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood stated that at the City Council meeting of February 12th the initiation of the two General Plan Amendments for Newport Village and Shellmaker Island were heard. The item on the Van Cleve appeal has been called up by the City Council. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. Commissioner Selich stated that a lot of time was spent by the Commission streamlining the Zoning Code. The EDC was one of the primary motivators. He noted that some of the 11 Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 materials that were dealt with tonight should have been dealt with staff. This level of detail and nonsubstantive items I don't know. I can see ways this could have been handled to avoid a lot of this. Whether the applicant's consultant gave bad advice or the applicant was stubborn in the way he, wanted to approach it or the City gave him bad advice, whatever, we need to take a look at it. If we do this to anybody who wants to do something creative, they are not going to do it. This was painful. Discussion continued on design criteria, CEQA guidelines and processes, design issues, etc. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Kranzley reported that 50 names had been selected. The full applications will be presented to the City. Council for final approval. d) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Kranzley appealed to staff about the content and presentation of the staff reports and noted that the Commissioners could call and fax the non substantive changes to staff for minute corrections. Commissioner Selich added that the meetings are dragging. If there are any questions, the Commissioners should call staff and ask for as much information as needed to clarify concerns. The questions should be on items that come up during the hearing, not on the staff report. I think we are dragging down on the review of the minutes and everyone should submit the detail edits to staff in order to cut down on the time taken away from the meeting. Ms. Clauson suggested that changes can be given to Ginger ahead of time and then suggested that the Chairman sit down with staff and work through a procedure to accomplish the intent of changes to the minutes. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Kranzley stated he would like to open up The Cannery Village Specific Area Plan again and suggested this could be done during the process of the Visioning. Ms. Wood noted that this process could be started during the public neighborhood workshops for this area. Commissioner Agajanian asked for a report on how the City is managing the traffic signals. Mr. Edmonston stated he will see to this matter and present it to the Planning Commission. f) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple presented updates on the marquis signs at Malarkey's; on the Beach and Bay mobile Home park staff is working with the State HCD to determine how to deal with the various issues associated with this property; and a student has been assigned to conduct research on other cities General Plan Amendment procedures. Ms. Wood added that the EDC staff is working on an interest list for the amortization plan. This list will allow the more egregious signs to be taken care of in as short a period of time and within the legal authority allowed. 12 INDEX 46 • 9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 INDEX g) Project status - none. h) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Kranzley noted that there Will be three (Kiser, Kranzley and Selich) Commissioners to be excused from the March 21 st meeting due to a conference. Commissioner Gifford noted she will be late as well due to her work up north. Following a brief discussion, it was decided to start the meeting at 7:30 with the four remaining Commissioners as they will represent a quorum. ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 p.m. Adjournment EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY - CITY OF NEWPORT-BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • It 13