Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/2003• 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - Chairperson Kiser and Commissioner Tucker were excused; Commissioner Agajanian arrived at 6:40 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation and Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Chandra Sloven, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve the minutes of April 3, 2003 as amended. Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Selich Abstain: Gifford Excused: Kiser, Tucker Tardy: Agajanian Public Comments: Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, April 4, 2003. Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda 1191 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 • • INDEX SUBJECT: Balboa Bay Club Alcohol Licensing (PA2003-064) Item 1 1221 W. Coast Highway PA2003 -064 Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet (ABO) ordinance to convert Approved an existing Type 57 ABC license to a Type 47 license for the Balboa Bay Club. Chris Procter, representing Rick Blake and Associates, attorneys for the applicant, of 2700 North Main Street, Santa Ana noted the applicant agrees to the findings and conditions in the staff report. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to approve the Use Permit No. 2003 -009 (PA2002 -064) subject to the findings and conditions of approval within the resolution. Ayes: Toerge, Agajonian, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Absent: Kiser, Tucker SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach (PA2003 -090 Item 2 2754 East Coast Highway PA2003 -090 Amendment to Chapter 20.89 (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) of the Newport Beach Recommended for Municipal Code to prohibit off -sale alcoholic beverage outlets from selling or Approval storing alcoholic beverages outside of the exterior walls of the establishment. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to adopt Resolution No. 1595 recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 2003 -004 to the City Council. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Absent: Kiser, Tucker SUBJECT: The Olson Company (PA2002 -250) Hem 3 869 -875 West 15th Street PA2002 -250 Request for a Vesting Tentative tract Map for the construction of a 45 -unit Continued to (attached) townhome project that encompasses approximately 2.52 acres in the 06/05/2003 West Newport area. Additionally, the applicant has requested a Modification • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Permit for an encroachment into the required 17 -foot side yard setback. Ms. Slaven, Assistant Planner made a slide presentation noting the following: • Site and project vicinity map. • Townhomes of between 1,700 and 1,800 square feet are to be 3 bedrooms with 2 -car garage. • A gated entrance off a semi - circular drive entrance from West 15th Street is proposed. • 26 guest parking spaces are provided, 23 are required by Code. • The application is consistent with the General Plan land use designation as the project is multi - family residential, though it is presently industrial use. • An offer of dedication is being required for West 15th Street to be in compliance with the Circulation Element. The dedication is for 12 feet on the side of the project site. • If 151h is widened, the setbacks will become non - conforming and the access to the gate will be shortened. However, staff believes this does not affect the functionality of the site and conditions will compel redesign of the front staircases into the front units given the 12 foot right -of -way. In -lieu fees are proposed by the applicant to be paid to satisfy affordable housing requirements. • The Residential Development Standards have been met per Chapter 20 of the Code. • A modification is being asked for the side yard setback of 9.6 feet due to • the building encroaching 7 feet out of the 17 foot yard. The application meets all the findings for a vested tract map under Chapter 19. • A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been done that noted two issues: the cumulative traffic analysis with less than 1% increase will occur with this new project (72 trips) which is acceptable to the City; and the abandoned oil well. Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 assessments have been made and once the site is opened a determination will be made as the abandoned oil well is currently under a building. • Proposed elevations were shown with a proposed 45 unit complex. • The parking sites are open space and provide privacy, light and air and Will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. • The project site will remove a non - conforming use and implement a residential use. The reduced setback and parking lot /open space will be sufficient for the purposes between the town homes and the adjacent properties and meets all the vesting tentative tract map requirements in the Subdivision Code. • She then proceeded to go through a revised resolution with changes necessitated for finding 3 regarding in -lieu fees; finding 4 for consistency with Title 20 to maintain a minimum distance of 7 feet, 6 inches and 10 feet between the town homes; Finding 7 under Vesting tract map regarding in- lieu fees based on 45 units verbiage; under Mitigated Negative Declaration finding 1 added comments from regulatory agencies; change in language for in -lieu fees in conditions of approval; condition 7 given a . choice on type of refuse collection, either private or large areas for trash INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 collection; and conditions 51, 60 and 64 changes per the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the control /handling of hazardous materials. Commissioner Selich asked the following: • Why are we not requiring the front yard setback to be measured from the future right of way line? Ms. Temple answered that there is no planned program to actually implement the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Staff feels it is necessary to require the offer of dedication in order to determine compliance with the General Plan. The overall function of the project and site plan would not be harmed if the right of way is taken. Not requiring the additional setback could be considered as it is currently on the Master Plan as a four lane street. How many units would be lost if the side yard modifications were not approved? Not approving the modification would reduce this by nine units? Ms. Sloven answered that a total of nine units would be lost, three on the northwestern side and six on the southeastern side. The six units adjacent • to the boat storage facility could be moved inward to accommodate the setback requirement. • How many units would be lost if the front setback was measured from the future right of way line? Ms. Slaven answered that six would be lost. Asked for a comparison of this project to the Sailhouse project in Corona del Mar, specifically, the density; landscape /open space area; parking; floor area; and the area devoted to streets and driveways: Density - this project is 18 units per acre and Sailhouse was 12 units per acre. Landscapina - This project has 17% of the site in landscaping and for Sailhouse was approximately 22% of the site. Parking - This project 2 cars per garage for 45 units plus 26 guest spaces and for Sailhouse 2 garage spaces per unit with 46 open guest spaces. Floor area - This project 80,466 square feet (less than 1.75 times the buildable area of the site excluding 400 square feet of garage area as permitted in the MFR District) and Sailhouse is 193,350 square feet (30% of the allowable square feet permitted - less than 1.75 times the buildable area of the site, excluding 400 square feet of garage area as permitted in the MFR District). Area devoted to streets /driveways - This project is 32,800 square feet (54 %) • and the Sailhouse project is approximately 39% INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Asked for and received two cross sections: One through units 6 /1R and 8/2R showing driveways from centerline, unit cross sections, and open area between units. And another one across units 18/1 and 25/1 going from property line to property line showing the some information. Copies of the cross sections were then referenced to the site plan for the edification of the audience and fellow Commissioners. • Why is this being processed as a Vesting Tentative Map? What is the benefit to the applicant? What is the benefit to the City? What is the difference between a regular tentative map and a vesting tentative map? Ms. Clauson answered: ➢ The Vesting Tentative Map provisions are provided for in State Law and have been incorporated and provided for in the City's Subdivision Ordinance. ➢ They require certain findings as well as findings for a regular tentative subdivision map. ➢ The difference is that a vesting map locks in all the ordinances, policies and standards that are in effect as of the date the application was deemed complete by the City. • • Other than noticed hearings for ordinance changes or motions or other kinds of initiations of changes, ordinances and policies and standards, that is all you can apply to the vested map; that which exist at the time when deemed completed. In other words, if at the time that the application is made prior to the time that the application is deemed complete, the City is in the process of making changes and those are per noticed hearings for initiation, than those can be applied, but if they do not get noticed before hand, and the procedures are not going through and come after the fact, then they don't apply. • The additional findings that have to be made, one that it complies with the General Plan and the other that it has to not be dangerous related to health and safety matters, that would be a basis for not approving the map. • There is no particular benefit to the City; it is provided for in the law and it is the developer or the applicant's decision on whether to apply for it or not. Most of these types require a General Plan Amendment, but in this case, the zoning is the same and did not need to be changed. What does the Vesting Tentative finding on page 8, 'that the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development,' mean. Could you elaborate on what latitude we have or don't have in making this finding? • Ms. Clauson answered that finding is actually under Subdivision Map Act INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 for a regular tentative map, not a vesting one. Physical suitability is up to the Planning Commission to determine the type of conditions of the site, i.e., shape, topography, how it can be developed with the uses and the circulation. Not in the sense of a site plan review, but more than if it could physically be developed with the project that is being proposed. Ms. Temple added that the Subdivision Map Act does not provide agencies guidance as to what a definition of suitability is. Conventional practices might say that if the General Plan and Zoning Code assign a certain density than someone must have thought about the appropriateness of that density. There are other variations through development standards, notably the encroachments into the required setbacks. Without said encroachments, you could not build the density of the project as proposed, at least not as currently designed. There is judgment that the Planning Commission can render based on their discussion and what is heard at the hearing as to whether that finding can be made. Commissioner Toerge noted that the cross sections appear that Site Section B shows a distance between buildings of 25 feet and Site Section A shows a distance between buildings of approximately 28 feet. However, the site plan does not appear to be consistent and appears less in Site Section A than it is in Site • Section B, which is inconsistent with what is stated on the drawings. Public comment was opened. Kim Prijatel, Vice President of Development for the Olson Company stated that she has been working on this project for approximately one year. She noted that Olson Company had been in business since 1988 and has had two projects in Newport Beach. The floor plans and elevations presented are aesthetically pleasing and meet the standards of the Newport Beach buyers. The elevations are individualized through color and materials. A lot of studying was done to come up with the floor plans. She held two community meetings last summer and invited the townhome community adjacent on Placentia and met with homeowners within a 500 foot radius. The people who came out looked at the plans and were supportive of the project. The architect and civil engineer are present to answer any questions of the Planning Commission. Jeff Chelwick, Principal in charge of multi family for William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. noted that the sections noted by Commissioner Toerge are in error. From the site plan point of view, the footage described is incorrect. He apologized for the error and noted that it is a larger setback than what is shown on the section and should be 34 feet from door to door. Site Section A shows that the doors are recessed and is between lots 8 and 6. The width for Section B occurs at the garage drive aisle with 30 feet clearance from garage to garage, and 25 feet clear from the cantilever. • Alan Short, Civil Engineer stated he prepared the site plan and that the distances INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 are from ground level. The architects do have some cantilevered areas in the drive alley ways that pop out up higher and encroach and that is why they show the 25 foot dimension on the section. That will not appear on the site plan as it is not on the ground. Site Section 6 the ground floor dimension is 30 feet and the distance between bedrooms on upper stories is 25 feet. Site Section A the approximate 28 1/2 feet is correct for upper stories and for down on the patio level, the door to door dimension is about 34 feet. The actual distance between patios is nearly 20 feet. Commissioner Selich, referring to the landscape plan, asked how the landscape areas are being used. What is being used and how and where is it being used? What are the sizes of the trees? Darin Farinsworth of FORMA answered that the open areas are planned with enhanced paving, a low seating wall surrounded by turf and shrubs and tree enclosures. There will be approximately 4 of these areas and are to be used for picnic use and neighbors gathering. There are no specific tree types planned however, there will be three or four varieties based on the Planning Commission recommendations. The landscape plan does not necessarily reflect where the trees will be planted. That will come at the next phase when the specific varieties and locations and sizing are determined. This plan is only conceptual. Jennifer Irani, resident at Newport Knolls spoke as their representative. Referring to the site plan noted that they will be affected by this development on two sides. Her group is concerned with moving the encroachment closer to their community and asked about the space between the development and the residences. The 15th Street apartments are also concerned with the encroachment on that side of the development. She asked for a lower density for this project as the street is busy and she noted that more green belts /open space would be nice. She had asked at one of the open meetings if the applicants could incorporate a circle inside the development so that fire trucks and emergency vehicles could go in through the development instead of through the back on the easement. What does the term media area mean? We are concerned about our property values and what will be right behind us. Traffic issues are something to also consider. She asked for a friendly coexistence as they support the project but don't want to feel crowded out of their residences. At Commission inquiry she noted that the boat storage yard is not affiliated with the apartment development on the east side. Commissioner Toerge asked how the boat storage yard was accessed and was told that it is off Medical Lane, a small private lane. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern with circulation inside the plan. Would it be possible to bring a ring road around the perimeter of the property as opposed to the central access roadway? We know that the City is interested in low and moderate income housing and we have an opportunity to provide for nine units. Why is it that we have rejected the developer coming in with INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 affordable housing? Mr. Edmonston answered that the circulation in the proposed project is acceptable primarily due to the amount of traffic that would be in that dead end, which in this case would be a very limited number and therefore would function. It would be possible to have a perimeter ring, but that would devote more of the property to hardscape rather than landscape and development. Ms. Temple added that the applicant is not interested in providing that housing on site. Staff asked that this be considered early in the process, but it was not feasible. The main issue at the Affordable Housing Task Force was that when you are doing a for sale project the affordable housing can be very difficult to manage in the long term. On initial construction and sale, a developer with many units to finance can often times find unique funding mechanisms for the affordable units. When they are for sale units, every subsequent sale transaction is really from one individual to the next and so those people need to work within the confines of the affordable contract but also be able to find financing for it. It can be quite a challenge over the long term and for those reasons, the Council Committee thought that in this particular case it was at least a viable option to require in -lieu fees. At Commission inquiry, she noted that it is a requirement of the Housing Element that the issue of affordable housing be addressed in this project. As noted in the staff report, our existing Housing Element does not authorize a • payment of in -lieu fees, however, starting with the One Ford Road project and a couple of other subdivisions since then, the City has considered and ultimately authorized or approved the payments of a fee in lieu of providing the housing. We have actually produced no affordable housing units, but staff is hopeful that with the Coastal approval the Bayview Affordable Housing site will be using a significant amount of those fees. The housing for that project is age and income restricted. Commissioner Agajanion noted that with this project we can offer nine affordable housing units for somebody under 55. Ms. Temple answered that if the Commission decided that in order to find conformity with the General Plan Housing Element that the units should be on site. The City has the right to do so. Commissioner Gifford asked how much money in lieu fees is unspent for affordable housing. She was answered that it was under approximately 2 i/2 million. Vice Chairman McDaniel asked for clarification of the traffic and the media center concerns brought up during earlier testimony. Ms. Sloven answered that the referenced media center is actually on the floor plan of some of the units, a kind of nook that stood outside the main building. It represents along with the fireplace about 30% of the overall building that actually • encroaches 10 feet. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Mr. Edmonston answered that the traffic study done for this project found that there were no significant contributions to traffic based on the Traffic Phasing Ordinance or the City's CEQA analysis that include additional future projects to be considered by the Commission. Ms. Temple added that the Fire Department always likes to have a secondary way of getting out of a project and even with a larger tum- around within the Fire Department would still want to have available access out the rear. Commissioner Selich noted: • This housing type is usually developed around a density of 12 units to the acre not 18 units to the acre and that is why I asked staff to do the calculations and comparisons. • This is an inappropriate density for this housing type. This is more suitable to go in for 12 units per acre. • Looking at the comparisons, the Sailhouse project came in at 12 units per acre with a very similar building prototype. • My conclusion is, if they want to pursue this housing type, I think the property is more suitable to hold 30 units rather than 45, which would bring . a lot of the other statistics into conformance with a normal 12 unit per acre project with this type of housing. The open space would possibly remove the need for the modifications. • • The front yard setbacks should be measured from the ultimate right of way line of 15th Street and not as it is shown on the City's Master Plan. That is what we make the findings for so that they are in conformance with the City's General Plan. If the General Plan says the setback should be x number of feet, than our setbacks should be measured from that irrespective of whether it is dedicated now or an irrevocable offer in the future. I don't know of many cities that allow development to go in and not have their setbacks measured from the right of way as the streets are shown on the Master Plan. That is why you adopt the Master Plans. • If you eliminate the modifications and you eliminate that it brings you down to 30 units which means 12 units per acre. It starts coming up to be a 30 unit project for this housing type. If they want to go with stacked condos or stacked flats or some other housing I don't have a problem with the density, it is the fact that the housing type that is proposed is not appropriate for this piece of property. It is too many units in too small of an area. • The irregular shape does not help the project. • The applicant needs to go back and redesign the project. Commissioner Toerge noted his concern of the density of the project particularly with the boat storage yard. We are being asked to allow a modification to build closer to it but I don't know how much longer that will be used for boat storage. It is still MFR and may remain that. The request for the modification on the westerly property line creates concerns as well. I can not find that the site is physically . suitable for the type and density of development to satisfy the Subdivision Map INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 2003 Act. I will not be supporting the project. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the project in that it is a good transition over to residential uses, but concurs with the previous testimony that this housing type is too dense. We can try to eliminate some of those setback encroachments then there would not be a problem at all. It is a valuable project but there are too many units. Commissioner Gifford noted she concurs with the previous testimony adding that the Sailhouse project seems dense as it is and she could not make the finding that is required about the suitability of the location. Vice Chairman McDaniel stated that this proposal is not going to make it tonight. He asked if the applicant would like to continue this to another time and bring it back with some changes that the Commissioners have suggested. He asked the applicant, do you want us to vote on it or continue it? Ms. Prijatel answered that The Olson Company has reasons for the way they designed the project the way they did and ended by requesting this item be continued. Vice Chairman McDaniel noted that the Commission has spoken on what they believe they would be willing to approve. 30 units is more like what they are interested in approving. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to June 5, 2003. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich Absent: Kiser, Tucker ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council on March 25th, adopted Code Amendment 2002 -007 regarding Landmark Buildings; and approved both positions to the Planning Department in this budget year b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no report as Commissioner Selich had been excused from the meeting. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Toerge noted that the traffic study had been presented. At the next meeting, the economic model report will be presented as well as some revisions to traffic model executive summary previously reviewed based on comments from GPAC and GPUC. IN INDEX Additional Business