Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/19970 • Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. • • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Present: Commissioners Fuller, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich and Ashley - all present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager, Community and Economic Development Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Bob Burnham, City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Executive Secretary to Planning Commission Minutes of May 8,1997: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley and voted on to approve, as written, the May 8, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: Ashley Public Comments none Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May 16, 1997 outside of City Hall. Minutes Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 SUBJECT: Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. 900 Dover Drive A No.859 Amendment to the Upper Castaways Planned Community District Regulations to change the development standards as they apply to encroachments into the required setbacks and common area open space. Ms. Temple reported that this amendment came about as a result of the interest of the developer of the Upper Castaways to have certain types of entry colonnades and patio structures within the front yard setback. This amendment will also allow larger than average built -in barbecue fireplaces in rear yard setback areas in the residential properties and certain types of improvements in common areas. The original PC text was drafted assuming an attached residential with controlled common areas and did not anticipate the type of improvements this request would allow. As this planned community is entirely private streets, it is staff's opinion that the additional encroachments in to the front yard setbacks would be acceptable as long as the sight distance requirements are maintained. Commissioner Selich asked if the existing improvements that are in the model • complex are in compliance with the existing approvals. He was'answered that those improvements have been constructed without appropriate approvals. The initial request of the developer was to process 40 to 60 modification permits in order to allow the entry structures. Staff felt it was more efficient to accommodate this in the zoning document itself. Commissioner Ridgeway asked the difference of a free standing fireplace with a maximum height of 10 feet in the common area and a barbecue. He was answered that the developer's plan is to have an outdoor fireplace in the common area where there are shade structures for use by the complex residents. Public Hearing was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway for adoption of Resolution 1453 recommending to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 859 to the Upper Castaways Planned Community District Regulations to change the development standards as they apply to encroachments into the required setbacks and common area open space. Commissioner Ashley asked for and received clarification of the setback requirements within the Resolution. The wording will read .....:'Freestanding fireplaces and barbecues are permitted in all residential side and rear setback areas provided a four (4) foot side yard setback is maintained and a four (4) foot rear yard setback is maintained for these structures. • Item No. 1 A No. 895 Approved INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 Commissioner Fuller then asked staff about the existing side yard setback. Upon inspection he had noted encroachments into the setback both on the models and new construction. He was answered that the Zoning Code includes specific provisions for the encroachment of fireplace structures and green house windows within side yard setback to certain dimensions and within certain circumstances. It was noted to change the numbering in the Resolution to ".....by adding 14, 15 and 16 of the Upper Castaways Planned Community....:' Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Kranziey, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none SUBJECT: 3900 Campus Drive Global Christian Center • Use Permit No. 3608 Ms. Temple noted that based on the analysis and assuming the conditions • imposed with regard to occupancy of the sanctuary use during the week and night time hours, it is staff's opinion that this project would be adequately parked and therefore recommends approval. Commissioner Kranzley asked about ways to limit occupancy during week night services and was answered that it has been limited in Condition No. 3 and will be restricted by the number of folding chairs that are put out for use. The operation is not immediately planning week day services but only in the event that the congregation and needs grow. Commissioner Fuller asked about and received information on the logistics on the drawing attached to the staff report. He concluded that given the number of doors that are to remain unlocked during services, he is very concerned about the safety factor. He is concerned with the speed limits on Campus and on Quail and the children present during the services and their potential to use the unlocked doors. Commissioner Ridgeway noted that the peak traffic hours are at night and that the operation of this church is not during the night. Commissioner Selich asked of any similar church facilities within an office complex. Staff answered that, historically most congregations have done "store front start- ups ". The congregation starts with a small space in a commercial center and when the congregation grows and their finances reach a point where it is feasible, move to a more standard location. The Code has been changed to accommodate this type of start-up operation 3 INDEX Item 2 UP No. 3608 Approved 0 1 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 INDEX which has occasionally occurred: Public Hearing was opened. Associate Pastor, Dale Kizziar (applicant) - in response to Commission inquiry, stated that he understands and agrees to the findings and conditions in Use Permit No. 3608. Commissioner Ashley asked the applicant how he intends to abide by the availability and limit of 300 number of seats per service. Associate Pastor Kizziar stated that his congregation now numbers 50 and when it reaches that point hopefully his church will move into another facility. At Commissioner query he stated that during church services, the children are in another suite that fronts Birch and does not pose a safety threat. Mr. Victor Keisman, an employee of a rental car agency at Campus and Quail spoke in opposition to this application. He stated that there is 24 hour traffic all week from his work and other car rental agencies in the area. It is dark in that area and he is concerned as in his opinion there is a safety hazard. • Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the car rental agencies create a dangerous situation when they unload the cars off Campus. Public Hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3608 with the findings and conditions as contained in Exhibit A. Ayes: Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: Fuller Absent: none Abstain: none Findinas: That the property is designated for "Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial' uses by the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and the proposed church development is consistent with that designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class (Existing Facilities). • 3. That the proposal involves no physical improvements which will conflict City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of propertywithin the proposed development. 4. That the. approval of Use Permit No. 3608 will not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, for the following reasons: • The existing parking is adequate to accommodate the proposed church facility and the other uses on site. • As a result of the conversion of the retail space to a sanctuary and church office use, the overall daytime parking demand for the property will be reduced, based on a comparison of the parking requirements for those uses, as specified by the Municipal Code. • The limited weekday worship services should prevent any conflicts for on -site available parking. • The noise associated with the proposed use is not anticipated to create any adverse impact on the surrounding uses since the worship services occur during off -peak evening hours and on • the weekend and the conditions of approval imposed which require that the noise be confined to the interior of the building. Conditions: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That no private school program or day care facility (operating during weekday daytime hours) shall be permitted on site without approval of an amendment to this use permit. Child care in conjunction with worship services in the evening and on weekends is permitted. 3. That worship services in the sanctuary/assembly area shall be limited to a maximum of 300 seats during the weekday evening services; and the Sunday worship services shall be limited to a maximum of 432 seats, in accordance with the occupancy provisions of the Uniform Building Code. That any increase in the size of the assembly /sanctuary area (3,025 sq.ft.) shall require an amendment to this use permit. 4. That any noise generated by the use shall be confined to the interior of the structure and all windows and doors within the facility shall be closed, except when entering and leaving by the main entrance of the facility. • 5. That classes shall be limited to Sundays and weekday evenings only. The INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 INDEX size of counseling sessions shall be restricted so that no more than 10 persons occupy either the administrative offices or sanctuary facility between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., during the week. 6. That a minimum of 100 parking spaces shall be provided on site for the proposed facility during worship services on weekday evenings; and an additional 44 parking spaces shall be made available on a first -come, first -served basis on weekends to accommodate the increased seating in the sanctuary. That any worship services held during the week shall not be permitted prior to 6:00 p.m. without approval of an amendment to this use permit. 7. That all employees and parishioners shall park on -site. 8. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 9. That the proposed facility and related parking lot striping shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and City of Newport Beach Standard Drawings, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the City Traffic Engineer. . 10. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 11, That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems is subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer if changes to the existing parking lot configuration are necessary. 12. That no temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on site or off site, to advertise the establishment, unless specifically permitted. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 13. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 14. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 40 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 SUBJECT: Newport Harbor Lutheran Church 798 Dover Drive • General Plan Amendment No. 95 -2 (E) • Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 47 • AmendmentNo.860 • Development Agreement No. 10 At staff's request, this item was continued to June 5th to allow additional time to process needed documentation. SUBJECT: Circulation Element, Newport Beach General Plan • General Plan Amendment No. 91 -3 (G) • General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1 (C) • General Plan Amendment No. 96 -1(A) • Amendment to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Staff presented the report including the following: • the original element was presented in 1988 along with an update to the Land Use Element • this particular update has been planned since 1992 • the project includes a comprehensive amendment to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance which has been prepared to implement the new program for traffic analysis and impact mitigation proposed in the new Circulation Element • this program proposes that the City analyze its planned development and traffic mitigation in segments of approximately five years; the first two five year programs are for the year 2000 and the year 2005 • also included, is a build -out analysis, but this program attempts to acknowledge that the further into the future we go, the more difficult it is to make precise traffic predictions and also to plan roadway improvements • a fundamental part of the program is the acknowledgment and commitment on the part of city staff and council to update the Circulation Element every five (5) years The program proposes that overall level of traffic service be looked at in groupings of intersections which are defined on a map contained in the Element. It also allows for the averaging of the intersection capacity utilization ratio for the purpose of determining compliance with the service goals of the City. Service levels of E (100% of capacity) for the Airport intersection group, and D (9017o capacity) for the other four intersection groups in the City have • been proposed. ' INDEX GPA No. 95 -2 (E) LCP A No. 47 A No. 860 DA No. 10 Continued to 6/5/97 Item No. 4 Circulation Element GPA 91 -3 (G) GPA 94 -1(C) GPA 96 -1 (A) Amend Chapter 15.40 of NBMC t,� ,'D ib (•.19 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 INDEX After analyzing the level of potential development for 2000 and 2005, the level of traffic has been assessed and the City's traffic consultant has suggested specific improvements which would be needed to assure appropriate levels of service within those two planning segments. The City would maintain the use of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as a tool to assess traffic impact and determining fair share levels of contribution to the capital improvement programs for these years. Not every development subject to a traffic study would necessarily require additional mitigation contributions, but the traffic study would be used to define whether its impact would require improvements beyond those anticipated. If so, that development would be required to contribute its fair share to that improvement. A primary goal in devising this program is to create more flexibility in the City's traffic analysis framework so that if an individual intersection has a higher level of service, the City Council has the opportunity to proceed with a project approval so long as the area wide system is still functioning at an adequate level. Additionally, there are minor mapping changes that are included in the staff report. The changes involve Dover Drive and 19th Street to lower arterial • designations. Commissioner Kranzley then asked City Attorney Burnham to briefly discuss the impact of recent Supreme Court rulings on the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). City Attorney Burnham stated that there are two things the Supreme Court has required of ordinances such as the TPO: • that there be a nexus between project impacts and conditions which are imposed • that there be a rough proportionality between the project impacts and conditions that the Planning Commission or City Council would impose on the project As a result, it would be difficult to enforce the current TPO. This proposed new TPO falls within the guidelines of the Supreme Court decisions. Commissioner Ridgeway requested information regarding why this project should not wait until additional information regarding the new toll road is developed. Staff stated that the circulation system is always a moving target and that additional improvements are always coming on line, i.e., Arches interchange in the next 18 months. It is reasonable to draw a line at some point and conclude a study. Mr. Edmonston reported that the future extension of 19th Street or a street in • that area across the Santa Ana River into Huntington Beach is still part of the 8 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 INDEX plan. The Orange County Transportation Authority who now oversees that plan, has had a few meetings with the four cities in the county to discuss proceeding with an environmental document. There are many issues to discuss and this facility can not be deleted until an environmental document is completed. Public Hearing was opened. Martha Durkee, P. O. Box 3353 spoke in opposition of the new Zoning Code stating it's sole purpose is to implement the BPPAC plan. Recognizing that the BPPAC has not been voted on, she expressed concern with the ordinances that impact the bicycle paths. Discussion continued. Chairperson Adams stated that although Ms. Durkee can continue her three minute speech, the discussion of BPPAC is clearly not under discussion at tonight's meeting. Ms. Durkee continued on the same subject stating that the bicycle paths and widened sidewalks would hurt her two properties as well as other neighbors on Balboa Boulevard. She concluded cautioning the Commission to watch these ordinances. • Louise Fundenberg, 808 W. Balboa Boulevard - asked about the timing of the public hearing for this subject and was told that this meeting tonight is the public hearing. She expressed interest in the five year plan that is mentioned in the draft analysis relating to the widening of Newport Boulevard from 32nd Street to Cost Highway, from 30th Street to 32nd Street; and intersections of Newport Blvd /Via Lido adding a 3m southbound through lane. She understood that there would be open hearings on these items as well as parking management. She also questioned the process to amend the General Plan. Mr. Edmonston stated that the improvements listed in the analysis are ones that have been identified by staff as needed improvements and have been in the previous General Plan for a number of years. They are just now within a time frame to be looked at for processing. The approval of this project does not mean that those will be done. They will be subjected to detail studies in separate public hearings. City Attorney Burnham stated that amendments to the General Plan are done by the City Council. The electorate does have the authority by initiative to amend General Plan and also the authority of referendum to reject plans that were approved by City Council. Chairperson Adams added that the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council who will then proceed with these issues at additional hearings. 40 Public Hearing was closed. 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 INDEX Ms. Temple stated that regarding bicycle trail master plan the text and the map for that plan have not been altered from the 1988 General Plan. There are no proposed changes. To the extent that there may be alterations to that master plan as a result of BPPAC or any other planning study, they would require subsequent amendments to the Circulation Bikeway Plan. None of the BPPAC recommendations have been incorporated at this point. Chairperson Adams stated that he has met with staff to discuss some of his comments with regard to the draft document. Some of the major items are: • this circulation element is based on analysis of a group of intersections citywide • the existing TPO is based on an analysis of these intersections • any changes to the Land Use Plan resulting in the capacity of these intersections is being averaged in certain areas of the city • thresholds have been defined individuallyfor these areas He expressed his concerns that the methodology be well defined if it is pursued. The intersections need to be defined to calculate these averages. He proposes that this document include a section that discusses the intersections used for this calculation. Generally these would be the ones • shown on the map in the back of the staff report. Only arterial or major street intersections should be included in the average level of service calculation for example, signals that serve driveways should not be included. Referencing page 33 that shows the map, he suggested that the areas Cover all the land in the City so that a development in any part of the City would be enclosed by these analysis areas. Also, he recommends that with a table of these element intersections, the existing (1996) intersection capacity utilization values be extended to the years 2000 and 2005 and build out. The reader would then be able to understand what the existing conditions are and what the forecasted conditions are by intersection. He continued expressing concern with updating and validating the model. This element relies significantly on the traffic projections that are made using certain validation assumptions about the corridor. Should they be different than what is assumed here, they could markedly affect the outcome. He appreciates staff's problem that this is a moving target and that six months from now otherthings could be pointed to that would significantly affect this. Commissioner Kranzley asked if the next update is scheduled for the year 2000, wouldn't that take into consideration changes in the corridor? Chairperson Adams replied that yes it would but the problem is a lot of developers could come in between now and.the year 2000 and conceivably decisions made about their impact under a build out scenario might be • incorrect. Staff has said that there might be an opportunity to do this 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 INDEX validation with the analysis of some proposals under way. There has to be a mechanism to see that those updates get into this between now and the year 2000. This is one thing staff should consider, should this item be continued to address some of the other concerns. Discussion then followed on traffic and circulation fees; assumptions of the model on the impact of the corridor and toll roads; build out scenarios and validation of the model. Tables 1 through 4 of the draft document, as characterized as an inventory of land uses and vehicle trips, should note that the vehicle trips are forecasts based on trip rates. Chairperson Adams then suggested that any planned improvements be added to the list even though by the time this document is published they may well be under construction. The existing system should be defined. Continuing, Chairperson Adams stated that the current TPO has resulted in a level of service in this city that is superior to many if not most cities in Orange County. The proposed TPO is a significant change to the status quo. A considerable amount of development has occurred in the past years and there is not a large amount of open space left for development. The potential negative impacts in a major change of our policy probably are not that • extreme. However, this change has the potential of being very significant in the manner of assessing traffic impacts in the city (averaging technique). Currently, every intersection is looked at individually and the objective is to meet a level service D or better at those intersections. What is proposed in four out of five zones is to average all of the element intersections in that zone and the average has to meet level service D. That allows poorly operating intersections to occur as a result in a land use change in that area without any major check. On the positive side, this plan does outline the five and ten year improvements, and is designed to keep up with planned development over time. The exception being considered for the airport area as documented in the report are due to the different character of the area, that surrounding cities have less stringent traffic impact levels and that for development within the city to compete with neighboring cities the playing field must be level. Discussion continued on the issues of development capacity within the City of Newport Beach; some sort of formal agreement with surrounding cities for standardization of traffic analysis and impacts; fair share traffic contribution fee ordinance between cities and reasonable objectives placed in the Circulation Element. Chairperson Adams concluded his comments: • adding tables to show the existing ICU's and levels of service at "element' • intersections 11 • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 • additional sensitivity analysis to general land use changes at build out • tables be prepared with and without the build -out improvements Commissioner Kranzley supports continuing this item and asked staff how much study was done of other cities' traffic mitigation programs, specifically on the issue of averaging versus specific intersection standards. Staff answered that there was no specific jurisdiction that was looked at and perhaps that should be done to see what other cities do. A matrix could be done to include this information. Ms. Temple clarified that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is a city ordinance which in its current form requires any project which creates a condition at any affected intersection level service D or exacerbates an existing level service D to bring that intersection to a condition to at least as good as the prior conditions by actually making a physical improvement. The fair share fee is a trip fee within the City of Newport Beach. The only region wide trip fee which the City imposes is the Transportation Corridor fee. The fair share fee is for the entire Master Arterial program. Commissioner Selich, as one of the original EDC members who worked on this draft, stated that this document was to afford more flexibility to work with and be a more contemporary document with regards to land use assumptions and trip generation rates. One of the goals of the EDC was to provide some additional flexibility into the ordinance. Mrs. Wood stated that this project has been underway for a long time (two years) which pre -dates the start of the BPPAC study that the Council has been considering lately. The two projects have had completely separate sets of objectives, therefore, it is incorrect for someone to think that the purpose of this proposed amendment to the Circulation Element and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is to speed up the implementation of the BPPAC recommendations. The improvements shown in the proposed element for the peninsula are ones already in the existing element so there are no changes in that area that are proposed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue this item to June 191h. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Kronzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none r� U IF, [RID] Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1997 E a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - there was no Commission activity for the Council, however, Mrs. Wood reported on the Balboa Island density as requested at the previous meeting. b.) Oral report by the Planning Director regarding Outdoor Dining Permits, Specialty Food Permits, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permit approvals - Modification Permits were approved for 69 Cape Andover, 113 & 115 Apolena Avenue. Planning Directors Use Permit was approved for 3838 East Coast Highway, Suite A. C.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. d.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee- none. e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting Commissioner Ashley asked for and received information on the Newport Coast annexation situation. Commissioner Selich asked for information on the zoning for the Environmental Nature Center site as Open Space. f.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none g.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Ridgeway asked to be excused from the June] 9th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 8:50 p.m. ED SELICH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 13 INDEX