Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2002• Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. U 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH KULL GALL Commissioners Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - AII present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Daniel Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Dan Trimble, Project Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to approve the minutes of October 3, 2002 as amended. Approved Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Abstain: Gifford Public Comments: None Chairperson Kiser noted a letter that had been distributed to the Planning Commission written by Keystone Pacific Property management, Inc. regarding the Jamboree Road Widening. Dolores Otting, a resident of Newport Beach, noted her concern with the way the minutes are handled for both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings stating that there is no way to get an audio tape of the meeting. It would be a good Idea to get copies of the draft minutes to the public. The Government Code Section states that the public should get the information at the same time as the Planning Commission. You need to communicate with the public in the best way as possible. She concluded by saying that Commissioner Toerge really needs a name badge. Posting of the Aonda: Posting of Agenda The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, October 11, 2002. • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 SUBJECT. Code Amendment No. 2002 -005 (PA2002 -161) Balboa Village Design Guidelines Amendment to the Central Balboa Specific Plan District #8, removing the existing design guidelines from Section 20.45.025 and adding revised Sections 20.45.020 and 20.45.025, establishing the Balboa Village Design Guidelines and establishing development plan procedures. Ms. Wood noted this item had been continued from September 19, 2002 to allow time for consideration by the Commission as well as more public outreach on this procedure and the Guidelines themselves. There was a meeting of the Promote Revitalization of Our Peninsula, (PROP) Committee (made up of three Councilmembers). The Mayor, who chairs the Committee, invited comments from members of the public. There was one recommendation, which Is shown on page 2 of the staff report. If the Planning Commission agrees, then this will have to be added to the Resolution as part of the motion to recommend Council approval. Commissioner Selich asked about the building permit requirements for development plan review process. Are people going to be required to adhere to these guidelines for simple reconstruction? Ms. Wood answered that it is only for new work on the exterior that will require a • building permit. If it were a change from window to door on the exterior, staff would review that portion of the work against these Guidelines, but not asking that the entire building be changed. Staff would want to make sure that any replacements to the exterior would be of the same scale as the existing doorways and /or windows on the building. The style is to be consistent as other buildings on the street as opposed to putting in something that might be ultra modern and out of place for the building In the context. Commissioner Tucker asked how many people attended the PROP meeting from the public? He was answered approximately 14. Mr. Dan Trimble, Program Administrator, added that the public made general comments. There were two recommendations made, one of which is included in the staff report, and the other was a reduction to the boundaries wherein the Guidelines would apply, but that would have been inconsistent with the Specific Plan boundaries. People understood that this Is a new regulatory requirement, however, it is a step back from full design review. Commissioner McDaniel noted that the report indicates single family and duplexes. As a banker, I look at 1 to 4 as the normal scope of lending. I want to recommend that we keep the 1 to 4 so that a multi family would be five families or bigger. Do we have any idea as to how many duplexes or triplexes or 4 units or less that we have? Mr. Trimble answered that there are currently no four - plexes or triplexes. There are • duplexes and multi - family residential condominiums in that area. We could include INDEX Item 1 PA2002 -161 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 a number if that is more appropriate rather than exempting single family and duplexes, we can include residential of four units or less as the exemption. Commissioner McDaniel noted that from a lending point of view this could be a consideration. We want to encourage people to improve their buildings so I don't want to discourage people from getting financing for it. Ms. Wood added that there is no situation within the Specific Plan boundaries where these Guidelines will apply where there are triplexes and four - plexes that would be pulled into the development plan review process. What the zoning allows and what we have on the ground are single family and duplexes on individual lots. Commissioner Agajanian asked about the discretion of the Planning Director and how the Planning Commission will be making judgments on these Guidelines. Ms. Wood answered that this is not a formal design review process, no standards are being proposed. Staff, as well as the Commission, would be looking for a project to be consistent with the majority of the guidelines that apply to the project. Not all of them may apply to every project. The reason we are proposing the guidelines be adopted by resolution rather than ordinance is to allow for flexibility. If the project is a good project then it could be approved without some variance or waiver process; we are trying to keep this as simple a process as possible. The Planning • Director will Initially make these determinations, but there may be a project that Is large or that staff is not sure Is In compliance, so the Director may bring it to the Commission for a public review. The decision of the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council. Commissioner Tucker verified that these guidelines are not recorded and thereby would not affect financing; the decision of the Planning Director is appealable to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Selich asked if there was any discussion on having an architect or design professional review these as were done on Mariner's Mile? Ms. Wood answered that was not discussed. In the case of Mariner's Mile, the consulting architect was used just for a time until the guidelines were in place and staff had the training to deal with them. Chairperson Selich noted his concern about the application of these guidelines by the Planning Directors. Maybe by way of suggestion as we send this along to the City Council to have a professional retained to consult with the Planning Director. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern about this going on forever and suggested some sort of sunsetting within ten years. Commissioner Toerge asked about the public noticing since the last meeting. • Ms. Wood answered that two notifications were made as well as a posting for the INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 Planning Commission meeting that had been deferred. Mr. Trimble stated that the PROP agenda Is not posted In the newspaper, but that a mailing had been sent to a group of people who had voiced an interest on peninsula matters. The agenda was posted at City Hall. Public comment was opened. Bob Black one of the property owners of 400 Main Street, stated he was at the PROP meeting and received information on the guidelines, He supports the guidelines and thanked the architect and planner for his input and involvement. A type of guidelines such as these has been discussed for many years. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted: Page 15 of the guidelines - the third bullet point regarding second floor additions, suggested changing to, 'second or third floor additions,' as it is possible for a third floor addition and we don't want this to suggest that there shouldn't be such a thing. • Page 18 of the guidelines - check the verbiage of the fifth bullet point. • Page 21 of the guidelines - the fourth bullet point is a repeat of the last bullet point so delete that fourth one. • Page 21 of the guidelines - remove the last sentence of the twelfth bullet point as it repeats the tenth bullet point. • Page 24 of the guidelines - Section 10 - add reference to 'third' floor space. • Asked for clarification of the first bullet point under recommendations for additions to existing buildings. Mr. Trimble clarified that this refers to the comparison of the entire new construction as opposed to a single floor that is getting an addition. The preference would be for something to have a unified character with the existing and the addition. If not, then consideration should be given to new construction. After a brief discussion, staff offered to re -word this for clarification. He agrees with the suggestion of getting an architect to help the Planning Director and this ought to be recommended to the City Council. He noted that on the resolution, there is no rendition of the Planning Commission hearings on September 19th and October 17th. Since it is on the ordinance, he recommended that it be on the resolution. Commissioner Selich suggested: In the recommendation to the City Council, an architect should be retained. He asked if the other Commissioners agreed. Chairperson Kiser asked for a straw vote on this suggestion: Commissioner Tucker - would not like to see it in the guidelines; guidelines should not be more bureaucratic to review what a Planning Director is doing. Good idea to . see if it is consistent with the guidelines, but the architect part of it may become I10lr1i:1 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 more suggestive or attempt a specific look as opposed to general consistency with the guidelines. It is something that I would recommend that staff do, but I am not sure I would want to see it as a force of compliance. Chairperson IGser stated it was not his intention to put this in the guidelines either and that an architect would assist. What is the mechanism for us to strongly suggest to the City Council that something like that be included, and how would they do that? Ms. Wood answered that the Commission could add it to the Resolution recommending approval of the Guidelines, that for implementation you recommend that the City retain an architect to assist staff in reviewing projects against the guidelines. The administrative process would be for staff to issue a request for proposal for architects or urban designers to help us with this and they would give us proposal with an hourly rate. We would then select one. One of the choices for the City Council would be if the City should pick up that cost or It should be something to be passed on to the applicant. Commissioner Gifford noted this should not be Incorporated as part of the Guidelines. However, in terms of a suggestion, she would like to make available advisory resources in the form of licensed architects. Over many years, a lot of work has been involved with this issue. There have been two RUDAT studies where the American Institute of Architects gets volunteers from all over the country to come • and do charrettes. The Balboa Peninsula Advisory Committee and PROP have been working on this for many years. I would like to see a group of architects volunteer to be available for input when it is requested. Commissioner McDaniel noted he is opposed to having an architect involved. Architects can be very opinionated, and he would like to make this as simple as possible. Commissioner Agajanian noted he agrees with what has been suggested. He noted his concern with the regulatory and suggestive nature of the guidelines. The requirements are vague. This heads in the right direction, but doesn't have a lot of confidence in how this is going to stand up over time. Commissioner Toerge asked if this was a skill set or workload problem for staff? Commissioner Selich answered that his concern was the skills. There are no design professionals on staff and thinks it would be good to do something like this, especially with all the money the City has invested in that area. He is skeptical of getting volunteers to do the work, but thinks It is a skill issue and that the City needs to have a design professional looking at these. Commissioner McDaniel noted that the applicant would have their own architect and own ideas to comply with the Guidelines. I would like to move this forward. Chairperson Kiser noted that the architect would make suggestions, but not be an . integral part of the design review. The architect would be in the position of advising INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 the Planning Director, so that the Director make a better decision. would be available to help the Planning Chairperson Kiser then asked about the four units or less. Commissioner Tucker said there was no need for a change. Commissioner Selich agreed. Commissioner Gifford agreed. Chairperson Kiser noted he did not understand how a fourplex would be financially hindered by a design review level; otherwise, sees no reason to change. Commissioner McDaniel answered that there aren't any, so it doesn't matter. Commissioners Agajanian and Toerge had no comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to adopt Resolution 1574 recommending that the City Council approve the requested amendment and the Balboa Village Design Guidelines with the Resolution containing language that states that the Council consider budgeting for an architect to assist the Planning Director on an as needed basis in reviewing consistency of projects with the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Gifford noted she was absent from the first meeting when this was discussed and did not have an opportunity to listen to the tapes. She has read the minutes and wants to understand that based on that, she can vote on this matter tonight. Deputy City Attorney Dan Ohl answered yes. Chairperson Kiser clarified that the motion should also include the recommendation on the second page of the staff report. The maker of the motion agreed. Following a brief discussion, it was decided to leave the verbiage of the motion relative to budget funding for an architect to remain as is. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: Wetherholt Residence 217 30th Street A Variance request for 3 separate aspects of the proposed addition to an existing two -story residential structure: to exceed the floor area limit, to exceed the established maximum building height of 24 feet by 3 feet 3 inches associated with adding a third level to the existing structure, and to continue to provide only 1 on- site parking space for the residence. The subject property is located at 217 30th INDEX Item 2 PA2002 -102 Continued to 11/07/2002 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 Street. Ms. Wood reported that staff requests this item be continued to November 7, 2002 as staff did not get the extra notice regarding the open space to the public. Staff sent out a supplemental report but we have been advised by the City Attorney's office that the Commission should not be discussing this item at all in light of the Incomplete noticing. The applicant had been advised. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to November 7, 2002. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None .wa SUBJECT: Red Robin Restaurant 987 Newport Center Drive Request for a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance (ABO) to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption at a proposed restaurant to be located within Fashion Island. • Jim Campbell, Sr. Planner apologized that the resolution had not been sent as part of the staff report and has been distributed tonight. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted that this restaurant is not near any residential uses; is an interior facing part of a large shopping center, there are only ten bar stools; alcohol service is Type 47 in connection with a restaurant use; the police have no problems with the use, nor suggestions for changes; and finally, there is no proposal for outdoor amplified music or live entertainment. Motion was made by Commission Tucker to adopt Resolution No. 1576 approving the requested Use Permit No. 2002 -038 (PA2002 -183) with conditions. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None * :s INDEX Item 3 PA2002 -183 Approved ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business • a) City Council Follow -up -Ms. Wood then noted that at the last Council • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 meeting of October 8th, Councilmember O'Neil asked for a zoning amendment that would deal with landmark theaters in the City. There are three older theaters, the Balboa Theater, the Udo and the Port Theater. The idea Is .to provide a way for them to continue their operations but have flexibility to change for food service so that they can continue to operate in a new environment. There was an approval for a budget for the LCP update. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported that there was no meeting. c) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanian noted that there has been no meeting. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that the first two chapters have been reviewed, the introduction and the land use portion. We have to have the LCP done by June 30th. A draft of the first three chapters will be distributed to the Commission and staff for review in November. The General Plan Advisory Committee will also be sharing this • work. The Committee has decided to send this to the GPAC at the some time it is going to the Coastal staff review. No land use changes are proposed as it deals more with Coastal Act policies in the Coastal zones within the City. For purposes of meeting this deadline, we are not making any changes to land use entitlement. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Chairperson laser noted that the language for the Modification Committee referring to views from adjoining residential properties should be discontinued. The City should not be making reference to having made a decision on the basis of whether something does or does not obstruct views from adjoining properties; I think this should be removed from the standard language. Following a brief discussion, It was decided that a discussion of the 'no detriment' finding would come back as a staff report for further review. t) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Wood reported that some citizens of Newport Beach appealed the LDS decision. h) Project status - Chairperson Kiser asked for a consolidation of the November and December meetings so that November 21 st and December 18th would not be meeting nights. • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2002 Requests for excused absences - none. •x� ADJOURNMENT: 8:00 p.m. SHAM AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 0 INDEX Adjournment