Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes - 04/17/2008Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes April 17, 2008 Reqular Meetinq - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 11 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04172008.htm 06/13/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren — Chairperson Hawkins arrived at 6:35; all other Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Traffic Engineer Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Janet Brown, Assistant Planner Makana Nova, Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner Ian Bums, Esquire of Harper & Burns LLP, Special Counsel to the Planning Commission June Ailin, Esquire of Aleshire & Wynder, LLP, Special Prosecutor for the City of Newport Beach Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS one None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on April 11, 2008. HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of April 3, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Approved ole to approve the minutes as corrected. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None bstain: None SUBJECT: Sejour (PA2002 -167) ITEM NO.2 3400 Via Lido PA2002 -137 Revocation of use permits for an off -site alcoholic beverage outlet with accessory Continued to site alcohol consumption, food service and live entertainment. (Continued from 06/05/2008 arch 20, 2008) he testimony for this item is being transcribed by a court reporter and will be provided at a later date. file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04172008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 11 Motion was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Peotte to continue this item to June 5, 2008 Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins and Cole Noes: McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Absent: None Chairperson Hawkins made a determination to re -order the agenda to hear Item No. 7. SUBJECT: Peter Ferrarini Residence (PA2007 -214) ITEM NO.3 201 Crystal Avenue PA2007 -214 A variance to permit a new single - family dwelling to exceed the maximum Approved permitted floor area limitation. Additionally, the request is for a modification permit to allow the encroachment of the new single - family dwelling into the required setbacks as follows: 14 -feet 8- inches into the 20 -foot front yard setback adjacent to Park Avenue; 1 -foot into the 3 -foot side yard setback for a portion of the garage on the northeast side along Crystal Ave; 7 -feet into the 10 -foot rear yard setback, and 4 feet into the reversed corner, 6 -foot setback for the rear 20 feet of the northeasterly corner along Crystal Avenue. (Continued from March 6, 2008) Melinda Whelan noted: • A change in the plans since packet distribution is reflected on the exterior elevation along Crystal Avenue where a peaked archway has been removed from the roof; • There is a minor change in the staff report that refers to the number o peaked archway to two that have been removed from the plans; • Condition No. 1 needs to be dated April 15, 2008; • Changes have been made to reduce the front yard encroachment by eigh inches to 14 feet; • A portion of the deck extension on the southeast corner of the project to within five feet into the front property line and will provide variation to the mass of the second floor. • The average front yard setback along Park Avenue is six feet; • Photographs of the front yard setbacks were taken and viewed along Par Avenue; • Variance will result in a floor area ratio of 1.025, which is consistent with the floor area ratio of 1.04 in the neighborhood; • Changes have been made to the roof plan with the removal of the chimney and a niche added to the southwest corner; • Balboa Island has been developed with single and two- family dwellings and there is neighborhood compatibility as the proposed dwelling conforms with the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone for the R -1.5 district for the Island. Brad Smith, architect, representing the applicant noted the changes have resulted in an agreement of the neighbors. Buzz Person, on behalf of the Stuhlmullers, noted they have met with the applican and approve the suggested changes. Public comment was opened. • CJ is file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04l72008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 comment was closed. mmissioner McDaniel noted staff presented pictures of setbacks on buildi It in 1930; every variance has to be looked at separately and what will fit on that makes sense to the owners, applicant and neighbors; he has talked to :sident of the Little Island Association and some of the neighbors who icerns and who are now pleased with this outcome. He congratulated staff concerned. was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commi to adopt resolution approving Variance 2007 -004 and Modification Smith noted he has None None wrt+ Seashore Village (PA2007 -100) 5515 River Ave. PA2007 -100 applicant requests approval of a Use Permit for building height exemption; Approved lification Permit for setbacks and building separation; Tentative Tract Ma ablished for condominium purposes; Coastal Residential Development Permi compliance with CA Government Code Section 65590 and Chapter 20.86 0 City's Municipal Code; and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. ntinued from April 3, 2008). ime Murillo gave an overview of the staff report. He clarified that the Respor Comment, No. C5, should have stated CEQA does not require the evaluation )ject alternatives for projects which all impacts can be mitigated to a less th Inificant level. Referencing an exhibit, he noted the ingress and egress of 1 )ject, private driveway, and signage. missioner Eaton noted his concern of the change to Condition No. 61, and to access Neptune Avenue noted by Ms. DeCaro. :garding Condition No. 61, Mr. Brine answered that there is an angle point the one location where the driveway width may be less than 26 feet where st of the internal roadway would be a minimum of 26 feet. Regarding ci hts, Mr. Brine answered that unless there is something in a property title of :Caro, Neptune Avenue is a public street and access can be taken from a PL eat to a private property. ommissioner Toerge asked about the setbacks on Neptune Avenue; mulations; the heights of the buildings. Murillo answered the side yard setback in an MFR Zone with the current to tguration is 25 feet; however, if this project was subdivided into 30 -foot lots i the setbacks would be 3 feet. The view simulations represent what a orming MFR project could be built to. The March 20, 2008 staff report or 10 describes the specific heights called out in the Zoning Compliance Table. Scheeler, project architect, noted the following: . Pictures of surrounding buildings to the existing building that is 36 years old Page 3 of 11 file: //Y: \Users \PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04172008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 . Perfect access opportunity at Neptune Avenue; . Proposed construction will be compatible with the pattern and character the surrounding neighborhood that consists of two and three -story, sing unit and two -unit dwellings; . Project is designed with internal facing garages with a center road; . All public improvements will come off this internal road; . Modification Permit is requested for encroachments into the setbacks and deviation from building separation requirements; . Use Permit is requested to exceed the 28 -foot height limit up to a of 32 feet due to the ridge of the pitched roof; . Referring to Condition No. 7, the encroachment to the side yard setback minimal and this happens only to a home on Seashore that is 4 feet aw and the majority of the proposed building is only twenty feet high and the is such a small amount of encroachment; we could cut this down, but u don't think we should; a possible solution would be to take the roofs and h it away from the neighbor so that it slopes away from this neighbor to cle up any impact; A large building that could be built on this property would detract from view corridors of the neighbors; this proposed project will enhai somewhat, the view corridor; . This is a unique opportunity to make a positive impact in this area; He noted the license taken on the artist renderings of the buildings. blic comment was opened. DeCaro, local resident, noted that Neptune Avenue has a fence and met er and dead ends in front of his house. There was quite a bit of privacy and from his second story. The proposed project will be 20% more dense; loss i space; loss of public access; park will look like a part of this complex ar discourage visitors from using this area; 63 parking spaces are beir osed while there currently are 101 parking spaces. =,nnie DeCaro, local resident, noted she has a title policy that states they do we access; the number of low income housing has changed from 13 to 6 *ed, why; the Lido Sands Association is not in support of this application; ans are not consistent with the fire access driveway (not public access) and rculation needs to be reviewed. comment was closed. imissioner McDaniel noted a title policy that indicates no access doesn't mea are not able to get access. It means that at this point that piece of land doe have access but through proper channels you can get access for whateve act may take place. The current title policy is accurate but that doesn't mea title policy won't change with any amendments or changes on a piece r Page 4 of 11 r� L J r 1 U F_ -I LJ file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04172008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 Schooler noted the building next to the DeCaro residence steps back their property and is the furthest away from that side property line. iene Radson, attorney for the developer, noted that the late filing by D Aro, to the extent any new issues have been raised, is inappropriate if it t impact of delaying an approval. Ms. DeCaro has made it clear she will app decision and to the extent her material filed today, staff will have I ortunity to review, but the material should have been included at the time original comments, rather than waiting until today. comment was closed. missioner Eaton noted the correspondence from Ms. Carvalho that I the affordable housing replacement. Lepo answered, in terms of Coastal Residential Development Permits, the statute is vague. It is up to each city to deal with. A prior example was ar naly to the set of regulations as that property had been owned by the icant for many years and the value to him was to be able to build hi: :ment home there and was not a matter of maximizing a return on tha comic asset. He was willing to tear down a 10 -unit building and replace it witt three units to allow him to live on that property. If you were looking tc this ize your economic return on that property, you wouldn't have torn it down. case, under the Mello Act there is a provision that if a city has 50 or fewe of developable land, than all bets are off with requiring a strict one to one ement. With fewer than 50 developable acres we did a feasibility analysis looked at the proforma provided by the developer to see if it is realistic to ice any of the units. In this case, with a tenant survey, we identified only si: nts, so we are requesting that six affordable replacement units shall N ided within the coastal zone. The analysis that was performed corroborated a icement cost of approximately $235,000 each, for a total of $1.35 million. r. Harp added that feasibility is determined by economic and social factors and complex statute. Hillgren asked if it was $1.35 million or replacing six units? buy units? Lepo answered the condition is to replace six units up to $1.35 million and rject to an agreement that will be worked out. The developer could buy un i retain the asset with the provision of six units at the income levels directed City covenanted for 30 years to maintain that affordable rent level. This has accomplished within three years of the issuance of a demolition permit. Th i also go to an owner of an apartment building and pay that person to mainta is at levels that make units affordable for a period of six years and to the exte re is money after that buy -down to provide and pay for improvements to tho is to the extent the $1.35 million would allow. We can edit the condition th se six units have to be provided. Discussion continued on the contr, nulation with number of units, dollar value and maintenance and repair, ;loner Toerge noted this project has been before us twice; he the plans and the mass and scale of the project is consistent with Plan. The property design provides for 15 guest parking spaces would not be provided; and, heights in the design features Page 5 of 11 file : //Y: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04172008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 otion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner f adopt the resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH. )08021075) and approving Tentative Tract Map NT2007 -001, Modification Pe D2007 -044, Use Permit, UP2007 -011 and Coastal Residential Developn :rmit CR2007 -001, subject to the findings and conditions as set forth with Ilowing changes: Condition No. 7 shall be re- worded to read that the two structures encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the property line shall incorporate design features (hip feature) to minimize impact of the building heights on the adjacent property. . Condition No. 8 shall be modified, an amount of approximately $1.35 milli shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds replace the six affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels a bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. Renderings depicting units along River Avenue shall be modified accurately reflect the presence of the sidewalk and street improvements clarity. :)mmissioner Toerge noted the key component in Condition No. 8 is not arbi id is the direction asked for by the Planning Director. He noted that he could range of 10% either way. r. Lepo noted that we allowed latitude in this dollar amount and we are confide at will get the six units. To modify that condition we would say, at least six un id an amount not to exceed $1.35 million. This will be part of a contract tl :eds approval prior to demolishing. If this does not work, we will come back e Planning Commission. nmissioner Toerge modified his motion to make the change to replace, at affordable units and the amount not to exceed $1.35 million. Hillgren asked if it was possible to prohibit group occupancy? r. Lepo answered there is no way to do that. irperson Hawkins asked about requiring CC &R's to prohibit group was told, no. irperson Hawkins proposed to strike the reference to the renderings, as it is of the conditions. nmissioner Toerge agreed to delete reference to the renderings and motion with the changes. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren �IANoes: None bsent: None otion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commission, illgren to hear the next item as it was past the hour to accept new deliberations. Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Approved Page 6 of 11 u is file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn04l72008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 Peotter None Pavilions Wine Tasting (PA2007 -243) 21181 Newport Coast Drive use permit for an on -sale wine tasting bar and area with a Type 42 er & Wine Public Premise alcoholic beverage license. Nova distributed copies of a matrix listing approvals for wine lishments in the City and then gave an overview of the staff report. imissioner Peotter noted his concern with Condition No. 6, Condition No. if security plans were to be provided to the Police Department. >. Nova answered there is a fee charged for each tasting as required bj -ohol Beverage Control Department; these are typical conditions that have I ntained in past wine tasting approvals. The Police Department has ficated this is an issue; however, the applicant is providing camera surveill, the property. Eaton asked about landscaping planters providing a better ropes. Nova answered this is an option for your decision. iael Cho, representing Von's that operate Pavilions, noted their concern of t rs of operation. Tasting will be taken when a winemaker or supplier comes their request allows for a range of hours that would be available. The barr ropes is a design feature. Condition No. 9 and the issue of suppliers bei ,D Program trained is problematic and suggested removing the reference suppliers being trained. The second sentence is proposed to read: In t it services by a supplier, wine maker or industry trade representative t ,ice shall be supervised by a LEAD trained employee. If they are prope :rvised, having a two -ounce pour would be adequate. He agrees to all t :r conditions as proposed. Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Cho noted the wine area is small as opposed to pictured with the planters used as barriers. This is a tasting area only with d served and the barriers would not be an aesthetic enhancement. McDaniel noted his concern of the hours, and the frequency of tasting. r. Cho answered it could be on a daily basis, but depends on when Pavilions :t a winemaker or supplier and that is why the range of hours. There will be i sting as deemed necessary at other times but it will be flexible. missioner Hillgren noted his concern of the amount of wine tasting and of vehicles with the school nearby. Is there flexibility to set hours arc of schedule to a minimum as this is a potential for a very serious issue? cell Blais, liquor merchandising representative for Von's, stated they cot the hours anytime after school such as 3 to 6 or 9. This is an event type ITEM NO. 5 PA2007 -243 Approved Page 7 of 11 file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04172008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 mmissioner Peotter noted the hours are not a problem and it is impractical it them. You are creating more traffic hazards for the school by not allow ; while school is in session. nmissioner McDaniel noted his concern of enforcement as it is impossible City's point of view. Blais noted two employees will be assigned to this department during tas its, one to check id's and one to supervise the pour; this is company policy. Jerson Hawkins noted these are only going to be event tastings. Would to a condition that had the requirement that wine tasting would only o one of the suppliers was there? Blais answered that the wine steward would have the ability to pour tasti ide of these events. Cho noted there will be specials during the week so that the shoppers a featured wine. irperson Hawkins noted there should be a condition stating the rr bar of employees and does not agree with the suggested change to G 9 by the applicant. He noted his concern of the hours starting at 9 a.m. Cho noted the way the conditions are written, there is always a LEAD ployee to supervise, or do, the pouring. issioner Toerge asked how the beer would be served; he was answered be the same, 2 ounce tastings as there are some interesting specialty bee >le for sale. Nova added that there is no certification required of the suppliers, the City :ally required training for anyone serving wine tasting throughout the City. Harp suggested broadening the condition saying all employees, suppliers �r persons, that way you are not trying to figure out if they are a supplier or f are later on. It could also be, all persons. comment was opened. )lores Offing, local resident, noted she had spoken with a representative at tl 3C regarding the Type 43 license and it has a condition that there can only ree per 24 hours per person that goes to a wine tasting. You oan't taste me an three types of wine or you would be in violation. She noted her concern w mdition No. 7 and the reference to food or retail sales. There are childr event throughout the day at Von's. We have more DUI's in this City and ive a problem; the timing should not start at 9 in the morning. It is a messa! id I don't want to see it at the other local shops, such as Gelson's. The report nbiguous and what the applicant says they want to do is not what is represent the staff report, it is a Special Events Permit. She opposes this application. iel Cho noted they are sympathetic to the concerns raised but does ,e this is a type of place that will promote people coming in to drink with limit. He asked the Commission to consider the training and hours tion. At Commissioner inquiry, he noted there will be LEAD - trained peo that department and it would be difficult to train the other supplie Page 8 of 11 r1 u • • file : //Y: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04172008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 iemakers, etc. There are cameras throughout the store and Von's will re there are no problems resulting from the wine tasting. comment was closed. missioner McDaniel noted his concern with the hours starting before noon; set a precedence as others will want to have this wine and beer tasting and having the wine tasting during the week. )mmissioner Toerge noted his agreement that other markets will be asking s as well. He referred to Municipal Code Section 20.89.030 B (Alcc average Outlets) that sets forth 5 factors to consider when considering plication for an alcohol outlet. Factor number 5 states, "The proximity of ;oholic beverage outlet to residential districts, day care centers, park oreation facilities, places of religious assembly and schools." The central the this factor is alcohol outlets proximity to children. It is the influence this we ive on young children whether supervised or not in a grocery store that conce s. This is not a message I want to send to the public as it is not appropriate. not in support of this item. )tion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner approve Use Permit No. 2007 -029 with the following changes: . Condition No. 9 - All persons, and a minimum of two. missioner McDaniel noted he could not support the hours. missioner Hillgren noted he could not support the hours as well as ran being present and the issue that Von's already built this area ipation of this being approved. Cho noted his client has offered to limit the hours from noon to 9 p.m. does not have a limit on the number of tastes, it is just the pour size. Nova stated this complies with staffs understanding as well. Altute Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton and seconded missioner Peotter to incorporate the wording that modifies Condition No. 9 ge the hours of operation from noon to 9 p.m. and replacing the reference it ropes to solid decorative barriers. Cho stated there is an issue with a solid barrier with ADA and fire access, long as it can be compliant with those, his client would be willing to try. Eaton added the phrase "ADA compliant" to the barriers. Nova added Condition No. 7 changed to reference food and retail. inued and it was aoreed to this correction. Eaton, Peotter, Haw Toerge and Hillgren None was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioners Denied iel to continue this item to May 8, 2008. Page 9 of 11 file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04172008.htm 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 11 Commissioner Toerge noted this is not a radical issue and there are only a few people to speak on this item so he will not support the motion. Ayes: Peotter and McDaniel Noes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and Hillgren Absent: None SUBJECT: Rudy's Pub & Grill (PA2007 -255) ITEM NO.6 3110 Newport Boulevard PA2007 -255 n amendment to Use Permit No. 2004 -049 to allow a change in the operational Approved characteristics of an existing eating and drinking establishment. The applicant requests to add 243 square feet of storage area on the first floor and to enclose an existing 135 - square -foot patio on the second floor for office use. Pursuant to Section 20.85.060 (Changes in Operational Characteristics), an amendment to the use permit is required because the increase in gross floor area is in excess of 250 square feet. A modification permit is requested because the area of the proposed second floor addition encroaches 4 feet into the required 10 -foot alley setback. Ms. Brown gave an overview of the staff report. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Brown noted this is not an intensification of the use as restaurant and is accessory to the restaurant use. Chairperson Hawkins noted his concern of moving storage and creating new storage areas that could add to the net public area. Public comment was opened. Todd Carson, an owner of Rudy's Pub and Grill, noted the restaurant is doing very well with a new chef who has recently been hired and has increased food sales thus resulting in the need for extra storage area for dry goods as well as cold. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to approve the amendment to Use Permit No. 2004 -049 and approve Modification Permit No. 2007 -0921. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Absent: None # ## OBJECT: Fury Rok and Rol Sushi Lounge revocation (PA2005 -087) ITEM NO. 7 4221 Dolphin Striker Way PA2005 -087 The Planning Director has determined that there are reasonable grounds for the Receive and file vocation of Use Permit Nos. 3162 and 2005 -018 and the Planning Commission is requested to set a hearing date for the revocation of the use permits. Mr. Lepo reported the facilities for the hearings have been made available for the entire week of April 21 through 25, 2008. The Hearing Officer has set these dates as potential hearing dates for completion of findings to be brought back to the Planning Commission for action on May 22, 2008. # ## DDITIONAL BUSINESS: These items were not heard due to the lateness of the ADDITIONAL • • r1 U file : //Y: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nln04l72008.httn 06/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 City Council Follow -up - Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee - Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Eaton asked for an excused absence for May 22, 2008. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION r 1 L_J • Page 11 of 11 BUSINESS file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn04l72008.httn 06/13/2008