Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_06-23-2011NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 3300 Newport Boulevard Thursday, June 23, 2011 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Chairperson McDaniel C. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ameri, Eaton, Hawkins, Hillgren, McDaniel, Toerge and Unsworth ABSENT (EXCUSED): None. Staff Present: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director, James Campbell, Principal Planner, Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney, Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer, Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, and Marlene Burns, Administrative Assistant D. RECOGNITION OF CHAIRPERSON EARL MCDANIEL AND COMMISSIONER BARRY EATON FOR THEIR DEDICATION AND YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director, James Campbell, Principal Planner, and the Commissioners spoke briefly about Commissioner Barry Eaton's and Chair Earl McDaniel's accomplishments and thanked them for their dedication and years of service on the Planning Commission. E. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dan Purcell, resident, expressed his concerns regarding excessive trash and suspicious activity in front of derelict properties in Corona Del Mar, presented the Commission with pictures of the dirt and debris within the property, and requested that the properties be cleaned up. F. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES — None. G. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 Minutes of June 9, 2011 Motion made by Commissioner Ameri and seconded by Vice Chair Unsworth, and carried (5 — 0) with two abstentions to approve the minutes, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Eaton, McDaniel, Toerge and Unsworth NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Hawkins and Hillgren : - ]I Da: 11_1NIki"11=1i46` ITEM NO. 2 Mariner's Pointe - (PA2010 -114) 100 — 300 West Coast Highway Page 1 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 The applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to accommodate the development of a 23,015- square -foot, two -story commercial building and a three -story parking structure. The following applications are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -009, Code Amendment No. CA2010 -009, Site Development Review No. SR2010 -001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2010 -024, Variance No. VA 2010 -004, Parcel Map No. NP2010 -008 and Traffic Study No. TS2011 -001. Commissioner Ameri recused himself from this item and left the dais as he currently works at RBF, the company which completed the traffic study for the project. A staff report and PowerPoint presentation were provided by Associate Planner Jaime Murillo. Associate Planner Murillo stated that the project implements the City's goal of improving the Mariner's Mile Corridor, and results in the redevelopment of a dilapidated property. He stated that the City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the parking management plan and that the plan will function adequately. In response to questions from the Commission, Associate Planner Murillo clarified that the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework requires a minimum four (4) foot landscape strip from the back of the sidewalk and should have a row of palm trees and hedges to add to the continuity of landscaping along Mariner's Mile Corridor and that the project is consistent with the Mariner's Mile framework related to landscaping. As proposed there is approximately a 700- square -foot outdoor patio for outdoor dining located within the right -of -way, and Staff is recommending that review of the outdoor patio be deferred until the restaurants actually come in with solid proposals so that Staff can understand the specific operational characteristics and operational hours. Until such time Staff is recommending that the portion of right -of -way be landscaped consistent with the approved landscape plan. Staff indicated that parking was difficult to determine at this time given that the project is a "shell" building and the specific restaurants are not known. A fairly conservative estimate was made with regard to net public area of the restaurants being sixty (60 %) percent of the total gross floor area and there is some flexibility with the project once the restaurants do come in. If there is an increase in parking demand, Staff will be looking to limit the net public area of those restaurants concurrent with the reduction of parking needed. In regard to additional off -site parking and based on the parking demand study, the project only needs nine (9) off -site parking spaces, but the applicant is able to lease 20 parking spaces from the medical office complex. In the future, there may be opportunities on the adjacent commercial properties to lease additional parking spaces should those property owners be willing to do so. A letter of intent was received from the owner of the medical office building at Dover and Cliff Drive, stating that he is willing to provide the applicant with off -site parking for the duration of the 11 years and, if their lease is extended, the owner would be willing to provide an extension to the off -site parking agreement as well. If the off -site parking agreement is approved, the applicant will be required to enter into an off -site parking agreement with the City and the off -site parking owner ensuring that those parking spaces are available. The delineation of the suites on the floor plans can change since they are just illustrative and no uses have been proposed yet. Condition 19 in the recommended Conditions of Approval should read that "all employees are required to park on -site or at the approved off -site parking lot unless otherwise approved." Based on the proposal from the applicant indicating the that the restaurants will be high - quality, low - turnover restaurants, Staff used a parking ratio of one (1) parking space per 50 square feet of net public area and clarified that the Conditional Use Permit states that uses are permitted, or conditionally Page 2 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 permitted, consistent with provisions of the Zoning Code and that commercial parking structures do not count toward the total floor area of any commercial project. Discussion ensued between Associate Planner Murillo, the Commission, and Staff regarding adequate signage for the entrance and exit -only driveways, location of the valet stand, turning radius conditions for passenger vehicles, grade of the driveway, handicapped spaces on each parking level, size of the parking stalls and Staff's recommendation in Condition 3 regarding the outdoor patio area and the parking structure dimensions. Tod Ridgeway, representing the applicant VBAS, thanked Commissioner Eaton and Chair McDaniel for their dedication and years of service on the Planning Commission. Mr. Ridgeway, noted that his personal residence is adjacent to the proposed project. He further stated that the Mariner's Mile Association was in support of the project, that the project complies with all components of the Mariner's Mile overlay, and that the project supports the demand for restaurant use on that site. Mr. Ridgeway stated commented on the parking components of the parking structure, and that the Environment Impact Report did not identify any negative impacts. All elements of the design were included to recognize and mitigate traffic, noise, and light impacts. He stated that after meeting with the neighbors, the roof heights were lowered and a new roof was placed over the parking structure. The roof was designed to not change the overall look of the project. In regard to proposed tenants, Winston Jewelers will occupy a suite on the ground floor, and restaurant and various other uses will occupy the remaining suites on both levels . It was noted for the record that Mr. Ridgeway was a former Councilmember. Mr. Ridgeway also affirmed that the developer would quickly "bulldoze" and clean up the property if the project is approved. In terms of the permanency of the CalTrans encroachments, Mr. Ridgeway stated his confidence that the landscape areas are in the project in perpetuity. Mr. Ridgeway clarified that the City and City Council are working on relinquishment of a highway in front of the property, but one of the issues is not putting the two bridges into the Capital Improvement Plan. He mentioned that it is not anticipated Caltrans would need additional right -of -way adjacent to the project site. He does not want to see a freeway or widening of the highway to go through that area and does not predict that Dover will be expanded. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Ridgeway stated he requests approval of the project as submitted, along with the incremental increase in square footage which causes no impacts, and that he and the developer are not interested in redesigning the project. Todd Stoutenborough, Architect representing the applicant, utilized a PowerPoint presentation and spoke to specific details about the proposed project. Due to illness, Commissioner Eaton excused himself from the remainder of the meeting. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Stoutenborough clarified that the height of the fagade in regards to the parking structure is approximately 28 feet and stated that cars will not be seen because they are behind the wall, the view of the water will not be impaired, the entry way into the parking structure will be hard to miss because it is approximately 30 feet wide and 14 feet high, if a person missed the first entry into the parking structure they can still enter through the exit driveway because of the large space and mentioned that the height of the palm trees do not obscure the visibility of street signs. In response to questions from the Commission concerning parking management, Kynn Knight, Sunset Parking, clarified that there is guest parking until 5:00 p.m. on level one (1) of the parking structure. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Knight explained that the parallel valet parking spaces are only intended for peak summer months when the restaurants are extremely busy and an attendant Page 3 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 would be stationed with the cars when parked behind handicapped stalls. The parallel parking stalls are included in the total number of parking stalls within the parking structure. Discussion ensued between Mr. Stoutenborough, Mr. Knight, the Commission and Staff regarding the potential danger of having parallel parking spaces within a parking structure and how it could constrict and slow down the circulation if a fire were to occur, if the handicapped parking stalls on level three (3) are employee -only are there enough handicapped stalls within the parking structure based on its square footage, the City rule regarding valet parking which states that you can move one car to get one car, whether a fire -truck can be pulled into level one (1) of the parking structure and the total number of valet attendants needed to run the parking structure effectively. Chair McDaniel opened the Public Hearing. Cameron Merage, resident, expressed his concerns regarding impairment of views of the bay, the height of the proposed three (3) story parking structure is an issue in regards to employees and customers loitering on the roof top, the parking structure will decrease the privacy of the adjacent backyards, the odor and fumes of food from the restaurants will constantly blow into the adjacent properties, the project will create a significant shadow over the rear end of the property making it nearly impossible for any vegetation and ground cover to grow and will result in unstable areas because the sun will be prevented from hitting the lowest areas of the adjacent properties, issues with the retaining wall and zero lot line variance, noise concerns from the restaurants and outdoor dining patio and stated that the addition of a roof on top of the parking structure will not completely block out all of the noise as proposed. Maury Dewald, resident, stated that it is a great project except it is in the wrong location and expressed his concerns regarding the variances, the parking management plan, potential traffic in front of the parking structure, and the size of the project. Mike Hilford, resident, expressed his concerns regarding light pollution issues, and that the actual height of the building will be much greater than what is being proposed. Laura Tarbox, private fiduciary representing an adjacent property, read a letter of concern from a potential buyer and stated that her property fell out of escrow again because potential buyers have concerns regarding the impact of this project and rumors that there are going to be many variances made that will increase the height and size of the project beyond what would normally be allowed, expressed her concern that the project is much bigger than what the space permits and mentioned her confusion regarding easements, the elimination of the five (5) foot setback and the need to encroach on adjacent property. Dave Kohn, resident, stated that the projects' proposed architecture is very beautiful but feels that the project requires overbuilding in that area and expressed his concerns regarding the number of assumptions being made, variances in heights and square footage, elimination of the setback, overflow parking at the medical office building, lack of solid restaurant proposals and potential late night noise from the restaurants. Dan Purcell, resident, expressed his concerns regarding how the restaurants plan on getting rid of waste, grease and food product, asked for a brief description of how the dumpster area will be accessed by the restaurants and what vehicles will be accessing the waste and picking up the trash. Michael Robertson, resident, expressed his concerns regarding traffic because Mariner's Mile is already a congested area, stated that the project is extremely ambitious but some changes can be made that will still yield the profits that the present owners desire, inquired as to whether the parking structure exit will be right -turn only, mentioned concerns regarding noise and odor from the restaurants, the precedent set by Page 4 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 the project being built in such a congested area, impacts on the quality of life for residents in that area, stated that he is opposed to the project as it stands but is encouraged by the thought given to developing that area and commended everyone for their hard work and time put into this project. Tom Lally, resident, stated that the noise factor will disturb the tranquility of the residents and their properties, expressed his concerns regarding noise from the parking structure and outside dinning patio and stated that this project is intolerable for residents living in Newport Beach. Ron Hendrickson, resident, stated that it is a beautiful project but it is over - scaled for the size of property in question, expressed his concerns regarding the project owners' lack of experience as a shopping center operator and the fear that the project might not be successful, actual access into the project from the street, the right -turn only exit requiring customers to travel a far distance in order to make a u -turn if they want to head east - bound, mandatory valet parking, the number of conditions that raise questions about the convenience of getting to the shopping center and suggested that the Planning Commission take into account the circulation situation getting to and from the shopping center. Jack Geerlings, resident, stated that he is opposed to the Mariner's Mile project as presented because the project is way over - built, the parking structure takes up more than half of the property cramping the retail space into the east part of the property, stated that if the parking structure were underground the project would not be as big of an issue as it its now, the parking structure exceeds the 31 foot height limit, noise from the parking structure, the proposed roof covering the parking structure is only partial leaving the front of the parking structure open allowing noise to filtrate out, granting of the five (5) foot variance setback should not be allowed because it constitutes a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on the other properties, traffic concerns including serious accidents that may occur due to the three lanes merging into two, vehicles exiting the right -turn only exit and the u -turns customers must make in order to head east -bound and the fact that these massive building structures will reduce the property values on adjacent homes on the hill. Chair McDaniel closed the Public Hearing. In response to public hearing comments and concerns, Mr. Ridgeway spoke regarding the requested height increase of the parking structure, a letter referencing the specific design of the project, stated that the variance goes into a cliffside on the projects' property, addressed noise concerns, stated that they have protected the view so there is no view blockage, stated that the hard surfaces on the back of parking structure will not allow for noise to emanate from the parking structure, addressed traffic concerns mentioning the highway allows for u -turns and capture intervals on the traffic signals at Dover and the Bay Club, stated that this project will not set a negative precedent due to the uniqueness of the property, stated that there are some issues with the way the codes are drafted and written, stated that the parking structure will attenuate noise and light impacts, stated that this is a high -end project that is much needed in Mariner's Mile by providing new jobs and redevelopment to the area, underground parking is not a consideration and stated that the front portion of the parking structure is not covered over a ramp but noise can be controlled because the third floor is employee and valet parking. Mr. Stoutenborough addressed lighting issues in the parking structure, noise emanating from the north side of the parking structure and the mechanism that will eliminate fumes and odor from the restaurants' kitchens. Discussion ensued between Bob Matson, RBF Consulting (Traffic Impact Analysis Consultant), John Vang, Environmental Consultant (The Planning Center), Mr. Ridgeway, Mr. Stoutenborough, the Commission and Staff regarding the 4 -hour concrete wall enclosing the parking structure which would eliminate any light or noise from escaping the structure, the proposed color and materials to be used for the roof of the parking structure, site plan for the third level of the parking structure, a potential light- Page 5 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 colored roof for the parking structure, the varying roof heights of the parking structure, westerly elevation of the parking structure, whether or not the roof covers the ramp, the zero -lot line variance, the shadow and aesthetic impact because of the size of the structure on the adjacent properties, the potential precedent this project might set in Mariner's Mile, the project trip assignment, approximately 48 trips turning in and 36 trips exiting the parking structures' driveways in aggregate at p.m. peak hours, the lack of detail provided for the parking structures' roof, the partial roof design, the fact that the parking structure requires its own discretionary action, review and public hearing because it is adjacent to residential homes, the fact that this project is seeking variances from the Zoning Code, potential impacts on residents, the narrowness of the property, and the project owners' lack of experience as a shopping center operator. Commissioner Toerge stated his concerns regarding the roof and that the level of detail provided in the application or verbally by the applicant was not adequate. He also expressed his concerns regarding locating a parking structure adjacent to residential housing, placing the structure thirty (30) feet closer to residents and installing a partial roof. Mr. Toerge further stated that the dedication of the property was sold to CalTrans for financial compensation to the property owner in consideration of the negative impacts on the future development of the property. He stated that the certain dimensions of the project as being "static," such as the existing dedication to CalTrans and noted his concerns in approving this project and forwarding it to the City Council. His major concern was the parking structure and the impacts it will create and that he could not support approval of the project as currently presented by the applicant. Commissioner Hillgren expressed his thanks to staff and the applicant for their documentation of this issue. He further stated that the general CEQA issues have primarily been addressed, although the project as presented in terms of traffic, pedestrians, and patronage issues could create liability for the applicant and for the City. He stated that there is an opportunity to get to .5 FAR, and to push it to a .7, would require the applicant making a "more compelling" case. Part of his difficulty in making findings for approval of the project were the fact that the majority of future tenants were unknown and this provided a challenge in affirming the future success and operability of the project. Commissioner Hillgren made a motion to deny Items 1 — 7 as presented and to deny approval of the project. Commissioner Hawkins seconded the motion with a suggested amendment to "deny without prejudice." This would allow the project to be resubmitted earlier than allowed by the Zoning Code. Principal Planner Campbell stated that a "denial without prejudice" could allow the applicant to resubmit the project as soon as the following day. Chair McDaniel stated that during the public hearing, the applicant's representative, Mr. Ridgeway, stated that the applicant was not interested in a redesign of the project. Mr. McDaniel stated that the project requires significant changes. Commissioner Hillgren amended his motion to "deny approval of the project without prejudice ". Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill clarified that a motion to "deny without prejudice" gives the applicant the ability to resubmit the same project with no limitation in terms of subsequent applications and no limitation on the time frame for re- submittal. Commissioner Hillgren stated that the project, as submitted, requires significant change Page 6 of 7 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill noted that the Community Development Director would notice the Planning Commission as to the future re- submittal of the project and whether it was the same or substantially the same as currently presented. Commissioner Hawkins stated that this particular site needs a similar -type project; however, he has serious concerns regarding the feasibility of the project as submitted. Community Development Director Brandt affirmed that it was the maker of the motion's intent to "deny without prejudice', which would not set limitations, such as the one (1) year requirement, as to when the applicant can resubmit the project. Commissioner Hawkins acknowledged that the site is challenged, underdeveloped and underutilized and that there is support for redeveloping the entirety of Mariner's Mile. He would prefer to see a newer and "somewhat reduced" project submitted. Chair McDaniel stated that he would support the motion to "deny the project without prejudice." He further noted that a project is needed at that particular site; however, the project as proposed this evening left too many unanswered questions as to the actual successful operations of the project when completed. He stated his concerns regarding the lack of identification of long -term offsite parking, if it was determined to be necessary and that in his experience as a Planning Commissioner, this project required too many different items (deviations) to be approved. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins, and carried (5 — 0, one recusal, one absence) to deny the item without prejudice. AYES: Hawkins, Hillgren, McDaniel, Toerge and Unsworth NOES: None. ABSENT: Ameri (recused), Eaton (excused) ABSTAIN: None. Chair McDaniel affirmed that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not necessary because of the previous vote. I. NEW BUSINESS — None. J. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 Community Development Director's report. None. ITEM NO. 7 Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report. Commissioner Toerge asked whether any progress has been made on State legislation regarding solar panels. Staff explained that the draft solar regulations and Planning Commission recommendations would be going before the City Council later this summer. ITEM NO. 8 Request for excused absences. None. ADJOURNMENT - The Planning Commission adjourned in honor of Susan M. Trager at 10:12 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on July 7, 2011. Page 7 of 7