Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes • May 4, Regular Meeting g - 3:00 p.m. Page 1 of 12 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \05042006.htm 05/19/2006 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - Commissioner Hawkins was excused, all other Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner Dan Campagnolo, GIS Analyst nger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary ood Tescher, City Consultant from EIP Carlton Waters, City Consultant from Urban Crossroads PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on April 28, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO.1 . SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of April 20, 2006. Minutes Approved Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDaniel oes: None bsent: Henn bstaln: Hawkins HEARING ITEMS UBJECT: Zinc Caf6 (PA2003 -225) ITEM NO.2 . 3222 E. Coast Highway PA2003 -225 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \05042006.htm 05/19/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 annual review of Use Permit No. 2001 -040 that authorizes Zinc Caf6 to operate as eating and drinking establishment with on -sale beer and wine license. Ung, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting that no Is were received regarding employee parking or the current delivery lent occurring in the back alley. She noted that staff recommends amending 6 to allow the applicant to use the existing alley for his deliveries and that 36 for annual reviews be terminated as future reviews can be initiated if future Is arise. irperson Toerge asked about condition 6 allowing deliveries. He stated he would to change the hours of delivery to start at 7 a.m. in order to be consistent with the se Ordinance and to end at 6 p.m. Secretan, owner of the Zinc Cafe, agreed to the change in the hours of delivery. comment was opened comment was closed. Cole asked about evening operations. Secretan noted initially, following approval, evening operations went until 8:00. T red to be too cumbersome, so that has been discontinued and they close at 6:00 He has started a wine tasting program on Thursdays as they have the option to e at 8:30 p.m. and may expand this venue. otion was made by Chairperson Toerge to accept the review and to modify condition that no delivery shall be permitted before 7:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m., and leave mdition 36 in place. )mmissioner McDaniel noted that unless the operator wants to change his hours, we n delete condition 36. Following discussion the vote was called. None Henn None 2920 Newport Boulevard m of complaints received by concerned Cannery Village residents regarding Beach Brewing Company. r. Jim Campbell noted a letter received at the last Planning Commission meeting from 3 Cannery Village Concerned, a group of residents alleging violations of the use trmit as well as other activities they deem a nuisance to the neighborhood. He has ten in discussions with the Police Department, Code Enforcement and staff and has (dressed these in the staff report. At Commission inquiry, he noted the dead striction does not specify operation on particular days of the week. He has; however, ten in contact with the Coastal Commission staff, Mr. Schwing, who noted his pressions. It is his impression that our condition that limits the net public area :tween Monday through Friday should apply daily, so that is a conflict. Mr. Schwing is the process of acquiring the file from their archives to see if there is any additional Page 2 of 12 Approved Use Permit No. 3485 Discussion Item E E 0 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \05042006.htm 05/19/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 Page 3 of 12 information, which should be coming to staff within the next few weeks. I I Copley, General Manager of the Brewing Company, noted: • Condition No. 6 - We are under the impression that it was Monday through Friday and a section of the restaurant is closed off until 5:00 p.m. on those days. • Condition No. 9 - The kitchen is opened during the hours of alcohol service with the late night menu (pizzas and appetizers) from 10:00 p.m. to closing. • Condition No. 10 - Their emphasis is on being a restaurant. • Condition No. 17 - During football season on Sundays, there is a barbecue in the parking lot. Patrons are not allowed to consume alcohol in the parking lot and that is monitored. • Nuisance issues are being addressed by the increase of security staff in the parking lot when needed and to keep the noise level down; any patron in line is allowed to use the restroom in the establishment; security sweep the parking lot to assure no activity in cars, etc.; smoking is permitted on the patio; security clears out the parking lot starting at last call and continuing until all guests have left, which is about 1 in the morning; lids are being provided for the trash cans; the parking lot is swept daily; the next alcohol training class is June 8th, and about 314 of staff will be attending; and, letters have been sent to all purveyors and service people regarding service deliveries between 8 a.m. and no later than 8 P.M. • The Brewing Company feels they are a good neighbor as they have added signage, increased security and added surveillance cameras in the parking lot. Commission inquiry he noted: • The staff had gone to the alcohol training in 1999; however, he has had a large staff turnover since then and the new staff will be attending the training in June. He agreed that he will have new staff members get the training as soon as possible. • The dinner crowd is usually between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. Service from 11:00 p.m. and 1 a.m. is about 90% alcohol (55% liquor and 45% beer and wine) and 10% food. • Security staffing is 1 on Tuesday and Wednesday; 2 on Thursday; 5 on Friday and Saturday during a normal week. • Barbecue is handled by an outside vendor. The patron pays for the food inside and with a ticket they go outside and the food is put on a plate and then the patron comes back inside sits at a table to consume the food. >mmissioner McDaniel noted the concern is that this should not be a bar; however, it obvious that it switches between 11 and 1 and it is a bar. This is a problem as this is it what was approved. Toerge asked about a Special Events Permit. 1s. Temple answered that the need for a Special Events Permit is if there is amplified r live outside entertainment, or that the patronage associated with the activity exceed: 50 persons. We could verify the number by sending Code Enforcement to investigate the next time it happens. iirperson Toerge noted this is a discussion item only. No changes to the conditions allowed, but the Commission can determine, following public testimony, that this 1 should be brought back for a full hearing. file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \05042006.htm 05/19/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 comment was opened. Low, 29th Street resident, speaking for a group of concerned citizens, noted: They do not wish to close the Brewery; as it brings value to the neighborhood; and they are supported being there as advertised. Issues to consider: is the current use permit in error with discrepancies between staff report, council minutes and Coastal Development permit? It is their contention that the intent of the use permit needs to operate in less than 1,500 square feet Monday thru Sunday. Adherence to the use permit and type of business that is being conducted. They are a bar, what restaurant has bouncers? There are no complaints with other local restaurants. The Brewery turns into an obtrusive bar operation after 10:30 p.m. Operators have made strides but the more serious ones still remain. There are complicated issues that create a tremendous amount of difficulty for the neighborhood. We are here to ask that this operation be confined to what it represented itself to be in the beginning. Reese, 30th Street resident, noted that patrons have to show their identification in Br to get into the establishment. It is not a restaurant, not with bouncers and serving i appetizers after 10:00 p.m. This operation between 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. is ling more than a bar. This area is out of control and he is disturbed by the noise in early mornings. Wetherhault, 30th Street resident, noted he agrees with previous statements. He distributed a listing of calls to the Police Department regarding alcohol related Brits in this area. He stated that the restaurants and bars need to be maintained to use permits and allocations. Stade, 29th Street resident, noted she has been awakened with noise and by patrons. )hanie Rosanelli, resident of Cannery Village, noted the noise at night and that one not leave their windows open. She too has had her home vandalized by tagging. ristine Andros, 30th Street resident noted the challenges are the noise and parking activities. This establishment operates as a bar. She has spoken to the bar Brator on several occasions to inform him of disturbances in his parking lot. 'ony Shepherdson, 31 st Street resident, noted his agreement with previous speakers nd stated any help would be welcomed. vin Weeda, noted his agreement with the previous speakers and asked that this item brought back for formal review. comment was closed. owing a brief discussion, the Planning Commission decided to bring this item back a formal review of the use permit. This item will be scheduled for an August was made by Chairperson Toerge bring this item back for a formal review in Page 4of12 L • file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \05042006.htm 05/19/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 Page 5 of 12 Substitute motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to call this item back for a hearing within 90 days of this hearing date for review of the permit and operations in compliance with that permit and other Coastal Commission conditions and other related as necessary and take and receive public comment. I ratedals . Harp asked if the Commission would be looking at a revocation of the permit or just modification or possible additional terms, how should staff set this up? Commissioner McDaniel noted he is not interested in revocation of the use permit but we need to make sure that the conditions are adhered to. Commissioner Hawkins noted this is the spirit and thrust of his substitute motion. Commissioner Hawking restated his substitute motion: review of the permit, understanding the terms of the permit, enforcement of those terms of the permit to the xtent that there is non - compliance and then possible modification. This hearing is to be within 90 days. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, and McDaniel Noes: None bsent: Henn Abstain: None SUBJECT: Height Limit Exception for Light Standards (PA2006 -078) ITEM NO.4 CA No. 2006 -004 Code Amendment to add an exception with Chapter 20.65 (Height Limits) of the Recommended Municipal Code. The exception would allow light standards to exceed required height for Approval its subject to the review and approval of a Use Permit. Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report. He noted the purpose of this amendment is to add another exception to Chapter 20.65 that would Ilow light standards to exceed established height limits subject to the review and pproval of a use permit by the Planning Director. This, exception requires the use permit to ensure that the proposal does not have a detrimental effect on surrounding roperties and shall be for light standards necessary for the illumination of parking lots, thletic fields and other similar outdoor areas. Chairperson Toerge, referring to the resolution, asked that the wording related to no negative impact on surrounding properties and no detrimental effect on the health, afety or general welfare of the community be added in the Section 20.65.070 (Exceptions to Height Limits). Staff stated it could clarify the finding. However; it was determined that since the second part is a finding of the use permit standard, it would be redundant. Discussion followed. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Lion was made by Chairperson Toerge to recommend adoption of Code mendment No. 2006 -004, adding in the Light Standard ...... provided no negative impact n surrounding properties and land uses "... yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDaniel file: //F: \Users\PLN\5hared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \05042006.htm 05/19/2001 Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 None Henn Land Use, Circulation Elements, Implementation Program and Draft EIR Wood noted that the City Council had a productive hearing and gave greater ;tion on how they would like to proceed with their continuing review of the Land • Airport area - additional altematives to keep trip generation at same level as would result from build out of the existing General Plan. (exhibit distributed) • Newport Center /Fashion Island - they want to eliminate the 40,000 square feet for office additions and reduce entitlement for retail space to 100,000 square feet of less. The City is in discussion with The Irvine Company as the property owner. TIC has requested clarification on the suggested policy added regarding the conversion of hotel rooms to residential units. • West Newport Mesa Council reduced residential density to a maximum of 18 units per acre rather than the 20 units recommended by the Commission. • Staff had suggested discussing Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Village, Mariner's Mile and Old Newport Boulevard. We had hoped to provide some options and the trip reductions with those options and we were able to do that for Mariner's Mile and Old Newport Boulevard but we did not get to the Balboa Peninsula. • She suggested visiting the Airport Area, Mariner's Mile and then Old Newport Boulevard and then that one policy for Newport Center. • She asked that the chair recognize a citizen who had been in contact with her earlier regarding the Balboa Peninsula. Toerge asked for an appropriate schedule for the study of the Land Use, on Plan and the EIR. Wood recommended the first priority as getting through the Land Use Plan, the and the quantities. We can then deal with the Circulation Element, the Housing nent and revisions that need to be made as a result of what happens to the Land Element. At that point, it makes sense to focus on the Implementation Plan as it ements all elements of the General Plan, not just land use. With regards to the it has now been available for a week and a half so people from the public and )mission may have comments on that, although none have been received. The is review period closes on June 8th and it is our plan to have hearings for the ming Commission to consider the adequacy of the EIR with the responses to ments on July 6th and 20th. There is some interest among the Commissioner to )te at least a portion of some of the hearings sooner so that Commissioners can us comments on the draft. scussion followed on possible separate agenda items for the EIR document; how to old redundancy; schedule for responses to comments for July 6th; responses from Commission scheduled for June; similar comparisons of former versions of rculation and Housing Elements and when they are going to be discussed; possibility special meetings and/or starting earlier. irperson Toerge noted there is a lot of material to cover in the short amount of time remains. Staff will make an appraisal of the work to be done and suggest a Page 6 of 12 iil;VALI M11161 Continued to May 18, 2006 0 • • file: //F:\Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \05042006.htm 05/19/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 05/04 /2006 Page 7 of 12 Public comment was opened. Ed Healy, local resident, distributed a letter to the Commission regarding property ned on 15th Street and Balboa Blvd. He noted this property has been mixed zone some time and is now asking that 111 and 113 15th Street be zoned as residential. . Wood suggested that due to the complexity of the exhibits and discussions, that )plementai staff report written for the City Council deliberation be edited and inclul part of these minutes. Following is the edited version. Commission's discussion focused on developing options for each sub -area t in average daily trip (ADT) generation that is the same or less than would r the existing General Plan. the staff and consultant team tried to prepare alternatives for this area that would t neutral" with the existing General Plan, it was not possible while at the same tirr swing "additive" residential development, unless residential density is reduced as where replacement residential may occur. Because additive residenti telopment would not replace existing development or entitlement, it would result in increase in trips, which would have to be balanced by a net reduction in trips fro er properties. A net reduction in trips could be achieved by eliminating more offit ace than assumed in the draft Land Use Element and traffic study and /or eliminatir ustrial development, a lower trip generator. Eliminating more office space wou ,ult in the residential development being spread over more land area at densitii ter than recommended by ROMA Design Group and included in the draft Land U: Commission recognized these relationships, and were concerned that both it an average residential density of 50 units per acre were important components ROMA planning concept, and that eliminating all infill and /or reducing the den; number of dwelling units would result in development that may not function as an village' and provide benefits to traffic flow, even if ADT is reduced. T imissioners expressed concern about preserving the City's ability to provi sing affordable to the local workforce. to options were presented to the Commission. Both options reduce the total numt dwelling units to 2,200 and allow a maximum of 550 of those units to be additive. 3 elimination of all industrial space on the Conexant site and the elimination of res of office space are assumed, the difference in trips from the existing General PI >uld be 29. If the industrial space is retained, the trip difference would be 3,046. T difference in the EIR analysis is 11,208. comment was opened. Bettencourt, representing Brookfield Homes, noted: . In terms of the number of units allocated to the area and the relative impacts that, they prefer to comment in the context of the environmental document. The Brookfield Company is not in the high rise business; the application for site was for about 23 units per acre and alternative analysis up to 40 units had been presented to the Commission. e Newport Place property owners are at a disadvantage seeking the same file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \05042006.htm 05/19/20U Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 of units due to the high number minimum densities standards and the assemblage standards. . Development standards relevant to achieve a ROMA goal that may be taken up in specific plans because a zoning document is needed. McDermott, representing Koll Center, noted: . They can meet the ROMA standards with sites that can be connected pedestrian linkages; existing open space that can give a focal point to a mixed use community. . The traffic neutrality efforts has it going in the opposite direction. How can th figures looking to create a good community and yet sacrifice everything for neutrality? . If you consider these modifications but at the higher density, we feel some those trade offs of traffic impacts will occur. If you were to reduce the numbe further and not the density nor the additives couldn't you get to a trip neutrality? Gardner, representing GPAC, gave an overall statement: . The general population accept that additional growth and housing in this area a very sensible, controlled, strategic and well thought out. . GPAC also recognize that this won't happen over night, but it will be done the next few years. Schnell, representing Conexant, noted that their site consists of about 11 acres :e parking. 8 acres is currently being used for industrial and are interested ling to have the flexibility of residential or office /retail as they have no industr ision planned. Mazur asked for and received a clarification of the options. comment was closed. owing an in -depth discussion and a straw vote the Commission recommends Council consider the following four options. 1. 3,300 dwelling units with no infill /additive development 2. 3,300 dwelling units of which 400 may be infill /additive development 3. 2.200 dwelling units with no infill /additive development. 4. 2,200 dwelling units of which 400 may be infill /additive development ie Commission also suggest that the Council consider limiting the land area on wh sidential development is allowed, to preserve the urban densities and potential prove traffic flow. Finally, it was suggested that a maximum density be establishi ensure that residential development is spread over a number of properties, result the elimination of office and industrial space. Commission determined that Mariner's Mile is an area where it is important �e trip generation, due to the existing high volume of traffic on Coast Highway a Page 8 of 12 n I.J r1 �J 0 file: //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlGvarin\PC min eta112006105042006.htm 05/19/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 difficulties experienced at f that a floor area ratio of it, because they cannot tiding required parking. comment was opened. some intersections in 0.5 is realistic for the )e developed to the the area. They also agreed shallow properties east of F currently allowed .75 FAR i Daniels, representing Ardell Investment Company, noted: • The CM designation encourages visitor - serving and recreational uses, why the CV designation is intended to provide for accommodations, goods, services for visitors. • In the MU -C1 and MU -131, the CM designation is mentioned, but the designation is not. It would help to clarify the visitor uses to add the CV in ti two mixed use designations. DI McDermott, representing Ardell, asked: • How to allow residential could be allowed on the harbor side of this area? • Keeping the current General Plan designation is much higher traffic and if take away some of the commercial traffic is lowered by allowing residential. • The previously presented conceptual plan shows a way to allow visitor ao and views of the water with the residential component of .5. • Commercial could block views of the water more than residential. . She asked that residential be considered. k Murrell, local resident and a co -chair of the Mariners Mile Business Own ip, noted the following: • Revitalization is an important concept in the Mariner's Mile area. • Residential considered under the extreme limitations that have been proposed there are properties that have not changed in for multiple generations. • We hope that some residential will be considered along the waterfront with Ian than 200 ft lots and half of the allowable building area on the property. • It can be a fabulous urban village but needs to have flexibility. comment was closed. presented two options for the Commission to consider in this area. 1: Residential portion of mixed use on the Harbor reduced from 25 to 12 dwellii units per acre Commercial portion of mixed use on Harbor limited to 0.5 FAR (instead of 0.75 draft Land Use Element) file: //F: \Users \PLMShared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \05042006.htm Page 9 of 12 05/19/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 05(0412006 • Commercial use on inland properties east of Rocky Point limited to 0.50 FAR • 1,714 fewer trips than existing General Plan 2: • No residential use on Harbor • Commercial portion of mixed use on Harbor limited to 0.5 FAR • Commercial use on inland properties limited to 0.50 FAR • 608 more trips than existing General Plan had considered a third option for the Ardell properties, which would provide 1 tive of a greater residential density on the inland portion in exchange for signific, corridors on the bayside portion. Because staff believes that height limits wo :nt the provision of a residential density high enough to be a real incentive o development on the Bay side, the Planning Commission did not pursue t Commission recommended Option 1, but felt that the City Council should con: :h options, and decide on the overall land use policy issue of whether residential the Harbor in this location is appropriate. discovered an error in the traffic study for this area, the result of counting nent units twice. Correcting this error eliminates 1,209 trips, and reduces mce between the existing and draft General Plans to 3,048 trips. options were presented. Every option reduces the floor area ratio for office u; 0.75 to 0.5. This reflects a more practical development intensity, especial tering the need to provide parking for medical offices. The trip results for ea( i include the correction discussed above. Option 1 • Designates entire area for medical office • 115 more trips than existing General Plan Option 2 • Designates entire area for general office (which permits medical as well as office uses) • 3,024 fewer trips than existing General Plan • Retains mixed use on east side of Old Newport Boulevard, with general (3( and medical (70 %) office on first floor • Designates west side of Old Newport Boulevard for general office, with maxim 70% medical office • 39 more trips than existing General Plan comment was opened. ncy Gardner, representing GPAC, noted that their rational for the mixed use would to provide a good transition to the neighboring residential area and was one of the Page 10 of 12 • • • file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006\05042006.htm 05/19/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 Page 11 of 12 reasons to get away from car dealerships and they also encourage the medical use as comment was closed. Planning Commission recommends Options 1 and 3 for further consideration b City Council. Although some Commissioners foresee a continuing trend towar kcal office, rather than residential for this area, others were persuaded by GPAC' cause The Irvine Company is still considering the additional reductions in re ace that the City Council suggested on April 25, this area was not discussed in de the Planning Commission. The Commission discussed the policy recommended April 20 hearing regarding the conversion of hotel rooms to residential use, a ifirmed that the intent was to limit conversion of existing hotel rooms. For clarity, i mmission recommended that the added Land Use Element policy provide that futt :el entitlement may be converted to residential, at a rate that would not genes ,re trips than the hotel entitlement. comment was opened. comment was closed. Commission then discussed the possibility of additional scheduling taking ant staff time. It was decided that staff will contact and work with the Chairman Jule special meetings where needed. was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this matter to Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDar None Henn is None BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that at the last City Council meeti the following items were considered: a Professional Services Agreement for F for work on a sign survey needed for the amortization program for the n conforming signs; extension of an urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries; and General Plan Update. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Committee - no report. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan U Committee - no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Certification Committee - meetings have been postponed until after the G, Plan sessions are finished. fie) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee meetings have been postponed until after the General Plan sessions are finished. file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \05042006.htm 05/14/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 Report from Planning Commission's representative to the City Hall Site Committee Commissioner Tucker noted the last meeting was on May 1st and a report is bein finalized for Council consideration that includes two sites to be considered, th present site and Corporate West site. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the upcom meeting agendas for the General Plan, EIR and Implementation P considerations. Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - none. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 of 12 • 0 • file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \05042006.htm 05/19/2006