Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-19-20050 Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 14 file : //H:1Plancomm120051051905.htm 06/21/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins - Commissioner Cole arrived at 6:36. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patrick Alford, Acting Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on May 13, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 5, 2005 were 1 ITEM N Minutes approved as corrected. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: Cole Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Red Rock Chili Company (PA2005 -061) ITEM NO.2 401 Newport Center Drive, Suite At 06 PA200"61 file : //H:1Plancomm120051051905.htm 06/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 2 of 14 Request for a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Approved Ordinance (ABO) to authorize the sale of beer and wine (Type 41 AB License) for on -site consumption at an existing eating and drinking establishment located within the Atrium Court at Fashion Island. Wood noted that Mr. Gregg Ramirez has been selected as ' -st Senior Planner. He will be working less with the Plann mission but will be resuming the responsibilities of Ms. Tamp pbell. Currently there is an in -house promotional recruitment to Ig's position. missioner Cole arrived at 6:36 p.m. Ig Ramirez noted a revised resolution that organizes the findings g itions for clarity. Paul Collis, applicant, noted that he has read and understands the endings and conditions contained in the staff report. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. otion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 005 -014, sub'ect to the findin s and conditions of a royal. None None PA2002 -265) PA2002 -265 600 St. Andrew's Road Recommended Consideration of amendments to Resolution No. 1655, adopted for approval December 9, 2004 recommending approval of the St. Andrew's Church expansion project. The applicant requests changes to the required parking provisions to facilitate on -site or off -site parking. Chairperson Tucker gave a history of the application dating from December 2004 to present, noting the conditions of approval had required the Church to obtain an off -site parking agreement with the Newport Mesa School District. The Planning Commission had recommended that the Council defer taking action on the Church plan until the District had acted on the parking proposal of the Church and the Planning Commission subsequently approved any agreement. Council had concurred with this recommendation. The District has since declined he parking proposal until the City has resolved the land use issues with file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \051905.htm 06/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 he Church property. The Church is here tonight to revise the • requirement for the parking requirement on the District site. The City Council has referred this matter to the Planning Commission to consider he request of the Church. This hearing will deal with the request of the Church to change the requirement of an off -site parking agreement with he District as set forth in operating condition number 3, and any other issues relating to parking. No other conditions, no design or operational detail will be discussed tonight. He then gave an overview of the Planning Commission's responsibility on behalf of the City Council. In conclusion, he noted that the City Council will be taking this matter and will deal with all the aspects of this application; and asked the public to address their discussion on the parking issue only. 0 Ll McKitterick, representing the applicant, noted the following: • Gave an overview of the background on the St. Andrew's proposal to the Newport Mesa Unified School District and a review of the conditions of parking. • A 30 year parking agreement with the Newport School District was a condition of approval at the December Planning Commission meeting included in Resolution 1655. • Since that time many meetings have been held to follow through with that condition, both with the community and District. • The Church has used its best effort to obtain this condition; however, was unable to achieve it due to the vigorous negative public input to the District at the public hearing of April 12th. • April 12th, the Board of Education tabled further consideration of the matter until the City Council takes final action on our application. • He then noted that the Church is requesting that the changes be made so that they may satisfy parking on site or off site and not be limited to a parking agreement with the District. • The changes are necessary to achieve a more flexible parking arrangement. e following changes to conditions in Resolution 1655 were requested the applicant: • Finding 7 - the parking requirement of 600 spaces, which is a combination of both on and off site, will remain. This results in a net increase of 100 to 150 spaces above the current parking condition. The on -site parking will be no less than 250 and no moi than 400. • Finding 7f - St. Andrew's will retain the option to seek an agreemei with the District for the use of spaces in excess of the 250. • Condition 2a - St. Andrew's has volunteered a reduction of occupancy one night per week from the approved 1300 to 1200 to satisfy the parking needs on site for every day of the week except Sunday. • Condition 2 - The total campus occupancy will remain limited to file : //H:1Plancomm120051051905.htm Page 3 of 14 06/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 available parking. . Condition 2c - Memorial services will be conducted before 1 p.m. long as the occupant parking ratio is maintained. conclusion, Mr. McKitterick noted: i the changes requested by St. Andrew's, there will be between 100 150 more spaces than exist today and the project will be constructed iin a limitation on the current occupancy, which is in the conditions. If Church builds 400 on site spaces, it will only need off -site spaces on iday. The St. Andrew's Youth and Family Center will not be tied to the )ntial future agreement with the Newport Mesa School District. The licant accepts staffs recommended change on Section 1, 7A ntaining the original language. comment was opened. in opposition of the application: d England - asked what the status is of the neighborhood parking schedule; how will the parking be accommodated during fiction; where will the earth hauling trucks line up; and, who will r these vehicles. is Public comment was closed in absence of community association Campbell, Senior Planner, at Commission inquiry noted the following: . The parking permit schedule fee has not been addressed. . In terms of demolition and construction, the Construction Management Plan was reviewed and approved by the Commission. . The Parking Management Plan was also reviewed and approved by the Commission. . The hours of operation are set forth in the Noise Code. . The supervision of the structure will be done by the applicant. . In terms of compliance, the Code Enforcement as well as the Police Department can be called as the City will be responsible for monitoring the activities. Rich Edmonston, Transportation Manager, added: • Some of the area around Newport Harbor High School requested that a residential permit program be instituted several years ago. • The boundary is designated by the residents who supported this request at that time. • The program allowed the homeowner to obtain three permits a ye so they could park longer than two hours. • This program will not change during the construction period. Page 4 of 14 file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \051905.htm 06/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 5 of 14 Commissioner Toerge asked about the action the City would or could ke under the current entitlement if the policy of the school District hanged on the non - educational parking allowed at the high school. Campbell answered that St. Andrew's operates under Use Permit 82 has a condition specific to that. If they lose that ability for parking at high school, it would require an amendment to the use permit and dd have to come back to the Commission for review. rperson Tucker noted that the difference between the new use tit and the existing use permit is the language is clear as to what d happen. He then noted a change to condition 4. All that exists is a good neighbor policy, not an agreement. He then suggested, eve, ....'overall parking demand', and just use the word, ipancy'. And, after, '.....off- street parking,' put in, '(i.e. number of *s times 3).' The condition now reads: 'In the event that the Church should lose the right to use parking within he 15th Street parking lot at Newport Harbor High School, the Church hall immediately modify its activities and occupancy to reduce occupancy to that commensurate with available off - street parking (i.e., umber of spaces times 3) and may file for an amendment to this use permit to provide alternate, adequate and comparably convenient off- street parking at a separate location." This addresses the importance of She off - street parking. issioner Cole asked about any impact on traffic flow if the Church a 400 space parking structure. Campbell answered that the Traffic Management Plan was eloped with the use of a 400 space parking garage and additional :s between services; therefore, staff has no concerns. Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted that the Commission could ik at a different alternative than what the Church was considering, rich would be different parking lots in the area to provide that several ndred parking. Street parking would be more convenient than that and :refore it is not really a viable alternative. Staff is not recommending a uttle service for- parking, other than during the construction period.. iissioner Toerge asked about condition 2 and the removal of ...'the right. What kind of right is it, if it is not legal? Mr. McKitterick answered the reference makes it consistent with the existing conditional use permit. It is a right to use, so the purpose is to make it match the existing verbiage. It would introduce ambiguity if the • ord 'legal' was left in. Public comment was re- opened. file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \051905.htm 06/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 peakers in opposition to the project: • ill Dunlap, representing Cliff Haven and Newport Heights Associations, noted the following: • Referring to 7f and 7g, the part that is deleted regarding the agreement with the school District and the reduction of the on -site parking spaces reducing the amount of on -site grading is problematic. • Allowing a change in conditions that the applicant can not satisfy does not set a good precedent. • Referring to a letter from Mr. Paul Reed regarding the recommendations of Dr. Barbot of the School Board, it states they are not ready to issue a parking agreement with the Church; therefore, there is no parking agreement in place, even for the current 250 parking. . The school can expand their campus at anytime. . The community believes it is too big a project and do not want it. la Adams, Vice President of the Newport Heights Improvement ociation, read a position letter from the association in opposition to project. obert Colyer, resident of Kings Place opposes for similar reasons previously stated. Frank Adler, resident of Kings Place opposes for similar reasons previously stated. Courtney, resident of St. James Place, opposes the project that property was zoned as R -1. im Karmach, resident of Cliff Drive, opposes the project due to parking. le referred to and discussed the letter previously discussed dated April 8th from Mr. Reed. He then discussed FAR's of the project as ompared to the Crystal Cathedral, St. James Church, Our Lady Queen f Angels and Hearst Castle. Talbot, resident of Signal Road, noted his opposition for similarly J reasons. Wallings, resident of Tustin Avenue, read an excerpt from I Commission minutes of May 23, 1985 wherein Chairman stated, "...that she would support the motion of the church m (at that time) but noted her concern of the continued >n of the Church in a residential area." 40 1Public comment was closed. Page 6 of 14 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \051905.htm 06/21/2005 1] Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 ommissioner Cole asked about the FAR issue. r. Campbell answered that in terms of FAR, St. James has a higher ., area ratio with an off -site parking lot to support that function. Eaton noted: • He is concerned with the responsibility charged to the school District parking lot. • The Church would be better off building their own garage and satisfying the requirement. • He noted his concern with what is being asked of the Planning Commission tonight, which is to continue the existing situation where the Church is inadequate on the Code required parking, let alone the real need that is greater than the Code. • He noted what the Commission should do is require the Church to build their 400 space garage and to acquire the remaining 60 spaces in another off -site location on Sundays, and then to allow the school parking lot to provide that supply, which is actually needed above and beyond the Code required 1 to 3. • He would also require the Church to provide 80 spaces for students in lieu of existing condition 45. • He opined that it is something that both the community and the Church could live with in combination with all the other measures put in place. • He offered verbiage to these issues and noted that if the conditions are not changed he would not be in favor of this project since there is not an assurance that Code required parking is provided. Tucker noted: . There are 250 spaces on site. . They are proposing to add 22,000 square feet, which would equate to another 66 spaces. . They would have 316 spaces if they complied with the existing situation, plus they would have to park the addition by Code. . The applicant is really adding an additional 80 spaces towards addressing their Code shortfall, and they are still short 66 spaces even with that additional 80 spaces. sioner Eaton answered, if you assume they continue their non - non- conformity. I think they should be brought up to Code. erson Tucker noted his support for what the Church has proposed the following: • The best case scenario is the set of conditions already approved in December that addressed parking with neighborhood relief on school days as well as on weekends. • The concept was the Church would make its case with the school file: //H:1Plancomm120051051905.htm Page 7 of 14 06/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 District; however, the school District has since tabled this matter. • The Planning Commission needs to send a recommendation to the City Council with conditions that work properly, even with an alternative parking arrangement. • The Council has the option to approve or not approve this recommendation on this project in that they determine if the project with the conditions and impositions make the project more compatible with the neighborhood than what is there today. • If the Council approves the project, as set forth in the revised conditions, hopefully the neighbors and the Church will work together with the District to get an agreement because that is a better result than having 400 spaces on the site. • He suggested that the Church move the gym out of the parking fiekc to the current location of Dierenfield Hall. The new facility should be stacked for a smaller net increase than the 21,714 square feet and would reduce the need for underground parking. • He recommended again that the neighborhood community and the Church work together on this matter to reach a compromise prior to the Council meeting. • The Council will be making the final decision. concluded by saying that the off site parking spaces as suggested by nmissioner Eaton would not add much. 0 (Commissioner Hawkins noted the following: Page 8 of 14 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \051905.htm 06/21/2005 • The Commission did not place the School District in an untenable situation. • The Commission attempted to mitigate an existing problem with conditions and used the resources that were out there, which included the District parking lot. • He shares the concerns about the lack of specificity; however, the environmental document analyzed the parking and found no significant impacts. • The environmental document together with these conditions places us in a box. • He indicated his concern about parking and requested that the Commission hear Commissioner Eaton's suggestions. • He then asked to look again at Exhibit A, which is the requirement for a development agreement and leave that requirement in this project to be viewed at some point in time. Commissioner Selich noted the following: . Supports the Chairperson's comments. . Does not believe having a remote off -site facility is practical. People will park in the neighborhood and not use a shuttle. . He supports the proposal before the Commission. . The School Board should have been able to act on the parking issue only and that would have allowed the Council to act on the Page 8 of 14 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \051905.htm 06/21/2005 11 1J Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 whole package with all the facts. . He concluded by stating he supports the proposal. McDaniel noted the following: . He expressed his concern that the neighbors and the Church were not able to come to some compromise on this project. . Parking has remained the major concern. . He noted his support of the Chairman's remarks. Cole noted the following: . He agrees with the Chairman's remarks. . The Commission is asked to focus on the parking and the Church k asking to shift what was a requirement of having the majority of the parking at the high school back towards at least the ability to have more of it on site, which he was originally a proponent of. . He believes more people would use parking in a structure as opposed to across a street and keep people off the surrounding streets. • This results in improved parking for the community with increase site parking and an in depth Parking Plan. Now in place for the community is an occupancy limit that will have the ability, if there is not compliance, a way to have the Church be enforced from an occupancy standpoint. • He would recommend approval of this resolution to the City Council. missioner Toerge noted the following: • He noted the conflict of an applicant spending money to build a facility based on the reliance of a short term, maybe not legal, parking arrangement. • The operating conditions that the Commission has imposed are unmanageable and perpetuate the policing of the operation by the neighbors. • The prior application was not supportable and the current application is worse. • He noted that he does not support this application. Hawkins noted condition 45 that the Church shall sing student parking on its own lot. This was suggested to be itory with a specific number mandated. With this modification it preserve the community benefit we thought we gained with the sed parking spaces on the school site. . Chairperson Tucker answered he is not in favor of modifying condition 5, but if the applicant feels it is something they can do between now an when this comes before the City Council that would be great. It would add more spaces, but it is up to the applicant to volunteer that condition. Page 9 of 14 file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \051905.htm 06/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 10 of 14 1 agree with Commissioner Toerge's comments, this is a worse project than the one we approved, but I think it is approvable. The Development Agreement condition was based upon the agreement with the school. The Commission recommended that the Council not act on this matter until that agreement was done and approved by the Planning Commission. Now, there is no requirement with an agreement with some hird party so the necessity for a development agreement does not seem to be there. If the Council wants a development agreement, I am sure they will let staff know. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to modify conditions of approval to Use Permit 2002 -265, the findings in Exhibit A and the staff report with the exception that condition 3 '....as described in the Traffic Management Plan.....'; the changes on condition 4 as discussed, and condition 15, '.......remove, under the terms of an agreement with..., replace with by....', and the proposed changes by the applicant. Mr. McKitterick noted the applicant agrees to these changes to the conditions. Chairperson Tucker noted that the unwritten agreement and good neighbor policy is under these conditions and that if that was ever evoked there would be a consequence under these conditions. Mr. McKitterick answered yes. Mr. Campbell asked if the motion includes leaving Finding 7a as originally drafted. Chairperson Tucker answered yes. Commissioner Eaton noted he is not in support of approving this expansion without getting the project up to code. Ayes: Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: Eaton, Toerge Absent: None Abstain: None OBJECT: General Plan Update - progress report ITEM NO.4 General Plan Review of trip generation and fiscal impact analysis assumptions relate Update - o the land use alternatives. Progress Report Ms. Wood stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council both Discussion Item ad reviewed and made changes to the Land Use alternatives that were Only eveloped by the General Plan Advisory Committee. We wanted to d . nvironmental analysis on those and run them through both our fiscal mpact model and the traffic model. However, there were 12 or 13 sub yeas and each one of them had 3 to 5 different options, so if you file: //14: \Plancomm \2005 \051905.htm 06/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Page 11 of 14 imagine the permutations of all those, we would be analyzing forever al ver. We needed a way to define what would be a minimum and maximum so that we could set a range. The method we chose for th as the daily trip generation. At the next meeting we will have tl complete traffic report for you and the consultant will be available explain it and answer any questions. She then noted that tonight tl Planning Commission will be focusing on Tables 20 and 21 in the traf report. Table 20 shows the three options analyzed with the models, or being the true minimum where we took the lowest average daily trips f each sub -area, whether it was the existing General Plan or whether as one of the alternatives developed by the GPAC. The next was tl sub-area options only minimum. In that case we ignored the existii General Plan and chose in every case the lowest trip generatic alternative that was suggested by the GPAC. Finally, the sub -area optic maximum, which is where we took the highest trip generating alternatil om each area. Tonight's presentation will be the results of the fisc impact analysis of these alternatives, that will be followed up at the ne meeting with the traffic model results and the other environment mpacts. She then introduced Doug Svensson who made tl Doug Svensson of Applied Development Economics gave a Power presentation on the Newport Beach Fiscal Analysis of the General Alternatives. Referencing the presentation, he noted: . The Fiscal Analysis is based on the fiscal model developed e in the process. . Does not account for inflation - the analysis is intended to cor the land use mixes in the options within a common framework. . The fiscal analysis is not a market analysis. . Does not address infrastructure needs at this time. following topics were then introduced as charts: . Overall Cost- Revenue Impact; . Impact of Visitors; . Economic and Fiscal Relationships in Newport Beach; . Cost - Revenue Impact of General Plan Buiidout; . Citywide Alternatives; . Citywide Alternatives by Major Land Use; file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \051905.htm 06/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 . Citywide Alternatives by Major Subarea; 40 . Subarea Options: Airport Area; . Subarea Options: Balboa Village; . Subarea Options: Banning Ranch; . Subarea Options: Cannery Village West; . Subarea Options: Cannery Village East; . Subarea Options: Corona del Mar; . Subarea Options: Lido Isle; . Subarea Options: Lido Village North; . Subarea Options: Lido Village South; . Subarea Options: Mariners Mile; . Subarea Options: McFadden Square East; . Subarea Options: McFadden Square West; . Subarea Options: Newport Center /Fashion Island; . Subarea Options: Old Newport Blvd; . Subarea Options: West Newport Hwy Block C, and . Subarea Options: West Newport Industrial Following a discussion by the Planning Commission, it was determined that the presentation of the graphs would be more meaningful if the same tale was used in all of them as suggested by members of the GPUC. Mr. Svensson said he would do what he could in order to make it more understandable to the general public. It was also determined that the numbers for the Mariners Mile marine alternative would be reviewed. Selich asked for a copy of the presentation. comment was opened. Philip Bettencourt, noted the following: • *Cautioned that the resort component that is analyzed in Newport Banning Ranch, the model used was the Montage. Page 12 of 14 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \051905.htm 06/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 • If you compared the most optimistic scenario of a hotel on tl • Banning Ranch, you get a view of Coast Highway, the Sanitatii District Treatment Plant, the oil fields; on the Montage you get whitewater view and shopping in Laguna Beach. • In any circumstance, this should not be viewed as an econorr feasibility analysis of a hotel at that location, that is not what this about. • This is a hypothetical hotel and it is hard to conclude that the sort economic performance that would be achieved here with the larl issues to deal with from a land use point of view. • It is not unworthy of study; however, those revenue yields are higt optimistic and ambitious. comment was closed. Ms. Wood noted her agreement with Mr. Bettencourt's comments t his is not an economic or feasibility study. This is if all of these uses t have been suggested for study were developed and occupied, w would be the fiscal performance of them. We are now starting to 1 bout the implications of this and the traffic information and environmental information on the land use planning for the future. are starting to look more closely at the subareas, what land use is giv he good or bad impacts, what land use is impacting an intersection le f service from D to E, so that we can start some refinements. When et to a preferred land use plan then we can do the market study and head with it. deficit and BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that at last week's meeting the Lexus project was approved on a vote of 4 to 2, the concern of e councilmember was the driveway onto MacArthur Blvd. and he waE not comfortable with having an exit as well as an entrance. The condition was tightened up to make it clear that the Traffic Engineei gets to review the design of the driveway as well as the onsite circulation. This item will be back on the next two Council agendaE for adoption of the ordinance and the second reading. There waE direction to continue with a new city hall design; and on June 14 there will be an amendment to the Subdivision Code regardinE parking standards for condominium conversions. ParkinE requirements will be discussed. b) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - there was a presentation on the expansior of Hoag Hospital that will be coming before the Planning Commission. Page 13 of 14 BUSINESS file : //14:1P1ancomm120051051905.htm 06/21/2005 0 u Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2005 Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the Gene Plan Update Committee — at the last meeting there was a follow -up the traffic model that will be discussed at the next Commiss meeting; there was a discussion on the schedule with the possibility all day GPAC sessions on some Saturdays; and Plann Commission and City Council review at joint vs. separate Stt Sessions; Ms. Wood added that there will be separate sessions if t works with the schedule. Discussion continued on timing, logisl and scheduling preferences. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Coastal Plan Certification Committee - no meeting. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report at a subsequent meeting - none. Chairperson Tucker asked if t City had a policy where applicants sign indemnities for environmen documents in case the City is sued. He was answered not as standard procedure; however, when Development Agreements done that is one of the conditions. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - none. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. Project status — Chairperson Tucker noted the Lexus project m+ have a minor change to provide for some landscape treatment on blank wall where they could put vines on it. The blank wall was on tl ramp going up on the site. There have been three meetings of tl Marina Park Committee with another one in June that will probably I all the rest of the alternatives; this should be finished in July. TI Sign Code will be back to the Commission for action within thn weeks. The Queen of Angels application is a use permit and will I reviewed by the Planning Commission in 6 to 9 months, no Coun action is required. Requests for excused absences - none. OF NEWPORT BEACH file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \051905.htm Page 14 of 14 06/21/2005