Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-09-20050 0 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page I of 25 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins - All present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Catherine Wolcott, Contract City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager George Berger, Program Manager Rosalinh Ung, Associate 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 June 3, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM N 1 OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of May 19, 2005. Minutes Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as Approved corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: Cole Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Barry Saywitz Residence (PA2005 -085) ITEM NO.2 5005 River Avenue PA2005 -085 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 0 0 i� Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 2 of 25 Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Condominium Continued to Conversion No. 2005 -004, Parcel Map 2005 -021 and Modification Permit 06/23/2005 No. 2005 -042. The applications would authorize the conversion of an existing duplex into a two -unit condominium complex allowing individual sale of each unit. Also included in the application is a request for modification to the Zoning Code to allow the installation of a partition wall to establish two single -car garage parking spaces with substandard width. Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has requested that this item be ontinued to the next hearing on June 23rd to allow him time to work with his architect and structural engineer. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to Jun 3, 2005. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Noes: Hawkins Absent: None Abstain: None None SUBJECT: The Patina Group (Orange County Museum of Art) ITEM NO. 3 PA2005 -086 PA2005 -086 850 San Clemente Drive Approved Request for approval of a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance (ABO) to permit the sale and service of beer and wine for on- ite consumption at an existing cafe located within the Orange County Museum of Art. The cafe is a permitted accessory use to the museum. Public comment was opened. At Commissioner Hawkins' inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the use permit runs with the land. Approval of the use permit is not issued to any individual applicant, it becomes a part of the property right for the property and the property owner. If the operator leaves, the property caner would then have the opportunity to seek a new operator who ould be willing to operate under the same conditions of approval. lex Woo, staff member of the American Liquor License Board, at Commission inquiry, noted that they have read and agree to all the conditions and findings in the staff report. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Use Permit 2005- 17 subject to the findings and conditions of approval included in the staff ,report. yes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 3 of 25 rbstain: ent: None None None Jdie V's Wildfish Restaurant (PA2005 -036) ITEM NO.4 1370 Bison Avenue I PA200"36 proval for the operation of a new restaurant and to allow the restaurant Approved operate with a Type "47" On -Sale General Eating Place license, zuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet (ABO) Ordinance license. salinh Ung, Associate Planner, referenced correspondence from Mr Nis Jackson representing Islands Restaurant. He expressed ME icern with the parking at the center, mainly during the weekday luncl urs. The Irvine Company, in response to this letter, forwarded a ;ponse to staff dated June 9th clarifying the concerns and issues raises Mr. Jackson. As a result of these concerns, the applicant is proposin< valet parking management plan to resolve any potential parkins :)rtfall during their hours of operation. Because of the timing, the plicant is asking that this requirement be a condition of approval �refore, staff has proposed a revised resolution for the Commission tc isider if they approve the application tonight with that condition. is Chairperson Tucker noted that this project was part of the Bonita Ca area that was annexed from the City of Irvine into the City of Ne Beach. He asked staff to review the zoning that was inherited and authority the Commission has to deal with the parking issue. Ms. Temple stated: • This area came to us as a detachment of municipal area from 1 City of Irvine and annexed to the City of Newport Beach. • The cities of Newport Beach and Irvine were working regularization of local boundaries upon the completion of St Route 73, The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. • The site had been fully entitled with general plan zonii environmental review and approval by the City of Irvine. • The principal property owner, The Irvine Company, was willing agree to the detachment and annexation upon the approval by 1 City of an Annexation and Development Agreement. • There were several items critical to the property owner in terms this particular issue, a commitment to utilize the zoning a development standards of the City of Irvine, under which the proji had been entitled such as height limits, setbacks and parki file : //H:\Plancomm\20051060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 requirements. . The zoning adopted was a new Planned Community Text written be consistent with the City of Irvine's Zoning Code and the 'in plat approvals. For this particular use, the requirement was 1 parki space for every 75 square feet of gross floor area for restaure plus 1 parking space for every 100 square feet for 'fast foc restaurant, and then a normal retail requirement. • The Planning Commission reviewed the site plan for this proje and a group Use Permit for several of the smaller eating a drinking establishments within the center. • The City of Irvine's parking codes require a substantial number spaces more than what our Code would have required under t circumstances, even with the high number of restaurants in t center. • The project was approved by the City with the relative proportio of restaurant, the group use permit for the smaller establishmer and the overall site plan. • At the time of submission of building permits, The Irvine Compa requested a modification to the development plan, that w reviewed by the Planning Commission, that actually added additional parking pool beyond what was in the original approval, an area that was previously shown as landscaping. • The project has a fairly significant amount of spaces beyond c requirements. • Staff understands that weekday parking during lunch can challenging, evenings less so. • In this case, we are committed by our Development Agreement r to change the development standards. Chairperson Tucker affirmed that the applicant has the right to ask for t pace to be used for restaurant purposes and was answered, yes. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added: • This is a use permit, and is not just limited to ABO. • If there are aspects of the floor plan that would lead Commission to conclude that the operational characteristics that Ah not able to be addressed by the conditions of approval, t modifications can be requested of the applicant. file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm Page 4 of 25 06/24/2005 0 I�L Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 . Additionally, if the operating conditions suggested by staff are adequate, the Commission can modify those. issioner Cole noted his concern of the current traffic causing s; 'ns in the adjacent streets as noted in Mr. Jackson's letter. if there is any evidence of that. Edmonston, answered that he is not aware of any safety pr has he been notified by the Police Department of any imissioner Hawkins inquired about lease- restrictions regardii ing as noted on the letter from The Irvine Company. He also not in the current resolution there is no finding similar to number iosed on page 10 of the staff report. He proposed to insert that of the findings of the resolution. followed on modifying the resolution based on the Michael Cho, attorney representing the applicant, noted the following: . Has been working diligently with staff on this application re the ABO operations and the parking issue that has come up to the center. . The lease provides that the tenant has the ability to utilize a service on site, there is no requirement that they to. . It is the desire of Eddie V's to utilize those services because it is high end fine dining establishment and cater to a much highe average ticket price than any of the others. The clientele the comes to a restaurant of this type desire and expect valet services. . This valet plan would be able to provide additional parking what is there currently. . The center meets all code requirements for parking. There are spaces provided; under the Code there are only 453 that required, leaving a 21 space surplus. . The lease provides that Eddie V's is only to operate in the evening from 5 to closing. Concerns relative to the lunch hour are not goinc to relate to us. . We have proposed that prior to an issuance of a C of O (Certific, of Occupancy) we work with the traffic engineer for a valet parking management plan that meets their requirement. There file : //H:\Plancomm120051060905.htm Page 5 of 25 06/24/2005 [I] i Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 nothing formalized yet, but it is the burden of the tenant Irvine Company to work on something prior to that C of approved. missioner Hawkins asked that the applicant would have no that condition regarding a parking management program. rered they would have no problem. arson Tucker noted that the floor plan seems to have two ant bar area opportunities, one in the restaurant and one He noted that this is his biggest concern in an area that is K Cho stated that the restaurant was designed with a central bar tl )mes the energy to the restaurant. There is quite a bit of dining tl irs in the bar and lounge area. It is not the intention of the client this into the 'happening bar scene'. It is not part of their busine el and not part of what they do in their three other locations. T ie will settle down. The parking study done at the request of the c an informal study and focuses on a two -hour time period where the be the greatest impact to the center, 6 to 8 p.m. on a Friday. At t the study was done, there was a total of 90 spaces for the ent er. Staff determined a deficiency of 9 spaces for that one he A. In working with staff to get an approved valet parking plan e, using valet services in certain areas gains those 9 spaces, but, t er meets parking. The center is a success. Any restrictions becau may be challenged parking, the best corrector of that is actually t (et itself rather than some sort of intervention of parking beyond t ie of required parking. iairperson Tucker noted that the project does meet the Code; however th that amount of bar area and a requirement for a use permit, tha is up a situation for regulation. Certainly a parking management plar some variety is going to be a necessity at least with what is on the floor Ar. Cho, at Commission inquiry, noted that the added conditions indings are acceptable to the applicant and that representatives of mine Company were present to answer questions on the center itself. comment was opened. Ingan, Senior Vice President of Development for The iny, noted: . The center is parked at 9 per 1,000 square feet. . Success of the tenants and convenience to customers is important. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm Page 6 of 25 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 7 of 25 . There are seasonal peaks at the center. . The parking peak referred to earlier is only one hour during a night and may not meet that peak on every Friday night. . To unduly restrict a lease for the vacant space for a use that it intended for this short period is not appropriate. . It can be challenging during the lunch hour, but it is the choice. . We have instituted employee parking programs with a approach to get more efficient parking that has helped to ame the situation. . The parking management plan that we have suggested, would that as well. It will give customers a choice and help the tenants. . At Commission inquiry, he noted that all the food uses are op during the evening hours; and, of those tenants, none of the operate with a parking management plan. The employee parking behind Pei Wei on the MacArthur Boulevard side as well as section by Eddie V's at the corner of Bison and MacArth Boulevards. Derrick Frost, General Manager of Islands Restaurant at 1380 Bisc noted the following: . He has been on site for 20 months and has worked with the tenants on issues. . The parking is not with Wildfish, the issue is the parking throughout the center. . If the peak was only one hour, we would all be out of business. . Under the current situation of parking, it will not work to grow any the businesses. . The valet parking is being done for themselves, and if one of guests is denied to park there, I may lose that guest, that is a concern to me. . If you put another 150 cars in that center, I do not know where are going to park. • I . I want to see a parking plan put in place, before we move because we have been working on this for a long time. file : //H:1Plancomm\20051060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 8 of 25 I have my crew doing the employee parking stacking but it is being handled by the Irvine Company to make sure that it done, and that is a concern. . When you add this next restaurant, we are going to have the sa situation. We are asking for a plan to move forward. person Tucker noted, it is not a question of putting in a restaura can put one in. They have the approvals already for that, there ig we can do about that. We are looking to try to make this use as it possibly can. Frost noted he wants to be a good neighbor and asks for a plan ress the guests for the center, not just Wildfish. Ung noted as of now the condition is drafted only for the applicant. iirperson Tucker asked if this would allow the plan to have to deal w entire shopping center or just this particular operator? Harp answered it deals with just this particular operator. Mr. Edmonston noted that this is a large pool of parking and to carve ou a portion that is only for this tenant then it would obviously impact othe uses and probably Islands Restaurant more because they are next door. Any sort of plan that is going to be prepared is going to need to be < dynamic plan if it is going to address the center. You could approve and plan for the restaurant, but maybe create problems for others. I am no sure with this single use permit, how that gets resolved. cussion followed on the use of a valet parking plan with the Islan resentative and how it would impact the other tenants; conditioni applicant with a valet plan; combined efforts of The Irvine Compa I the center tenants; and, not saddling one applicant with t uirement to mitigate a whole center parking problem. irperson Tucker noted it is not the tenants, it is the landlord who wi ble to pull this off. There are issues that need to be addressed an, Irvine Company is a professional landlord and should come up with that works for everybody. Ted Hoover, owner of the Panera Bread Cafe, noted that the parking h ecome a source of concern and appreciates the sensitivity of The Irvi ompany to this issue. The valet parking for the employees has i been enforced the way it should. We agree that the concept that coming in is good for the center, but we want to see a plan that is goi o work to alleviate that parking issue. Stuart Fishman, Regional Manager of Islands Restaurant added that t file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Piggest challenge that has been felt is the amount of required empk • arking, which is about 150 spaces at peak times. We have props tilizing some off site for our employees so that guests could use ntire center for parking. We look forward to having a plan, not s, promise of a plan. r. Ingan added: . The enforcement of the parking plan is incumbent upon merchants. . We would be willing to work with a plan that results in success all the tenants. . He would hate to have this applicant slowed down for this issue it is part of the landlord's responsibility to ameliorate. . We are taking a limited time frame and we will come up with a that works. . As a landlord, we want our tenants to be successful. t Commission inquiry, Mr. Ingan added that this plan would address tl new time hours as well as any problems during the evening hours. Commissioner Hawkins asked can we condition this application with parking management plan for the entire center? Staff answered, no. Temple added that the use permit approved for all the smal aurants as one sort of package really addresses the center's scope ration in a better fashion and should the property owner's efforts uccessful, that would be a more appropriate approach. rperson Tucker noted we don't have the ability to re- review anyth complies with the parking code. The only issue that gives us rtunity to discuss this application is the operational characteristics sed to a Pasta Bravo or a Daphne's, all those other operations ; / much the same. Ms. Temple agreed, for this use permit you are dealing with the Aerations. If the Commission wants to have a specific condition c approval requiring the parking management plan for the center, that is tha most comprehensive approval we have to attach such a condition on. This is clearly not the right way to do that. We have a verbal commitmen from the property owner that they are going to continue to try an( ddress this problem with or without a condition. I don't think attaching : (parking lot wide requirement on this use permit is appropriate. Chairperson Tucker noted his agreement and asked if the Commission Page 9 of 25 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 10 of 25 the right to come back and look at everything. iIMs. Temple answered that there was a site plan review. rson Tucker noted that The Irvine Company wants to keep happy. We will not be able to add anything special on this. nmissioner Toerge asked what the process is for other tenants ticipate in the formulation of a parking management plan. He clarifie t it is to participate in the formulation of the plan, not the actual parkir mgements themselves. Should we continue this item until we have king management plan that can then be reviewed by all the tenants open meeting? This way all these people can come and say, yes ,ks, or it doesn't. Temple noted that the Commission could deny this applicati iut prejudice and tell the property owner they would not be willing up the use permit until they implement a plan that causes the le not to testify when this item is heard. She added that we do a condition on a parking plan and that you can only impose ition on an application as you actually approve it. Mr. Harp added another option that if the applicant is willing to work w e other property owners in the development of the management pl and they are willing to do, then they could solicit their input to whate) plan is developed and that could be considered by the Traffic Engineer. nmissioner Toerge answered that is what he is asking, if they col ticipate in it if not in the process done by staff, then he wouldn't ,portive of it with that condition. He would support that other tenai involved. The other tenants are here as part of the public opposi now and they may not oppose it if the plan is workable. If the pl be assembled and is workable, the other tenants might show up a port it and then we are all good neighbors and we have done a go ommissioner McDaniel noted his concern holding this applicant ised on a parking management plan. There is a problem out there, is not the responsibility of the applicant. irperson Tucker then suggested a review on how parking is worts a parking management plan in place and then at that point, hboring business owners can step forward and let their thoughts vn. Right now, we would be holding up the applicant who I iming is ready to go with tenant improvements. • Discussion followed on the timing and methodology of a par management plan. Chairperson Tucker asked for a straw vote on issue of a review. file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 11 of 25 Commissioner Hawkins - bring back for a review. Commissioner McDaniel, - bring back for a review. Commissioner Hawkins - bring back for a review. Commissioner Eaton - supports a review. Commissioner Cole - supports a review noting this is a landlordttenantl issioner Toerge - support a one year review adding that the ors have a forum here to be sure that the plan works. erson Tucker suggested that the plan be presented by the to the adjoining businesses so that their input is included. Harp added that condition 37 will include a requirement that ply during all hours of operation with the approved plan. )tion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Use Permit 05 -008 (PA2005 -036) subject to the findings and conditions with dition requested by Commissioner Hawkins and a condition that itter comes back for review by the Planning Commission within a the date of opening, and with the suggested changes by the Assis iy Attorney. Cho and Mr. Ingram agreed to this motion. Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and None None None Master Development Corporation (MDC) ITEM NO.5 4200 Von Karman Avenue I PA2004 -231 General Plan Amendment to Statistical Area L4 (Koll Center Newport Continue to fice Site B) of the Land Use Element to increase the maximum 07/07/2005 owable gross office area by 1,750 square feet, and a Planned )mmunity Text Amendment in Professional and Business Office Site B 1,367 net square feet in order to replace an existing one -story 1,33 uare feet office building with a 3,080 square foot office building. Chairperson Tucker noted this item has two issues identified, one related to parking and the other is a change to the General Plan onform the General Plan with what has been built, and that would re: in a reduction of footage. That item, in my opinion, has nothing to do 'A he Master Development office expansion proposal and I suggest that file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 12 of 25 stable that item and let it come forward separately so we are not tal bout something that is not an issue between the applicant and tt involved in the Koll Center. It is really a staff clean up item. application has questions that have come up and the Commission limit the discussion to what is before us. Temple noted that there has not yet been an agreement between the property owners related to the ability to make changes to the parkin( )a, which is not part of the applicants parcel. Because this is :neral Plan and Zoning action we are unable to attach conditions o proval. Therefore, if we approve the General Plan and Zonin( iendments we will be creating additional entitlement. If they arf able to achieve whatever agreement is necessary for the additiona rking that is required then that square footage is available in that blocl of and can be implemented by other parties. That is not a majo ncern of staff, but if it is a concern of the Commission for this approval m you should continue this until the agreement regarding the parkin( improvements is agreed to between the two owners. However, wE uld not issue a building permit for the addition without approving the equacy of parking. Chairperson Tucker noted that if the General Plan was approved t anyone in this area could use that footage if the applicant did not, it is just attached to their parcel? Ms. Temple answered yes, its an office site vehicle center, so anyb could use it. If there is no agreement regarding the additional park that square footage stays in Office Site B and anyone who could pr hat they had sufficient parking to support that additional square foot ould implement it. s. Temple added that in Koll Center Newport a high number of oft rd other buildings are on what is called postage stamp lots that prov efficient land for the building and whatever Building Code setbacks quired. Most of the parking is owned by Koll Center and is managed pool basis. The applicant has to find a place to add 5 additional park )aces and they do not yet have an agreement with Koll Company tcess to the pool. arson Tucker asked if the parking for the entire Office Site B at Code now? Are there more or less spaces than required? Temple answered we do not have the full records as to the ber of parking spaces in the pool. The need for an add) :es is based on the increase that is proposed. • Commissioner Hawkins queried that if we approve the General PI mendment and the applicant is unsuccessful in getting their parking, ill not have a parking waiver, it is that the applicant will not be able implement the plan, is that correct? file: //H:1Plancomm\20051060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 13 of 25 Ms. Temple answered yes, we would not issue the Building Perm • without knowing that sufficient parking is being provided. The entitlemer would still be there. At Commission inquiry, she noted that parking fc Koll Center Newport is based on a special office pool /sliding scale that i based on square footage. Because this is an addition to a pool c development square footage in excess of 375,000 square feet, th requirement is 1 parking space for 300 square feet. file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Bruce McDonald, applicant, noted the following: • He has been operating his business for over ten years at this site and purchased the property 20 months ago with the intent to add 1,300 square feet to the building. • He made an informal presentation to the Koll Center (declarant) it November and they responded as well as other submittals in ful detail. It is his intent to get Koll approval. • The complex is over a million square feet. He and his partner are the owners of a postage stamp lot along with 20 other small and large building owners. • The parking lot is a sprawling legal lot that has thousands of parking stalls. • Staff, over a number of years, has amended the Planned Community text to get all these buildings built within Koll Center. This is not the first time a building has been built or re- built. • Koll Company owns the parking lot. • There is a set of CC and R's that control what goes on in the Centel such as use, setbacks and parking. • We all as owners, enjoy common area rights, full beneficial rights and undivided interest rights to every parking stall in the center. • What our CC and R's say is a private matter between two parties. • The CC and R's clearly state what a building site owner can do with reference to landscape and parking. As an owner I can do that, providing I am only modifying my development area, which is appurtenant to the site area that I own. We have an agreement in place, which is the CC and R's document. • Staff noted that we would be required to get the declarant's • approval before the City allows a building permit on site. • We are adding five stalls on our site plan located against the file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 building. . We are maintaining the harmony of the footprint and glass schei of the building; we are adding a second story on it, and : upgrading a small building that was built in 1974. . We have a small impact of 1,000 against 1,000,000 square feet, i impacting the traffic, and are within the development standards the Koll Center Community text. . We have talked with Koll and intend to get their approval, and if don't then we will fail to pull a building permit. . He then noted his correspondence with Koll and asked that t General Plan issue be solved. Commissioner Cole asked where the parking stalls were and M referred to page 2 where the stalls were closer to the building. He tF asked if the applicant questions the requirement of 5 parking stalls? W. McDonald added there will be a small amount of people in t building, anywhere between 8 to 10 and they have 16 parking stalls tF are required. He does not question the Code, he is stating that the use his building is light and not as heavy as what the Code requires. Commissioner Hawkins asked if the proposed additional parking is not parcel that you own or control. Is that right? r. McDonald answered that we do not have the legal ownership of it, bu owners within the Koll Center Newport have the undivided interest c e free and unfettered use of all parking and all landscaping on that lot. ie fact that the ownership is held under the declarant's name is a twis what is normally an association purview of which all owners would owi percentage of that big sprawling lot. In this case, we have a perpetus isement for all landscape and use of the parking area. The CC and R': :fine that we can modify that area as it relates to our development i )proved by the City of Newport Beach. immissioner Hawkins noted his concern if the Commission entitled ditional square footage and the applicant is unsuccessful. in getting reement, that square footage remains and someone else may be < utilize it. comment was opened. arol Hoffman of Government Solutions representing Koll Compar • oted that Koll Company prefers to have this parking issue resolve efore the Planning Commission takes action. Koll Company h,, concerns about the square footage adjustment in the General Plan and Page 14 of 25 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 • 9 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 V is separate we can understand what it means as well as the iirications, and what the staff research was with the building permits. applicant has sent a letter requesting approval from the Kol npany, which they are not ready to provide. I am hopeful tha nething that can be worked out, but we are not in a position tc irantee that the applicant would have that available parking at thia it. She then asked that this matter be continued so that this issue Id be resolved. She added that the square.footage does not harm the I Company interest. :hairperson Tucker noted that if we grant that approval, the squ )otage is out there and the applicant can't go use the footage until arking issue is resolved. We have stayed out of the middle of priv iatters and that is still our preference. Because of the Greenlight is: re may need to look at things in connection with granting of rights wF ffectively two parties within one statistical area are fighting about ame footage. In this particular case, you have one that is fighting ,750, which is a tiny increase and the increase inures to the statisti rea. I am not seeing the basis of not allowing it to go forward if s ays the applicant needs to have the parking evidenced in some fash i order to get a building permit. Hoffman noted that Koll Company had not heard of this item is agenda. It was surprise information and Koll Company v t unawares. This is a situation that they thought would be b ad privately and separately from any action that the Plann ission takes. Tucker noted this is a legislative act that goes onto :ommissioner Selich noted that the objection of Koll Company was ,750 square feet was going to be taken away from the 40,000 sq let, but you said the 1,750 gets added to the Koll Center so that mE :oil goes up by 1,750 square feet, is that correct? Is. Temple answered that we would be increasing the City's Gen Ian entitlement for Office Site B in that Statistical Division L4 by ,750 square feet. What Koll's letter was referring to was that c pproved that is considered a prior amendment pursuant to ChE ection 423. We keep a table that carries 80% of any approved Gen Ian Amendments for each statistical division in the cumulative table kept for 10 years so that a subsequent amendment after this would ave a full 40,000 square feet to stay under the voting threshold quare footage, it would be the 1750 square feet times 80% and 0,000 would be reduced by that amount for the next amendment ame through the City's process. We have not approved any Gen Ian Amendments in Koll Center; however, the 40,000 square feet een eroded by a couple of smaller General Plan Amendments that h ccurred in Newport Place. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm Page 15 of 25 06/24/2005 • Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 missioner Eaton ascertained that there was no timing of a ament between the Koll Company and the applicant. rman Tucker noted that the ing and the question for istent with our policies and and the concern about this it doesn't interfere at all. ion that the applicant does i Commission is looking at a particul us is the General Plan Amendme I think the answer is yes. Nothing interfering with the rights Koll Compa Koll is still going to assert the san iot have a right to do anything on th arty. We are looking at the applicant's request. The City's vest4 ast in it is if its parked properly. It is a little more office space in office area and the applicant's plan parks it properly. Whether I actually use those spaces is something that he and the K Danv will resolve. Hoffman noted that the hope was for a continuance so that t be some resolution between the two parties. hairman Tucker noted that it is going to be an addition of 1,750 et. That issue is not going to change 30 days from now. -ian Bentrot of Master Development noted that we have b iplementing this plan for our building expansion since 2004. Since are going to pay for these parking stalls and enhance the building, are perplexed at Koll's response. I am not sure why they feel they ime to a solution within 30 days when they have already have had c months to do it. comment was closed. immissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the two parties not co some sort of agreement. He noted his support of continuing this 30 days to allow the parties to come to some sort of arrangement. Hawkins noted his support of a continuance. immissioner Selich noted this is a minor General Plan Amendment a get involved with an agreement between two parties, he is reluctant. approve the General Plan Amendment and the parking was r irked out then it would not go into affect and the square footage wot there for someone else to use. He is inclined to go long with t plicant now but if it does came back after 30 days without reement then he would go along with the applicant at that point. Chairperson Tucker noted he does not have confidence that since thi: has been going on for 6 months that it would get worked out in 30 days. • He sees no harm to do the General Plan Amendment of 1,750 squad feet and it doesn't need the Commission as a referee. He stated he wouk move the item and let it go on to the City Council where they would have heir 30 days. Page 16 of 25 file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06109/2005 Page 17 of 25 Commissioner Toerge noted his support of a continuance. . Commissioner Cole noted that the applicant has gone through the prop process with staff and complied with what they were supposed to do. It modest increase and does not change the use. Koll Company has veto on this relative to parking, so they have some leverage. Grantil he General Plan Amendment does not hurt the Koll Company. I am favor of voting on the project now. ,nissioner Eaton noted his support of a continuance as the to see issues cleared up. ,erson Tucker noted that this item should be voted on tonight therefore approve the motion. mmissioner Hawkins noted that there are efforts in that area. My hope the 30 day window is that Koll Company does not wait to see wha ditional uses are up there in the planning process with Roma. Motior is made by Commissioner Hawkins to continue this item to July 7 Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: Tucker and Cole Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Traffic and Environmental Analysis of General Plan ITEM NO. 6 Update Land Use Alternatives >n Tucker noted this item is a continuation of material Discussion Item on May 19th. Wood stated that the presentation tonight would be an overview traffic study covering details of trip generation as well as the moi s of the minimum and maximum alternatives. "person Tucker noted that at some point we are going to come u a project description for what it is we are going to study; we wi a up with alternatives for the alternatives analyses for the Gener EIR. He asked if that project description is going to have a traffi that is particularly tailored to the specific project description that w Ms. Wood answered it will once the project description is approved. What we are looking at from here on, you will received the traffic an< environmental information tonight, the City Council will receive it Tuesday night. On Saturday, June 25th we have an all day public workshop tha 4D ill present the same info to the public and we will ask for their input. hen we have two Saturday sessions planned with the General Plar dvisory Committee on July 16th and July 23rd. In preparation for those file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 18 of 25 meetings, it is our intent between staff and the consultant team to con, II these alternatives with all the information that we have received I eir impacts and how people feel about them into a preferred land iairperson Tucker noted staff confirmed that the preferred land use pla )uld have its own traffic study to analyze the environmental impacts c preferred land use plan. The traffic information we have tonight give background information on the alternatives that will assist us in term the preferred land use plan that is ultimately selected. Wood answered yes. ssioner Toerge noted the definition of ICU (intersection) ng and suggested that the definition on page 1 -6 of the report more clear. He stated that as he had read this definition ed that with an ICU of .86, does that mean it will take me s to get through the intersection? This definition as I read it Mr. Waters said it means that 86% of the capacity to move cars thrc that intersection during the course of the hour is being utilized by traffic that is projected and that the hour is the timeframe for which analysis is conducted. He added that he would work with staff on definition to make it more clear. Waters continued noting this is the second report as part of thf meral Plan Update analysis. The reports establish the existing traffic nditions within the City and then moving forward to the future, the type: traffic conditions that may be anticipated in light of the City's currenth opted Land Use Element, Circulation Element and then the inpu thcoming from the City's Visioning process and then the General Plar visory Committee recommendations regarding alternatives to N nsidered as modified by the Planning Commission and the Citl wricil. He then made a presentation including current conditions anc ure growth per the existing General Plan and the minimum anc wimum alternatives developed by GPAC. Mr. Walters explained tha alternatives analysis assumed a constrained roadway network, whict es not include improvements such as the 19th Street bridge, extensior 55 Freeway and widening of Pacific Coast Highway thru Mariners Mile. . Level of Service (LOS) at 64 intersections. . For each alternative, he discussed Model Trip generation. He presented a deficient intersection summary, comparing the number • intersections that would not meet the City's standard in each alternative. Finally, Mr. Walters indicated that the report identifies addition mitigation measures that could bring all intersections to City standards. file: //H:1Plancomm\20051060905.htm 06/24/2005 • 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 (lowing the presentation, additional discussion occurred as q concerns of the Commissioners were raised: . A clearer ICU definition to make it easier to understand. . List minor improvements deemed likely to occur or not occur as of the analysis. . Why separate out the minimum that does not include the Plan. . Superior Street congestion under maximum and free flow minimum. . Traffic from Banning Ranch with the requirement of making its infrastructure improvements and mitigation measures. . Analysis conducted with planned General Plan improvements c than the major ones discussed but without looking for mitiga such as spot widening, extra turn lanes, the types of conditions would be placed on developments as they came forward approval. . The lack of inclusion of Corona del Mar on the subarea list Coast Highway. . Shoulder season modeling calibration based on nine months of year. . Coastal trip generation rates versus non Coastal trip rates. . Validation of model assumptions against actual counts and to extent it doesn't match up, then look for reasons and what match it up. . Mixed use internal capture rate in the City. Use of resident commercial and office development elements resulting in the I end of 10% trip reduction benefit that could be expected. That V adjustment was applied to only those areas that were thought have critical mass, such as the airport area and the Newp Center, but not in West Newport Industrial. . How to consider alternatives for Banning Ranch entitlement and potential consequences. . Reduction of traffic by downsizing entitlement. . Reduction of development in areas through change from R2 to R1. file: //14:\Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm Page 19 of 25 1. AYRIOR Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 • Potential residential added into the airport area. • . Assumptions of passenger airport traffic either in or out of pe hours. The maximum passenger levels were used for tl calculations. • Comparisons of other jurisdictions acceptance of various levels service. • Separation of Deficient Intersection Summary into subareas make it easier to understand. • Referring to page 59, Table 2 -11, the a.m. trips under option seem low and the consultant will look into it. oodie Tescher, referencing handwritten page 228, noted t generalized environmental impacts comparative summary. The charts page 232 show the quantitative change in electricity, solid was wastewater, water, and number of students. On pages 234 and 235 is; it quality impact matrix noting the percent increase or decrease in pollutant generation under each land use alternative. In response to Commissioner Hawkins' question, Mr. Waters noted he airport area was the only area with mixed use adjustments. Public comment was opened and then closed. Wood then noted the schedule for the upcoming meetings fining Commission and City Council to review the General Plan I; plan and policies. ECT: Comprehensive lines Manual (PA2005 -091) 1e Amendment No. 2005 -005 to amend Municipal Code Chapi 67 related to sign standards applicable to all signs on a citywide bw i the exception of the Newport Coast and Ridge Planno mmunities, and where sign regulations are not referenced in the. San s Heights Specific Plan area and all other commercially -zom nned Communities. The Balboa Sign Overlay and Mariner's Mile sil ulations will be repealed by these proposed regulations, and thi visions will be incorporated into the proposed ordinance. A Sil sign Guidelines Manual is also to be considered, in order )plement the new sign code and establish criteria for the creation I- designed signs and further the intent and purpose of the sign code. • George Berger, Community and Economic Development Manager, hat staff had received comments from Commissioner Eaton Chairperson Tucker that are included in the revisions. Page 20 of 25 ITEM NO.7 PA2005 -091 Continued to 07/07/2005 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 21 of 25 Ron Pflugrath with RBF Consulting, noted the following issues: • etter height - suggestion of 36" maximum on building signs. imissioner Eaton noted that this applies to linear commercial strips, too high as most of the store fronts are close to the roadways? r. Berger answered that there are a quite a few that are farther so e., the Albertson Shopping Center on 32nd Street. That type of :eds the ability for this and if relief from this requirement is regt ther a Comprehensive Sign Program or the Modification ,ocesses are available. iairperson Tucker noted his concern of a tall building with only a ter. It is hard for one size fits all process. Discussion followed )dification findings. The Comprehensive Sign Program does not al the Planned Communities. - Strengthened definitional precision between commercial imercial message related to murals. Signs - states that 50% of shed area is allowed for message. Comprehensive Sign Program - 30% increase in building sign a nd /or a 20% increase in overall height of freestanding signs to tl J - Conforming signs - One set of standards for sign regulations, as one date for amortization. /Open Space Zones - The illumination standards in the are adequate. imissioner Eaton noted he does not agree that the retail shoppi :er sign standards should be applied to church signs and others F. They're not the same thing. Ir. Pflugrath noted that the overall sign size has been reduced down .5 square feet of sign area for each lineal foot of building and a cap o sign larger than 75 square feet. So, perhaps Mr. Eaton's conce Fould be addressed by the overall reduction. However, we istinguish between commercially zoned property and GEIF zon Amortization - The list of uses would be roof signs, pole signs, with sign face area over 75 square feet outside of Planned Comm districts; and, cabinet signs with non - opaque message panels. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Berger noted that staff is comfortable file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 22 of 25 ese categories as they are reasonable to do and are ones that are • easy to spot and address; and, these are the types of signs that will likely be going away as businesses change. A lot of these signs will are of themselves before the 15 year amortization period ends. Harp noted that the if the Commission wishes to amortize out si 36 ", that is not in the resolution and that needs to be added to rperson Tucker noted there are not many of those signs. He .ing of the ones that are along the main corridors Coast Highway a port Boulevard /Balboa Boulevard. Most of those buildings are i shoved up against the street for the most part. Maybe we ought at the amortization along those two corridors. lowing a brief discussion it was proposed to remove the reference side of Planned Community districts. ;athy Wolcott, Contract City Attorney noted that staff had addressed ,sue of the ability to establish an amortization for certain areas with ign law specialist. He stated that it is an untested area and thought t ould be done if you have a rational for setting those areas aside such istoric district or a tourist area. Chairperson Tucker answered that we would have to do something like cenic corridor. He was answered yes. That would be tough to loop th into the sign review tonight, so we will leave it as it is now. imissioner Cole questioned that at the end of the 15 year period t happens if that sign is not removed, particularly if there is ar comic reason to keep it? Is there an appeal process for the owner? there findings? iff answered it becomes an illegal sign. The owner could apply for dification for an exception in order to keep the sign; however, It wou dangerous to get into financial hardship qualifications. nmissioner McDaniel noted that the bottom line is that we are tryii rid of these signs. If there is a hardship, you need a smaller sign. it to get rid of the ugly signs and we are using the 15 years to get hardship. Mr. Pflugrath noted overall you really erode the whole process creating loopholes. The City of Dana Point had a similar program and he end they got all the signs down; they had 15 years to amortize 1 signs and the State says 15 years is a fair number for the lifespan a • value of a sign. It is a long and just time. Heritage Signs Program - Criteria has been strengthened to require tl file: //H:\Plancomm120051060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 23 of 25 Heritage Signs be at least 35 years old, and not simply be a unique •with character and aesthetic value. Mr. Berger noted the list included in the staff report, and that the ages till to be determined. Additionally, there is another list of a few signs consideration that have to be researched. The owner and operator of Crab Cooker has asked that all the signs on his building be conside part of the Heritage Sign Program. Although.the institution is of note, not our estimation that not all the signs are of historic note. The one op of the roof is, but not the rest. ier McDaniel agreed and noted that a neon crab is an historic event. It is old, but it is not significantly historic. mmissioner Hawkins noted that this is a Sign Ordinance, mething that creates a safe harbor for virtually every sign on an ilding. With respect to the list of signs, he noted that although isty Pelican and Zodiac signs may ultimately qualify as heritage sig did not at this time believe that they should be included in the list. . Berger explained the initial take on those signs noting that this list ly for reference and staff would welcome any additional input. Ms. Wood noted her support of the Zodiac sign prior to the latest painti n it. Ms Temple noted that the Rusty Pelican sign is probably just barely ears old. Berger noted that Rusty Pelican sign is indicative of the maritime sl 'seafood row culture' that Mariners Mile is all about. At least that at people think of it as, not so much cars and boats, but the spi ling fleet and sea food restaurants and the like. Also, we' )sequently found out that the Dory Fishing Fleet sign is less than ars old, and the grizzled guy in the boat is a fairly new addition. V y end up taking that off the list. response to Commission questioning, Cathy Wolcott added that t y Attorney's office would not like to have the-list of the original signs ordinance. It should be a separate document that follows closely. Pflugrath noted that is a work in progress. He noted he ested Anthony's Shoe Repair roof - mounted sign, but it may it because it is not old enough. Ms. Temple stated that sign had been re- located from Via Lido, so . ign itself might be older. Discussion followed on some other potential signs. file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 24 of 25 Conflicts - no change. • ew definitions - no change. Program - no change. Signs -no change. Clause -no change. on City property - City is exempt from its own sign regulations. Signs - prohibit on private property. The City Attorney's office to strengthen and update regulation of A -frame signs on pub value versus replacement costs - lower to 20% of of Abandoned Signs - no change. process - remove from page 56. Temporary construction signs - one sign per street frontage for • pays. Also, combine with 'future tenant' signs. wtization program - apply to signs installed under Mariners cific Sign Regulations and the Balboa Overlay Sign Overlay ulations - amortization, and removal of certain types ; onforming signs and extension of nonconforming status. signs - no change. signs - to be discussed at the next meeting. Ilowing this discussion, the Commission directed staff to make thf anges discussed: for when a non - conforming sign needs to bi proved under the Comprehensive Sign Program as the property i; ng remodeled, what sign standards should apply to GEIF land uses, prohibit A -frame signs, and to add a time limit on the display of the nporary construction signs. was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to July 7 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 yes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, Noes: Hawkins bsent: None bstain: None None file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 06/09/2005 Page 25 of 25 fs ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - none provided. 0 Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Development Committee - none. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the Plan Update Committee - none. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Coastal Plan Certification Committee - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report at a subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a agenda for action and staff report - none. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. h) Project status - none. i) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Cole asked to excused from meeting on June 23rd. and Chairperson Tucker will excused on July 21st. RN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \060905.htm 06/24/2005