Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes• • Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 2004 Regular Meeting -6:30 p.m. Page I INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and All present ...Tucker STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director , Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Assistant Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS. PUBLIC COMMENTS None II J POSTING OF THE AGENDA: i POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 27, 2004. 1 CONSENT CALENDAR I MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of February 5, ITEM NO.1 2004. Approved i Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the minutes I of February 5, 2004 as modified. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich and Nnp-q- Tnekor Page I 0 11 Absent:' None Abstain: None None Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 .x. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Ronald P. Tomsic (PA2003 -299) 448 Isabella Terrace The expansion of an existing second -floor deck that will encroach into the required 15 -foot front yard setback at the view side of the property overlooking Rivera Terrace. The ground floor patio will also be expanded but will not exceed the Code permitted 3 -feet in height. (Modification Permit No. 2003 -122) Chairperson McDaniel noted that this action was called up by Commissioner Tucker. Commissioner Kiser recused himself from deliberation on this item due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • The Modifications Committee granted a modification for this application but it was not what the applicant requested. • During discussion with the applicant of the issues involved, I determined that more analysis needed to be done on this matter, so I called it up for review. • Staff discovered that the amount of encroachment requested was less than originally planned as the plans submitted with the application were determined to be in error. • Upon review of the revised plans, the Planning staff determined that the original modification would have been granted if staff was given the accurate information. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Eaton noted that a fax from a local property owner was received in objection to this modification. Commissioner Tucker stated he had looked at the property and concluded that there would be no detrimental hardship to any neighbor. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Modification Permit No. 2003 -122 and approve the applicants original request by adopting revised findings and conditions. Page 2 ITEM NO.2 PA2003 -229 Approved • 0 I] Planning Commission Minutes 03/0412004 Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Abstain: None Kiser Abstain:, SUBJECT: New Superior Group, LLC (PA2003 -122) 500 -540 Superior Avenue Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) for a possible increase in the amount of general office uses within the Newport Technology Center. (Traffic Study No. 2003 -001) Ms. Temple noted that staff is asking for a continuance to April 8th for additional analysis of the traffic study, and also to notice an amendment to a necessary condition of approval on the original use permit. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to continue this item to April 8, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Noes: McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Absent: • None Abstain:, None None SUBJECT: TRIP Development Services (PA2003 -252) 4941496 Old Newport Blvd. ITEM NO.3 PA2003 -122 Continued to 04108/2004 ITEM NO.4 PA2003 -252 Request for approval of a Use Permit and Traffic Study to allow the Approved construction of a new 12,500 square foot medical office building that exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio and building bulk. The applicant also requests approval of an off - street parking credit for proposed on -street parking spaces. Mr. Ramirez, Associate Planner, clarified the following: The square footage total of 11,359 square feet as noted in condition one, item W is correct. The square footage noted on page 10 was rounded up and listed as 11,374 square feet and is also correct. A total of 11.359 sauare feet based on 47 Darkinq spaces Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 Page 4 available is staffs recommendation. We parked the permitted 0.5 FAR at a rate of 1 parking space per 250 gross floor area. • The ten remaining parking spaces were parked at a rate of 1 parking space per each 215 square feet of gross floor area, which is the parking rate of the worst case scenario of the parking demand study that was done on the two sites that were studied for this project. At Commissioner inquiry, staff noted: • The use permit is for a requested increase in floor area. The findings are the standard code findings along with additional ones. • The applicant is requesting to be allowed to construct a building that is larger than basic entitlement contained in the Code. • The findings regarding the increased floor area ratio are included in the staff report on pages 5 and 6. • Additionally, we need to find that the approval of the extra FAR will not be detrimental to the City or neighborhood in which the use is located. • To qualify for additional floor areas, the development is required to provide a unified site design. It is intended to require that the project involve consolidation of lots which would reduce the number of driveways on Old Newport Blvd. • The Commission must find that the project shall not cause significant traffic impacts to the adjacent streets and intersections. We find through the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis and the cumulative analysis that no traffic specific impacts would result from the proposed project. • The amount of potential conflict with traffic that may result from inadequate parking supply is able to be considered pursuant to Finding 2, which is that the project would not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. • The Commission could find that increased parking for that increment of development over .5 would not be detrimental and therefore approve the applicant's request. • The Commission has the ability to determine the meaning and intent of the Code, there is a possibility that the approval could be based with the three spaces on Orange. If this is done, the Commission would need to direct staff to come back with an amendment to the specific plan to identify side streets where this accommodation would also need to be granted so that we are clear when we deal with applicants. • Staff's recommendation on the parking ratio that is anything over .5 should be parked at a higher rate. We could add the ate___ _._____ •_ ate_ a_a_t•_ :A r^ ..._..0 _A:n ___L. ate_ Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 11 net; bpat:Citi to uie WWI to inane it vu, uutwuuiu 5uu apply uie one space per 215 square feet for the portion of the project over .5, unless the Commission determines that also is not required. Public comment was opened. Stacey Wise, resident of Broad Street presented photographs of Old Newport Blvd. The photos depict the parking that takes place and show that there is no additional parking available on the street. On Orange Avenue, one house was replaced with eight units. At that time, off site parking was allocated for those condo residents for those eight condos that were built. The same modification and argument is used consistently for reasons to allow over building in this area. She noted the Specific Area Plan that was worked on by local residents and business owners in the area almost three years to come up with an agreeable plan for the use and direction for this area. She asked thatthis item be denied. Mary Hannah, resident of Orange Avenue asked that this item be denied as the parking and additional traffic would be a hindrance to the neighborhood. Robert Reed, resident of Bolsa Avenue stated that putting more parking spaces inside the building area in the underneath parking would not allow much room for planting and landscaping to be used between his home and the complex. They have a two foot overhang in the parking structure, and our wall is about 15 feet tall that drops down to their land. With a two foot overhang, a larger SUV or vehicle parking could damage the retaining wall. He requested that the buffer zone be increased with additional landscape. James Mathersroud, one of the owners of 494/496 Old Newport Blvd., noted the following on the project: • The project is in the Old Newport Specific Plan area that encourages consolidation of existing parcels. • The street vacation is along Orange Avenue. • Current property uses are an automotive repair with a small residence, and a small retail slate shop. • The proposal is for a 12,500 square foot medical and professional office two story building with parking on grade. • The Specific Plan allows for up to .75 FAR when two or more adjacent lots are consolidated; we are asking for approval at 68 FAR. • • Thp nnrtion of tha nrnnarty that wa ask to hp varntart is Page 5 • Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 currently located within the fenced area of 496 Old Newport Blvd. The previous owner had requested permission from the City to fence this area in and it was not until the property was surveyed that it was revealed this portion of property was not part of our parcel. • Granting the street vacation will allow for additional on site parking for the project and provide improvement to the neighborhood as we plan to replace the sidewalk, curb gutter and landscape from the Newport Blvd. corner to Clay Street. • Improvements from the street vacation will enhance the aesthetic appearance on that block. • We have conducted both a parking and traffic study that show no significant adverse impact on the intersections studied, or negative impact to the area. • We have increased the rear setback; the rear exit from the property is within the minimum setback allowed; however, as you move south down the rear property line, the average setback distance is greater than 20 feet. • The project complies with the height limits under the current Code. • The building mass is being reduced by cutting into the slope and using the lowest elevation on the lot as consideration for natural grade. • The project is in scale with the neighboring buildings. • The FAR meets the Specific Plan requirements and the building bulk meets the current Code criteria. • The parking study shows no adverse impact and supports the City's current code of 4 parking space per 1,000 square feet. • Parking on Orange Avenue falls within the spirit and direction of the Specific Plan. Orange Ave. is wide enough to support the parking and we have given special attention to assure that these spaces would comply to all safety requirements for street parking. • Direct access from the building is allowed for these spaces and these spaces are adjacent to this property. • The property is a unique location. • The project is good for the community and will replace several older buildings badly in need of repair; and continues to meet and fill a need for hospital related uses. Commissioner Eaton asked if trees could be planted in a one foot area on the southerly property line with the overhang and retaining wall. Mike Schaefer, architect for the proposal noted that the tree specimen and size along the retaining wall on site are able to deal Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 wim me small planting area next to the retaining wall. • Commissioner Cole noted that for medical office, the current code requires parking 4 per 1,000 square feet parking ratio. You are exceeding the .5 FAR, and the Planning Director has the ability to grant up to .75 assuming certain findings are found. What type of use other than the multi tenant nature or single tenant nature that might impact the concern staff has on the real parking used on the property? Mr. Mathersroud answered they are aware of staff's concern. The parking study justified the current code. Regarding the use, we can not speak specifically to that until we find out what the final product will be. We believe we will end up with a larger single unit tenant as there are discussions going on. There is a possibility that a third of this space is occupied by general office as we have a small mortgage company. We can't speak to the use or exact tenant, but we feel this study did support a four to one parking ratio. Continuing, he stated that there is a residence on the property currently. The tenant's current parking spaces on Orange Ave. will be used with tenant parking. With regards to the parking on Newport Blvd., our neighbor has been given access to park in our parking lot and in front of our building now as it is currently vacant. The pictures presented by the previous speaker would include parking in front of our project done with our permission. Public Works has supported the proposed street vacation and that will run from the comer of Old Newport Blvd. up to Clay Street. There will be some additional parking created during this process for the residential community behind our project. Doug Keisers, Broad Street resident noted he is not in support of this project due to lack of parking space in the area. Tom Billings, resident of West Newport, noted that a similar medical center on Superior and Placentia is a high traffic project. He reported that they now have valet parking due to the high traffic volume. Patients come and goat these facilities and our concern is that there will be constraints to the residential community on parking. Commissioner Kiser noted the concerns raised by the previous speakers were concerns to the Commission and the City as well. That is why a parking study was done related to this particular project. Staff has looked at the traffic and parking impacts so that there is no degradation in the neighborhood. We want what is best • fnr ovoninno in #ho noinhhnrhnnrl nnrl Oho r..ihi tic'eroll Page 7 0 E • Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 .v. ...- .I- .- .......... U..vv.................... -J, ............ Commissioner Tucker noted the parking code requirement for a medical facility is 1 per 250 standard; and the and the code does not allow for the applicant receiving credit for parking spaces on Orange Avenue,. I don't feel comfortable reading language into the code which is not there, although, as a policy matter, the Council may choose to do so. I favor the 1 per 250 with 47 parking spaces; which calculates to 11,750 square feet. Commissioner Selich noted he supports using the existing code, the 1 per 250 for the whole project, which means the building would be at 11,750 square feet. We do not have the authority in the Specific Plan to allow use of parking on Orange Avenue. Commissioner Eaton noted that 1 per 250 does not work for a medical building. It will be a problem because eventually the employees will be parking in the residential streets. I think staff's recommendation should be the maximum allowed, which is 11,359 square feet. The code is there, but it has been questioned if it is adequate. The traffic report dealt with only two facilities and is not a wide enough study to base a conclusion on. Commissioner Kiser noted his support of the 11,750 square feet. The current code needs to be applied consistently. As far as the request to include the three spaces on Orange Avenue for approval, it appears that we can not do that. It is an attractive project that will be a plus for the neighborhood. Commissioner Toerge noted his support of 11,750 square feet. Discussion followed on future potential for parking in the center of Old Newport Boulevard. Commissioner Cole noted his concurrence to support the request at 11,750 square feet. If this project was leased to a single tenant, it would certainly alleviate the concerns because it does make a difference on how parking is used. Chairperson McDaniel noted his support of 11,750 square feet. Commissioner Tucker noted that he did not see where the Commission needed to modify the parking requirements in order to make the required finding that the added floor area will not cause significant traffic impacts to adjacent streets and intersections. The addition of two parking spaces will cause no significant impact on traffic in the area. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes 03/0412004 • Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit 2003 -043 and Traffic Study 2001 -001 (Medical Office Building) (PA2003 -252) subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Kiser clarified the motion with the revision of resolution in 2D change to 11,750 square feet; conditions of approval 1A change to 11,750 square feet; and change the building bulk accordingly. The maker of the motion agreed to the changes. Ayes: Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: I Eaton Absent: None Abstain: j None SUBJECT: Local Coastal Plan (PA2003 -098) I ITEM NO.5 City of Newport Beach PA2003- Chairperson McDaniel noted this is the first meeting on this issue. Continued to There will be no vote on this issue at this evenings meeting. 0311812004 Comments and questions are requested of members of the audience and they will be responded to either tonight or in a follow - up staff report. Public comment was opened. Tom Billings, resident of West Newport made the following inquiries: • What residents were represented on the LCP committee? • FAR's are not in concert with the General Plan in some areas, he presented the list to staff. • What comments have been received from the Coastal Commission to this point in terms of what the City has submitted to date? • What mechanism has allowed staff to make changes in density? Mr. Alford, Senior Planner noted: • The Local Coastal Proaram certification committee is Page 9 i 0 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 comprised of 3 Councilmembers and 3 Planning Commissioners and the meetings are publicly held and noticed. On several occasions citizens have attended and made contributions. The Coastal Commission wants language saying that the LCP would have precedent over any other City policy or ordinance. We recognize the concern about consistency with the General Plan and have statements in two sections. The Land Use Element has certain provisions for floor areas to exceed what is the common FAR for various land uses. There has been on -going dialogue with the Coastal Commission staff and the City received two major responses in July and October 2003 with comments on the current LCP and the draft document. Several Coastal staff members were given a tour of specific areas where there are special issues. Ms. Temple noted: The revised draft under consideration by the Commission has incorporated an acceptable response to items raised by the Coastal Commission in their two formal letters of comment. The LCP committee has decided to try and maintain a course on a stated City position, we identified those within the issues discussion in the staff report. Sean Burke, resident of Newport Beach, noted: • He is concerned about the modifications to Buck Gully as suggested by the Fire Department. • The development of Newport Coast has increased the fire danger to Buck Gully. • The erosion factor of Buck Gully is a concern to the residents due to the increased run-off from this development. • Requests that in the policy section of 2.8.7 it be specified that any updating of the fire codes, fire modification plans include consideration of how those changes are going to impact on the danger of erosion in Buck Gully. Carol Hoffman, resident of Newport Beach, noted: Policy 2.3.1 -2 should not indicate preserving existing uses only and in fact new uses or consolidation of uses would be allowed. There is some ambiguity in the language and suggested new language. Jan Vandersloot, citizen of Newport Beach, noted: Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes 03104/2004 i • The City should be abiding by the Coastal Act. Mr. Alford noted: • The Coastal Act is subject to interpretation and we believe the LCP is consistent with the Coastal Act. • The Coastal Commission will review this document and if certified, it will be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Eaton noted the following. • The policy of encroachments on the coastal fore -dune habitat. • The policy on bluff developments are tough new policies. • Our recommendation should include that the language in 1.3.3 be worded to reflect the wording in Section 2.4, which says whatever is more protective of coastal resources shall take precedent. This would protect the value of the General Plan to the City. Mr. Alford noted that the intent is to show that the LCP could not be used to allow more intense development or one that is being less' protective of coastal resources. This language on the precedence of the LCP was specifically requested by the Coastal staff as they felt the current Land Use Plan was deficient as it did not contain that language. Looking at LCP's from other communities that have been adopted recently, this appears to be standard language. It will be reviewed so that there are no inconsistencies in the document Chairperson McDaniel noted that a letter from Jennifer Winn, AICP the City if Irvine was received. Commissioner Kiser noted the following: • Categorical Exclusions - will the Coastal Commission exclusion for most single- family and two- family development be eliminated? Mr. Alford noted that the information received was from Coastal staff. The termination of categorical exclusions is automatic and not unique to Newport Beach. We have discussed continuing the categorical exclusion and expand it to other areas. This would be done concurrently with the certification of the LCP. Coastal staff Page 1 I Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 . seems receptive to this approach and acceptable to expanding and extending the major provisions of the current categorical exclusion. The LCP consists of two parts, one is a land use plan, and the other is the actual regulations of the implementation plan. The implementation plan will be heard separately at public hearings locally for adoption prior to certification by the Coastal Commission. Ms. Temple added that they have agreed to concurrent processing. They clearly state that adopting a new categorical exclusion is an action separate from the certification. However, if they hold with the current position, a certification is only final when it is accepted by the City after the Coastal Commission sets down their final judgment on it. The City could decline to adopt the full certification and stay where we are at. Commissioner Kiser noted the following: • Policy 2.8.6 -8 and 2.8.6 -9 regarding requirement of property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection as a condition of approval of coastal development permit for new development. He expressed his concern about the property owners having limited coastal protection. • Policy 3.1.5 -2 regarding prohibition of new development with • guardhouses /enclosure gates and prescriptive rights. Recommended that a court should determine if such rights exist. • Policy 3.1.6 -1 and -2 regarding policy requiring a CDP to establish a preferential parking district in the coastal zone. He questioned whether a CDP was necessary. Discussion followed on existence of new development, shoreline protection, hazards, coastal access and requirements for coastal development permits. Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • Page 2 -5 regarding Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan regulations in the area - suggested minor word changes. • Page 2 -7 regarding 'wider range' verbiage to include resident - serving uses; • Page 2 -9 regarding Dunes and provision of lower cost uses and affect on the settlement agreement with the existing hotel; • Page 2 -10 regarding timing of the LCP certification and timing of the General Plan update with potential changes in land use . • Page 2 -14 regarding exclusions within gated communities Page 12 • • 0 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 auquaZwu uut 11Muu11Jy ucvanwNnic1n, Page 2 -25 regarding recreation and marine designations - would maintain the RMC designation preclude projects like Cannery Lofts; Page 3 -19 regarding private street issue; and Page 4 -71 regarding bluff development issues - asked for clarification on the distinction between altered and unaltered slopes. Discussion followed on dedicated visitor serving commercial land use designations and implementing zones; business opportunities, suggested language; local serving businesses, public access uses more viable on a year- around basis; land uses in settlement agreement proposed changes; deadlines for certifications of both the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan; level of development in gated communities; requirements of Coastal Development Permits at the City level; uses identified in Cannery Village; and bluff neighborhood alterations. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to March 18, 2004. Ayes: j Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Noes:1 Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - At the Council meeting at their last meeting introduced ordinance to allow elevator shafts to exceed the 25 square feet when required by Building and Fire codes; additionally, Councilmember Heffernan called up for a review a modification permit at 1807 Port Tiffin Place which will be heard Tuesday. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f Matters which a Planninn f nmmiccionPr may wish to nlarp on Page 13 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS • 0 E Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - no update. h. Project status - the draft EIR for St. Andrews will go into circulation next week and is expected to be heard by the Planning Commission in May. i. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker asked to be excused April 8th. ADJOURNMENT: 8:35 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 14