Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/2015 - Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, October 8, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER- The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Brown, Koetting, Kramer,Weigand ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler, Zak Staff Present: Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt; Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Planning Manager Patrick Alford; Associate Planner Makana Nova; Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez; Assistant Planner Jason Van Patten; Senior Planner Jaime Murillo; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 Recommended Action: Approve and file Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski noted suggested changes to the minutes were submitted by Mr. Jim Mosher and Chair Kramer and recommended incorporating these changes. Motion made by Vice Chair Brown and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 17, 2015, as amended. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Kramer,Weigand ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren Lawler, Zak VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 MILLER RESIDENCE GRADE ESTABLISHMENT APPEAL (PA2015-120) Site Location: 1608 West Ocean Front Community Development Director Kim Brandt and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski recused themselves from this Item, as they had a role in making the decision, turned over staff support to Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, and deferred to Associate Planner Makana Nova, for a report and departed the Chambers. Associate Planner Nova presented details of the staff report addressing background, location of the subject property, focus on grade elevation for the purpose of determining height, surrounding properties, Code Enforcement violations, existing block wall and grade conditions, staff-proposed grade elevations, grade elevations requested by the appellant, public comments submitted, findings, CEQA exemptions, alternative options, and staff recommendations. Discussion followed regarding clarifying that the Zoning District is R-2 (Two Unit Residential), the applicant's raising of the grade, and staff's determination relative to the LIDAR data. Page 1 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jeff Miller, applicant, and Walt Bushman, designer, provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing a history of correspondence with staff regarding the project, drawings provided, AIC corrections related to oceanfront properties currently under construction, and the Director's determinations and assessment of the property grade. Mr. Miller addressed the existing grade, similar grades of nearby properties and the benefits of the alternative options. He asked that the existing grade be reinstated, allowing the proposed design to move forward. In response to Secretary Koetting's question, Mr. Miller stated that he will design Plan Option B. Commissioner Koetting suggested moving forward with Plan A, but putting it on the original grade. Mr. Miller explained how it would not work well for his family. Associate Planner Nova reported that the design submitted by the appellant shows a full-level basement and it has a maximum slope to gain access into the garage area. In order to get three full levels, plus a roof deck with habitable floor area, structures on top would be higher than is typically granted for most properties. In further response to Secretary Koetting's question regarding clarification of the existing grade, Mr. Miller stated that the property was raised with added dirt, to cover an existing root system. Associate Planner Nova commented on the requirement for a topographic survey prior to any alteration of a site and that height is measured prior to any alteration of a site for construction. Commissioner Weigand inquired about the plants being buried in pots and Mr. Miller stated that was done because the inspector came by and the dirt had to be at a 45 degree slope. He stated there was no need for a permit in terms of what they did on the interior of the home, nor the dirt. Jim Mosher spoke in support of the Director's determination regarding the grade. He commented on the process and stated he was pleased to see that it was resolved and resulted in an appeal. However, he expressed concerns that had the matter been approved, no members of the public would know there was an appeal, possible. He commented on the Planning Department putting those administrative decisions on the City's website and noted this matter was not included in same. Walt Bushman noted that his client remodeled the existing house and that landscaping was part of that remodel. It wasn't until after, that he decided to rebuild the home. Additionally, he stated the code does not provide a timeline of when a survey must be done, to determine existing natural grade. The existing natural grade, was the higher landscaped grade. He asked when the grade is determined, when it is not defined in the code. Associate Planner Nova confirmed there is no date in the code, but, there is flexibility in the code, for the Director, if it is found that the site has been altered, to find elevations that are more appropriate with the topography of the area. That is what occurred in this instance. She suggested that applicants work with staff ahead of time, to establish the appropriate grade for purposes of height. Mr. Bushman reiterated that when he was brought into this project, he worked with the existing grade and stated that the Code is unclear and a "gray" area. Mr. Miller noted that the original intent when he purchased the property was to use it as a weekend home, but that changed as they enjoy spending time in Newport Beach and now want to make it their permanent home. He commented on other properties that are raised to the same elevation as his home or higher. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Page 2 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 Chair Kramer noted his agreement with the Community Development Director's determination and noted that the appellant's suggestions to utilize elevations following the artificial fill on the site, is contrary to the definition of established grade as identified in the Municipal Code. Additionally, he stated he cannot find granting a special privilege in this case as grades on adjacent properties are representative of the natural grade. Likewise, even with the denial, a house can be built and the owners can enjoy their property; it just needs to conform to the code. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Chair Kramer to adopt Resolution No. 1994 denying the appellant's Appeal to Planning Commission and upholding the Community Development Director's establishment of grade. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Kramer,Weigand ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler, Zak Community Development Director Brandt and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski re-entered the Chambers. As there were technical difficulties with the presentation for Item No. 3, Item No. 5 was considered at this time. ITEM NO. 3 TROESH RESIDENCE (PA2015-122) Site Location: 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive Assistant Planner Jason Van Patten presented the staff report including details of the applications, location, existing conditions, vehicular access, the proposed new dwelling, topography, Zoning Code requirements, setbacks, City standards for driveway design, and findings and recommendations. He noted that the City received correspondence from various members of the public, addressing circulation through La Jolla Drive, traffic and parking, and that the City Traffic Engineer and the project architect are available to answer questions at this time. Commissioner Weigand noted a phone conversation with Assistant Planner Van Patten and summarized their discussion regarding the subject property. He commented on parking issues and expressed concerns with construction traffic and parking. Additionally, he expressed concerns regarding emergency safety vehicle access. Assistant Planner Van Patten explained there is sufficient emergency access and there is no change to the existing access with the addition of the proposed dwelling. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine stated there is no history regarding the adjacent street being a one-way street. He added that aerial photographs show that consistently, people park on the south side of the street and there is little-to-no parking on the north side. Additionally residents of the area seem to police themselves in terms of driving and parking on the street. Red zones would not be implemented unless there is a request from the neighborhood. Discussion followed regarding maintaining a clear roadway as well as on-street parking. Chair Kramer noted the issues for consideration at this time. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Craig Smith, project architect, offered to respond to questions or concerns. In response to Commissioner Koetting's question, Assistant Planner Van Patten reported that the existing structure which is accessed from Catalina Drive will be a rental property. The property owner will live in the new unit. Page 3 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 John Ogburn, nearby resident, confirmed that residents self-police the neighborhood and have assigned parking spaces. He added that arrangements for parking are made for anyone planning on entertaining guests. In terms of fire vehicles, he reported that it is impossible for them to make a turn when parking is full. He commented on construction access from La Jolla Drive and expressed concerns regarding access to homes of other residents while construction vehicles are present. In that case, emergency vehicles would not be able to get through. He addressed the proposed retaining wall and stated he cannot understand how the project could move forward without adequate conditions for slippage on the property. He noted this is a new address and expressed concerns that the project, if approved, would set a precedent for neighboring lots. He added that red curbs would make it difficult for resident parking. He referenced a petition signed by community members on La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive and opposed accessing the new residence from La Jolla Drive. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of making the project work, depending on design, similar conditions of other properties in the area, the evolution of the neighborhood from summer homes to permanent homes, children's play houses, interactions with the applicant, and existing properties that currently have driveways. Chair Kramer noted that the zoning is R-2, which makes it legitimate for a property owner to have two units on a property. Assistant Planner Van Patten noted that the property abuts two public streets and access can be from either side. The City can assign an address that applies to the front-facing house. Chair Kramer reported that the property provides a unique circumstance and allows for different access. They may have two different addresses, one on La Jolla Drive and the other on Catalina Drive. Jim Young spoke in opposition to the project creating access from La Jolla Drive. He referenced his written comments and asked whether an R-2 lot may have two different addresses. He expressed concern that there is a double standard and asked that the Commission not encroach on La Jolla Drive with five more driveways. Gavin Sacks, adjacent property owner, commented on the narrow streets and the character of that particular area. He added there are always cars parked on the south side of La Jolla and related an incident where his son almost got run over by a utility vehicle. He noted it is extremely narrow and that there is not enough buffer area for people to walk safety. He addressed existing mature trees and referenced the Zoning Code in terms of the Planning Commission's purview in ensuring that plans are kept in character with the neighborhood. He commented on the average square footage of houses in the area, and opined that it is in everyone's best interest to determine that the proposed project does not conform to the unique character of the neighborhood. Bill Anderson spoke in opposition to the project and felt that it would change the character of the neighborhood, dramatically. He commented on La Jolla being a one-way street and asked the Commission to consider this matter, carefully and with common sense. Mr. Ogburn invited the Commission to walk the street on a Sunday afternoon to see how tight and narrow the street is. He reiterated concerns with access for emergency vehicles. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Koetting commented on the square footage limit and Assistant Planner Van Patten addressed the City's calculation for maximum floor area. Additionally, he reported on review of the plans by the Building Division. City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated that the City would not propose red curbs on one side of the street and it is not something that neighbors would want because there would be a loss of on street-parking. Vice Chair Brown commented on the unique character of the neighborhood and suggested adding a Condition of Approval that construction vehicles would have to park off-site. Page 4 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 Chair Kramer indicated he is not satisfied with the amount of data that has been presented, in order to make a decision. He requested continuing this item to allow staff to gather more facts. He added there are too many unanswered questions and noted residents'concerns. Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres suggested continuing the matter to a date certain and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski suggested scheduling for November 5, 2015. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 2015. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Kramer,Weigand ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler, Zak RECESS AND RECONVENE Chair Kramer called for a recess at 8:21 p.m. Chair Kramer reconvened the meeting at 8:26 p.m. with all Members present, except Commissioners Hillgren, Lawler and Zak. ITEM NO.4 VERIZON MONOEUCALYPTUS TREE (PA2015-128) Site Location: 23 Corporate Plaza Associate Planner Makana Nova provided details of the staff report addressing the proposed telecommunications facility, project site, surrounding properties, site plan, location of the monopole and additional eucalyptus trees to be planted, as well as the location of support equipment, screening, the antenna plan, height of the facility and height limit, one-carrier design, mesh screening and climbing vines, materials, other telecomm facilities in the area, and increased data capacity resulting from the project. She addressed CEQA exemptions, findings and staff's recommendation for approval of the proposed facility. Vice Chair Brown inquired about Condition No. 23 and Associate Planner Nova stated that the site can only hold one carrier and suggested that the condition is not applicable and should be deleted. Secretary Koetting asked regarding the adequacy of the trash enclosures and Associate Planner Nova reported that the project meets the code requirements in terms of trash area to serve the surrounding buildings. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher commented on the applicant and the possibility of having two parallel applications going through. He expressed concern with Verizon having two sites, close together, and wondered why they are not using the rooftop at a nearby building. He referenced his written comments and recent approvals of other Verizon sites in terms of antenna heights. Additionally, he commented on the materials board and on the importance of Condition No. 12. Jim Warren, nearby resident, expressed concern regarding the height of eucalyptus trees along Coast Highway and with the loss of views of the Harbor. He asked that the Planning Commission continue this matter until further information can be provided so those affected may participate in the process. Additionally, he expressed concerns regarding decreased property values because of the loss of views. Jim Heinrich, representative for the project applicant, Verizon Wireless, addressed the subject and other sites and reported that the proposed site fits best in their network. He indicated that the proposed project meets the City's height standards and that the facility will stay at 32 feet. He addressed maintenance and upkeep and Associate Planner Nova noted that Condition No. 11 addresses maintenance. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Page 5 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 Brief discussion followed regarding the height of surrounding buildings and it was noted that the facility does not inhibit views. Associate Planner Nova noted that the item was properly noticed. Secretary Koetting felt that two 36-inch box trees will be too large and grow too quickly in this location and suggested three 24-inch or four 15 gallon trees. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Vice Chair Brown to adopt Resolution No. 1995 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-033, modifying the sizes of the eucalyptus trees to be planted, to three 24 inch box trees or four 15 gallon trees, and deletion of Condition No. 23. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Kramer,Weigand ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler, Zak ITEM NO. 5 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (PA2013-001) Site Location: Coastal Zone Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford provided the staff report addressing background, prior review and consideration of the plan, necessary staffing and public participation and outreach efforts. Chair Kramer commended Planning Program Manager Alford for his work and efforts on the plan. In reply to Secretary Koetting's request, Planning Program Manager Alford provided a brief overview of the benefits of the plan, including its basic goals. He added that if approved by the Commission at this time, it will be presented to City Council on November 10th and addressed next steps. City Consultant Don Schmitz offered to respond to questions from the Commission and provided a history of the LCP and efforts by communities to take back local control. He hoped that the process will be finalized by mid-2016. In response to Chair Kramer's question, he addressed potential obstacles, going forward, in terms of the Coastal Commission. Planning Program Manager Alford stated that if modifications are made by the Coastal Commission, the matter will return to Council for consideration. If Council rejects the proposed modifications, the process would need to start over. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Philip Bettencourt commended Planning Program Manager Alford and staff for their work on this project. He wished everyone well in the next steps with the Coastal Commission. Jim Mosher commented on the size of the document and about its availability to the public. He stated that the community was only presented a summary of the document and expressed concerns regarding the lack of detailed comments, the lack of public oversight and the process. Planning Program Manager Alford commented on the amount of oversight, public outreach and details provided at various study sessions and meetings. Significant changes and deviations from current regulations were thoroughly vetted and listed policies in the Coastal Act that have been included in the plan. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Brown commended Planning Program Manager Alford and staff and commented on the process, including public outreach. He stated that he is confident that the document is strong and what it needs to be and noted the importance of the document for the City. He spoke in support of the process as well as the plan. Page 6 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 In response to Commissioner Weigand's question regarding how any potential errors could be rectified, Chair Kramer stated errors could be modified. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Vice Chair Brown to adopt Resolution No. 1996 recommending City Council approval of Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Kramer,Weigand ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler, Zak The Commission considered Item No. 3 at this time. VIII. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 6 NEWPORT CENTER VILLAS STUDY SESSION (PA2014-213) Site Location: 150 Newport Center Drive Dennis O'Neil, representing Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC, property owners and project developers, introduced the team, Matt McClarren, MVE Architect, and Mike Ijams, Fuscoe Engineering. He reported that since the agenda was printed, the applicant has agreed to submit a Development Agreement which should be part of the record. Matt McClarren, MVE Architect, provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing location, details of the proposed project, unit mix, project benefits in terms of traffic reduction, public benefits, bulk, height and building mass, architectural design and materials, reducing building height, setbacks, the need for dignified housing for seniors, demand for this type of housing, elevators, community-oriented programming, amenities and roof plan. In response to Secretary Koetting's inquiry, Mr. McClarren addressed the proposed building heights and commented on the number of stories in the building. Mike Ijams, Fuscoe Engineering, presented view simulations from local residents' homes to illustrate visual impacts of the project. Discussion followed regarding why they chose the specific locations for view simulations. Mr. Ijams reported that the building does not obstruct water views or break the horizon line and provided photos of views from Fashion Island. Associate Planner Makana Nova, stressed that Fashion Island is a commercial private property that does not provide public views. She then addressed the applications proposed with this planning request. She discussed adjacent properties, site circulation for valet, visitors, and residents, ingress/egress easement, proposed development standards, building setbacks, parking spaces, elevations, height limits in the vicinity, non-conforming buildings structures in the area, public vantage points, and view corridors in the area, various viewpoints, grade and roof elevations, and the residential supply policy in the General Plan. Additionally, she commented on the Section 423 (Green Light analysis), prior amendments to the statistical areas, terms of the Development Agreement, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). She reported that the public hearing for this item is scheduled for October 22nd and has been noticed, appropriately. Chair Kramer commented on that the project is quite complicated project and the amount of intensity requested for the one acre parcel is substantial along with the entitlements requests for various amendments including the general plan, zoning code, and a variance to the planned community development text.. He commented positively on the handsome building design and perceived demand for new residential units in Newport Center. However, Chair Kramer and expressed serious concerns with the adequacy of the MND. Chair Kramer opened public comments on this item. Page 7 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 Ken Jaggers commented on the magnitude of the project and felt it is not in keeping with the character of the community. He reported that residents voted against commercial development or high-rises in the area and questioned continuing a non-compliant building. He asked that the Planning Commission listen to the voters and deny the project. Jim Place commented on the most recent election where four of the City's Council Members were voted out and the defeat of Measure Y. He urged the Planning Commission to deny this application, noting this is of no value to the City. Jean Watt, SPON, referenced written comments and agreed with Chair Kramer's comments regarding the requested intensity, the change in zoning and the inappropriate use of the MND. She took issue with the Planned Community Development Plan for the size of the property. Jim Mosher referenced correspondence about the adequacy of the MND and commented on impacts to private and public views. He expressed concern that the General Plan has not been updated to show new view locations such as the Civic Center Park Bridge. Additionally, he commented on the number of planned communities in the City stressing that they are supposed to be thoughtfully planned, whereas the subject project does not look to be a planned community. Jim Warren opined that the presenters only presented part of the proposed project, referenced written comments he submitted and a meeting with the developer where a request was made for them to provide night view simulations. He expressed concerns with the effect on private views and hoped that the Planning Commission will consider this matter, carefully. Chair Kramer closed public comments. Discussion followed regarding traffic patterns on Anacapa, existing curb cuts, the traffic analysis done based on the existing development and addressing affordable housing. Associate Planner Nova reported that affordable housing units are not proposed with this project. Discussion followed regarding the car wash hours, requirement for the Development Agreement, addressing comments from the public and public concerns regarding the project. Secretary Koetting asked that staff focus on height, bulk, setbacks, and signage. He felt that time is needed to review this matter, carefully, and that it needs additional analysis. Chair Kramer agreed and reiterated that the MND is inadequate. He asked that staff work with the applicant to prepare the correct CEQA document, a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project as there are too many unanswered questions in the MND and a project of this nature should have been an EIR to begin with. He noted there is a whole host of different issues that need to be properly studied within the framework of an EIR. Vice Chair Brown concurred and noted there is a lot of public angst over this project. He commented on the Commission's obligation to ensure that the public is well informed and agreed with the need to do further analysis and take time considering the project. Chair Kramer indicated that the analysis can be accomplished through the focused EIR. Associate Planner Nova stated that staff will take the Commission's comments into consideration and respond to public communication received. Chair Kramer suggested having a few more days to absorb the information stated that this project would not be ready for the scheduled October 22 hearing given the Commission's direction to staff regarding the preparation of a revised CEQA document. Page 8 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 Commissioner Weigand noted the benefits of having the full Commission review this project. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski encouraged the Commission to email staff with additional requests in terms of items needing consideration. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on City Council Items Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski provided an update of upcoming City Council items for consideration. She provided an update on the Council's review of Woody's Wharf and reported that the Coastal Commission recently approved Lido House Hotel project and provided hope for the Banning Ranch project. She commented on a new Granicus system which will be implemented by the City, soon. Discussion followed regarding the Coastal Commission direction regarding Banning Ranch, guidance provided by the Coastal Commission and visitor-serving uses. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski addressed items included in the Commission's tentative agenda including two appeals. At Chair Kramer's request, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski commented on Zoning Administrator items for review. ITEM NO.9 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Commissioner Koetting requested a discussion regarding tenants who paint their buildings. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported those types of improvements do not require permits or review. Commissioner Koetting stated he would like to consider the matter and Chair Kramer agreed. ITEM NO. 10 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Koetting requested an excused absence for the Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 2015. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 2015. Page 9 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, October 2, at 1:35 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on Friday, October 2, at 1:05 p.m. 'K4y Kr e)A4*?0z— PferY<oetting, Chair ecretary Page 10 of 10