Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/23/2016 - Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers - 100 Civic Center Drive THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Tim Brown, Secretary Peter Koetting, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren Commissioner Ray Lawler, Commissioner Erik Weigand, Commissioner Peter Zak Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; Senior Civil Engineer David Keely; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Associate Planner Rosalyn Ung; Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez; Associate Planner Makana Nova;Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher questioned the removal of the item regarding the Planning Commission discussion of televising its meetings. He stated the Planning Commission has previously offered recommendations to the City Council on policy-related issues and he requested the Commission discuss the matter. He thanked Vice Chair Brown for his service on the Commission. Chair Kramer stated he had called for the item to discuss videotaping meetings to be placed on the agenda and requested it be removed because it was not ready. He thanked Vice Chair Brown for his service on the Commission. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES—None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JUNE 9,2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Kramer expressed concern that the motion related to Items 2 —4 did not accurately reflect Commissioner Zak's suggestion that the annual encroachment fee seemed inadequate for use of the right of way. Further, the Council had taken action with incomplete information. In response to Chair Kramer, Deputy Director Wisneski stated the minutes could be corrected. Assistant City Attorney Torres explained that the decision of the City Council was sound and based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. Deputy Director Wisneski reminded the Commission that the Council followed Policy L-21 regarding the encroachment permit. Chair Kramer requested the minutes be corrected and a memo be prepared to the City Council explaining the error in conveyance. Secretary Koetting asked if a motion for reconsideration was necessary. Chair Kramer stated it would be too difficult and past the time frame. Commissioner Zak requested the memo be provided to the Council prior to its approval becoming effective. Deputy Director Wisneski explained that the encroachment permit was effective immediately following the Council's action which was taken on June 14, 2016 but the permit was reviewed annually. It was noted that written corrections to the minutes were submitted by Chair Kramer, Staff and Jim Mosher. 1 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/23/16 Motion made by Secretary Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 2016, as amended. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand, Zak ABSTAIN: Brown, Hillgren ABSENT: None VII, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO,2 THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE (PA2014.150) Site Location: West of MacArthur Boulevard and is bounded by Corinthian Way, Martingale Way, Dove Street&Scott Drive (1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale Way, 4200, 4220, &4250 Scott Drive) Deputy Director Wisneski presented the staff report. There were no public comments. Chair Kramer stated the parcel needed to be redeveloped in the correct manner. He explained the reasons for denial. He clarified that the resolution was a denial without prejudice, therefore allowing the applicant to resubmit a project in better conformance with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Secretary Koetting asked when the applicant had to resubmit. Deputy Director Wisneski stated there was not a timeline. Commissioner Lawler stated there was a general sense that if a development agreement is included and the half acre open space for public use is provided, the Commission might more favorably review the application. He suggested more retail component be added to the first floor of the development. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to adopt Resolution No. 2019 denying the project. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand, Zak ABSTAIN: Brown, Hillgren ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 3 LIDO HOUSE HOTEL FLOOR AREA EXPANSION (PA2016-061) Site Location: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Northeast corner of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street Principal Planner Campbell presented the staff report. He requested elimination of Finding I and correction to typographical errors as presented by Mr. Mosher. In response to Ms. Skinner's letter, he stated the Charter Section 423 analysis was performed correctly and, if the project is approved, there would be no vote of the electorate required. Chair Kramer stated the request was minor but the process was major. In response to Chair Kramer, Principal Planner Campbell stated the entitlements in the General Plan were set on gross square footage. He explained that the General Plan would need to be amended to increase the entitlement to allow for additional floor area. He stated the only other option was to transfer square footage from one property to another. Chair Kramer questioned why gross square footage included areas between walls. Commissioner Zak asked if gross square footage was defined in the Municipal Code. Principal Planner Campbell stated it was defined and staff and the architect had worked on Page 2 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/23/16 the square footage including allowed exclusions of area and had appropriately applied the definition and General Plan. Chair Kramer asked why the Commission is being asked to approve additional square footage on a project that is already under construction. Principal Planner Campbell stated the applicant had determined additional space was needed in order for the hotel to function properly. In response to Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell explained the plan presented showed the changes since the conceptual approval and the locations of the requested added floor area. Tony Wrzosek, Vice President of Planning for RD Olson, presented an overview of the proposed 4-Diamond resort. He stated the refinements and improvements of interior design provided a superior product and service to the visitors. He requested approval of the proposed additional floor area for Lido House Hotel. Commissioner Hillgren asked who would be managing the hotel. Mr. Wrzosek stated the proposed brand was an Autograph Collection hotel. Commissioner Hillgren wanted to ensure he did not have a conflict. Chair Kramer stated Autograph Collection was a Marriott product. Greg Villegas stated 90% of the area was underroof. Secretary Koetting questioned why the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Villegas stated the project was approved with a cap to the square footage. Mr. Wrzosek stated some cities allowed increased square footage based on substantial conformance. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher questioned why the matter was before the Commission, rather than the developer staying within the limit. He stated the initial entitlement was not clear since the City Hall entitlement had been moved. He stated the matter should have had a Greenlight vote in 2014. He discussed Ms. Skinner's proposal to give up development in Gateway Park. He stated the conditional use permit numbers needed to be clarified and it should be explained that the new permit superseded the old permit. George Schroeder suggested a 5% allowance. He questioned why the developer would want to go back before the Coastal Commission. He urged the Commission to approve the request. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Zak clarified that the property was ground leased to the hotel. Principal Planner Campbell stated lease payments were due once the hotel was operating. Commissioner Zak expressed concern about delays in the process and income to the City. Principal Planner Campbell stated the project would be submitted to the Coastal Commission, with hopes of potential modifications occurring during construction while not delaying the opening. He stated the applicant was prepared to begin construction and then add on after opening if the request is delayed at the Coastal Commission. Commissioner Zak expressed concern about delays in the City receiving ground lease payments. Principal Planner Campbell stated the goal was to obtain Coastal Commission approval as quickly as possible. Page 3 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/23/16 In response to Secretary Koetting, Principal Planner Campbell stated the Coastal Commission approval on the additional square footage is required. Deputy Director Wisneski confirmed that to be correct. Commissioner Weigand asked what revenue the City would receive. Principal Planner Campbell explained the base rent, percentage of sales and transient occupancy taxes. Commissioner Weigand suggested an additional condition of approval prohibiting the hotel operator from offering discounted room rates for City employees and/or City officials. Secretary Koetting questioned whether it was within the Planning Commission's prerogative. Chair Kramer suggested it be considered as an amendment to the ground lease if the Council so determined. Commissioner Weigand stated the additional condition was warranted and appropriate. Commissioner Zak suggested a condition of approval to ensure the project moved forward without delay if the addition was not approved. Deputy Director Wisneski stated the lease required operation within a certain timeframe. In response to Chair Kramer, Principal Planner Campbell explained that trip generation was based on hotel rooms and the additional square footage would not impact traffic. Chair Kramer stated additional employees could increase traffic. Principal Planner Campbell stated the number of employees was not conditioned and additional employees would not impact traffic. He stated the project was hundreds of trips less than the former City Hall. Secretary Koetting asked the timeline for opening. Mr. Wrzosek stated the goal was to open in Summer 2017. Secretary Koetting asked the timeline for Coastal Commission approval. Mr. Wrzosek anticipated the project being reviewed in November or December. He stated the full Commission would review the application. Chair Kramer stated that the applicant should have built in a square foot contingency to allow for modifications during the construction document phase of design or base approvals on net not gross square footage. He stated it was unfortunate for the applicant and the City. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2020 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2016-001, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2016-001, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2016-003, Site Development Review No. SD2016-005, and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-015. Principal Planner Campbell clarified that the motion included removal of Finding I and correction of typographical errors.The maker and seconder of the motion confirmed. Alternate Motion made by Commissioner Weigand to add a condition of approval prohibiting the hotel operator from offering discounted room rates for City employees and/or officials. Commissioner Hillgren appreciated the thought but felt the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)covered the concern. Commissioner Weigand stated the FPPC did not cover all aspects. The motion died due to lack of a second. Page 4 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/23/16 AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Koetting, Lawler,Weigand, Zak ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS Chair Kramer called a recess at 7:27 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:34 p.m, with all Commissioners present. VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM NO.4 NEWPORT CENTER VILLAS STUDY SESSION (PA2014-213) Site Location: 150 Newport Center Drive Summary: Associate Planner Nova provided a brief overview of the project, background, and study session discussion. Chair Kramer stated no action would be taken by the Planning Commission since the meeting is only a study session. Mike Lutton, representing the applicant, provided an overview of his development history in the community. He explained that they purchased the property with the goal to build quality residential. He discussed the goals of the ownership in acquiring and designing a residential project as high quality urban infill for this location. Carl McLarand, MVE Architects, presented a PowerPoint presentation. He discussed the intent for senior housing. He stated the project was designed to accommodate the needs of existing residents in Newport Beach. He discussed the location of the project and amenities within a five-minute radius. He presented views of the existing car wash and proposed project as constructed. He reviewed the design of the project including garages, materials, building height, site plan, landscaping, parking, building articulations, floor plans, ingress and egress, valet parking, and building services and amenities. He discussed traffic count reductions and water savings from the project and the proposed financial contribution. He stated the project would not impact any views. Associate Planner Nova summarized the application, Environmental Impact Report (EIR), site plan, planned community, density, elevations, and General Plan policies regarding development scale and impacts to public views. She outlined the public review period of the draft EIR and reviewed the EIR alternatives. She presented the proposed traffic counts, water and wastewater use and Airport Land Use Commission requirements and outlined the next steps. Shawn Nevill, EIR Consultant, reiterated that the project was currently in the public review and comment period, ending on June 27, 2016. He explained preparation of the Final EIR report, to be considered for adoption by the Planning Commission. He explained the purpose of the public review period and encouraged forthcoming comments to focus on the physical aspects of the project discussed in the draft EIR. Chair Kramer again stated the item was a study session and no action would be taken. He stated the building was stunning in in architecture and he favored residential in Newport Center but questioned whether it was the appropriate location for such proposed insensity. He inquired with staff about their suggested approach to interpret the applicable General Plan, Zoning, and Planned Community policies and reconcile the proposed building height increase for this location. Associate Planner Nova suggested the Commission consider existing height limits as well aS existing building heights and whether the proposed project height was appropriate based on nearby development and height limits. Chair Kramer questioned staff's direction to the applicant to allow the project to proceed at the proposed height. Deputy Director Wisneski stated staff had not concluded its analysis of the required findings. She stated the purpose of the study session was to hear the Page 5 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/23/16 Commission's concerns to provide additional information. Chair Kramer discussed recent projects in which staff had seemingly led the applicant down a path to the detriment of the applicant. Deputy Director Wisneski explained staff's role to process applications, review for compliance with policies, and express concerns but not prohibit the applicant from proceeding through the process. Secretary Koetting stated Block 100 has two different heights and proposes a third height limit. Associate Planner Nova discussed the heights in the block and immediately adjacent blocks. Chair Kramer asked why Block 100 had different heights. Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez confirmed that it was initially all one height until the middle portion of Block 100 was incorporated into the North Newport Center Planned Community and the height was raised to 50 feet with 10 feet for mechanical appurtenances. Chair Kramer stated the applicant was requesting 75 feet which was more than the current allowable heights in Block 100. He expressed concern about increasing heights in Block 100 and the fairness of differing heights in Block 100. Commissioner Lawler asked for information on the requested waiver of the Planned Community Development Plan and Mr. Mosher's comments. Associate Planner Nova discussed the process for waiving the minimum 10-acre requirement for a planned community. Chair Kramer discussed the Planned Community waiver and questioned the findings. Associate Planner Nova stated there were no required findings and the Council could waive the requirement if it found it to be appropriate. Deputy Director Wisneski provided examples of where the Planning Commission approved and denied reduced acreage and planned communities. Chair Kramer stated there were no similar planned communities in Newport Center. Commissioner Lawler questioned on what basis the Commission would grant the reduction and requested staff to respond to Mr. Mosher's comments. Associate Planner Nova stated the findings would be addressed in the staff report to the Commission prior to the public hearing. In response to Secretary Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski stated height and land use change would be addressed in the EIR. Secretary Koetting stated Block 200 and 300 allowed 32 feet heights. He stated most buildings were predominately below 40 feet. Associate Planner Nova also clarified that the existing Edward's Cinemas and 260 Newport Center Drive buildings currently exceed the height limit for Block 200. In response to Commissioner Zak, Associate Planner Nova stated the Commission expressed concern with some of the MND comments and inadequacies identified in the MND at the previous study session. The height was discussed as well. Commissioner Zak stated it appeared as if Blocks 100, 200 and 300 had similar heights and precedence had been set to allow increased heights. He reemphasized Commissioner Lawler's concern regarding the waiver and requested information regarding criteria for waiving the Planned Community acreage. He asked if the building pad would be elevated. Associate Planner Nova stated the pad was at average elevation of 164. Mr. Lutton stated the applicant did not plan on elevating the pad. In response to Commissioner Zak, Senior Planner Ramirez discussed senior housing and stated the project was not requesting senior accessory dwelling unit regulations. Commissioner Zak stated he understood the project was not being proposed as senior housing. Secretary Koetting asked about setback variances and asked for a comparison of proposed setbacks with the regular standards of the Zoning Code, Associate Planner Nova stated the shape of the lot created difficulty in applying the setbacks typical of the RM (multi-family residential) zone. She stated the proposed setbacks are based on the building orientation Page 6 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/23/16 with the street frontage. She stated the building footprint was setback and had a podium design to address the site grade. Secretary Koetting requested setbacks be reviewed. He expressed concern regarding ingress and egress and asked if traffic engineering had been conducted. He stated internal site traffic analysis on ingress and egress was necessary. He asked the location of the 60-foot easement. Mr. Lutton stated the easement occurs to the south and is shared with the Irvine Company. Secretary Koetting requested explanation of the lower office building cross section. Mr. Lutton stated it was a community lot shared with the other office buildings and part of the Irvine Company lot. Secretary Koetting questioned the material size for landscaping. He asked if the porte-cochere setback required a deviation from the RM standards. Mr. Lutton explained the building height and indicated views were not impacted. Commissioner Hillgren stated there was general consensus that it was a handsome project but appropriate density needed to be considered. He suggested discussing precedent setting for height. He stated the Commission should consider the allocation of residential units. He stated planning review of the immediate area and impact on Fashion Island would be helpful. Commissioner Weigand asked if the Irvine Company's letter regarding ingress and egress had been addressed. Mr. Lutton stated the applicant had worked with the Irvine Company on moving vans. Commissioner Weigand questioned the guest parking. Mr. Lutton stated there was an abundance of parking, in excess of the required. Commissioner Weigand asked if handicapped parking was included. Mr. McLarand explained ADA spaces. Associate Planner Nova stated there were 26 visitor spaces where 25 are required. Commissioner Weigand asked about charging stations. Mr. McLarand stated charging stations would be located in individual garages. Associate Planner Nova stated the standard parking requirement was met. Mr. McLarand explained the setbacks. In response to Secretary Koetting, Mr. McLarand discussed efforts to create pedestrian scale. He explained why seven stories and 49 units were proposed. He stated they worked diligently on height. Mr. Lutton explained that the proposed height did not block views and fit the site. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. Lutton stated 49 was the right number of units. Commissioner Hillgren stated it was difficult to tell without floor plans. Associate Planner Nova stated floor plans were available in the staff report. Mr. Lutton stated there were detailed plans for staging and truck trips. Associate Planner Nova stated the EIR contemplated staging and parking. Greg Sadick and Dimitri Angelakis, Snyder Langston, stated the construction management plan addressed access and staging. In response to Secretary Koetting, Mr. Angelakis explained the haul routes and truck staging. Associate Planner Nova stated the diagram would be presented at the hearing. Chair Kramer opened public comment. Ron Schwartz, owner of 202 Newport Center Drive, indicated opposition to the proposed project and discussed the impact on his restaurant. He discussed maintenance and delivery to the surrounding properties and impact on the proposed residences. He stated his ocean view corridor would be blocked. He stated the car wash was not a blight and was profitable. Jim Mosher clarified that the middle portion of Block 100 wadded to the North Newport Center planned community in October 2009. He stated residential was not permitted. He discussed the need to build housing and questioned if the City got credit for the development. He discussed housing allocated for the Newport Center in 2006. Page 7 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/23/16 Chair Kramer discussed supply and a strong demand for housing in the market, which spurs development. Mike Glenn stated it appeared to be out of the scope of Greenlight. Deputy Director Wisneski stated there were 100 units remaining and the City Council was the decision maker on whether a vote was required. She stated a General Plan amendment was not required for the transfer of development rights that occurred to authorize the development of dwelling units associated with the San Joaquin Plaza apartments. Enrique Gonzalez expressed concern about the cumulative impact of approved developments. He stated growth was excessive. Lorian Petry commended the Commission and staff. She expressed concern with height and setback. She urged the Commission to came up with the best plan for the residents. Chair Kramer closed public comments. Mr. Lutton stated the same blockage of the Mr. Schwartz' view would occur with a two story building. He stated State law requires HOA disclosures to address potential noise between residential and commercial uses between surrounding properties. Mr. McLarand thanked the Commission for their questions and comments and reiterated the positive and unique impacts of the project on the City's infrastructure on traffic counts, water use, and housing demand. Chair Kramer discussed the importance of thoroughly vetting the issues, even if it delayed the project. No action was taken. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—None. ITEM NO. 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Deputy Director Wisneski updated the City's progress in working with the Coastal Commission on the Plan and hopes to have the matter heard by the Coastal Commission in August. 2. Update on City Council Items Deputy Director Wisneski stated the La Jolla project would be back to the Commission on July 11, 2016. In response to Secretary Koetting, Deputy Director Wisneski stated the Museum House project was scheduled for an August 4, 2016 study session pending the release of the EIR. ITEM NO. 7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT—None. ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Zak requested an excused absence on July 21, 2016. Page 8 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6/23/16 X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 2016. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, June 17, 2016, at 1:00 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, June 17, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. (orZymiChair eter Zak, Secretar Page 9 of 9