Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_12-08-2016 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 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 Peter Koetting, Secretary Peter Zak, Commissioner Bill Dunlap and Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Ray Lawler Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager; Planning Technician David Lee; Senior Planner Jaime Murillo; Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle; and Administrative Support Technician Patricia Bynum IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 4/ V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Director Wisneski announced the applicant for the Villas at Fashion Island, Item Number 4, requested a continuance to a date uncertain. Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Chair Kramer to continue Item Number 4 to a date uncertain. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 17, 2016,as amended. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Zak ABSENT: Lawler, Hillgren VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 DAVIS MODIFICATION PERMIT (PA2016-180) Site Location: 2912 Broad Street Planning Technician Lee reported the subject property was located in the Newport Heights neighborhood, between Santa Ana Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue. The existing residence was constructed in 1936. 1 of 6 Zoning was single-unit residential, R-1, and the General Plan designation was single-unit residential, detached. The property was surrounded by other single-family residences. The existing residence was nonconforming due to a 1-foot 2-inch encroachment into the side setback. The detached garage was nonconforming due to substandard interior parking dimensions and full encroachments into the rear and side setbacks. Required setbacks for the site were 20 feet for the front, 4 feet for the sides and 5 feet for the rear. Interior dimensions of the garage were 15 feet 6 inches wide by 17 feet 6 inches deep, while the Zoning Code required 20 feet by 20 feet. Another issue was the lack of access to the garage from the alley. The applicant proposed demolishing the existing garage and replacing it with a two-car garage measuring 20 feet by 20 feet to be Code compliant and adding a new master bedroom and kitchen. The addition would measure a total of 1,116 square feet, a 68 percent addition to the property. The Zoning Code allowed an addition to exceed 50 percent to a maximum of 75 percent with a Modification Permit reviewed by the Planning Commission. The nonconforming wall on the right side of the house would remain. The proposed garage would comply with interior dimensions, not encroach into the setbacks, and allow access from the alley. Height and floor area would continue to comply with Development Standards. The proposed project would retain the traditional character of the home. Relocating the encroaching wall would lead to complete demolition of the structure. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution approving the Modification Permit. Anders Lasater, on behalf of the applicant, advised that the intention of the remodel was to maintain and preserve as much of the vintage structure as possible. The existing house lacked adequate ground-floor living space and a compliant two-car garage. The applicant's representative met with City staff to refine a proposal for the project site. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Mr.Lasater explained that access to the garage would be through the alley at the rear of the property with a 10-foot driveway between the alley and the garage. The current driveway extended from the front of the property to the garage at the rear of the property. The gate on Broad Street would remain, but the curb cut would be removed. The pepper tree in the front yard would remain. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's question, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated staff had not researched the setbacks imposed in 1936, when the house was built. The setbacks of 1936 appeared to be similar to current setbacks. Commissioner Dunlap noted an issue of fences being improperly placed in the Newport Heights neighborhood. Commissioners reported they had had no ex parte communications with the applicant. Vice Chair Koetting opened and closed the public hearing with no public comment. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2040approving Modification Permit No. MD2016-016. Commissioner Weigand thanked the applicant for the good project. Vice Chair Koetting commended the applicant for maintaining the character of the existing house and hoped the applicant could reuse the siding from the old barn. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Zak, Dunlap,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler ITEM NO.3 JAN'S HEALTH BAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(PA2016-141) Site Location: 3021 E. Coast Highway#A Assistant Planner Crager reported the property was located in Corona del Mar and shared a parking lot with a grocery store. Other uses in the center included two restaurants, a retail store, dry cleaners, and a fitness facility. The subject space was previously occupied by a bank. The property was located in the Corridor 2of6 Commercial zoning district and was surrounded by both commercial and residential zoning districts and uses. Establishment of the restaurant required approval of a Minor Use Permit due to its proximity to residential zones. The restaurant also required a parking waiver of four spaces to accommodate 410 square feet of net public area. Onsite parking was legal nonconforming with four existing waivers on the property. Seventy-one shared parking spaces were located onsite. The restaurant would be located in a 1,243-square-foot space with 410 square feet of net public area and up to eight employees onsite at one given time. The applicant proposed no alcohol service, late hours or outdoor dining. The floor plan consisted of an order counter, restrooms and a dining area. The proposed restaurant required parking at a rate of 1 space per 50 square feet of net public area due to the quick service and take-out operating characteristics of the business. A parking count performed in August 2016 showed two vacant spaces in the center, parking on surrounding streets, and the peak parking demand time as midday. The parking count did not include the municipal lot on Bayside Drive. Staff included a condition of approval for the applicant to purchase for employees annual parking permits at the municipal lot. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to conditions of approval. Poppy Holguin, applicant, related the history of Jan's Health Bar. The restaurant serves healthy, fresh food in a simple manner. This location would be her fourth restaurant. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Ms. Holguin explained that 70 percent of her business was takeout. The lack of sufficient parking at her other locations had not been a Fe rrent to customers. The restaurant would complement the surrounding businesses. At the three other locs, employees parked offsite. She would purchase parking permits for employees. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Assistant Planner Crager confirmed that a condition of approval requires the applicant to purchase parking permits prior to obtaining a building permit. Staff could check annually to ensure the applicant purchased parking permits. In the case of complaints or Code enforcement issues,staff would verify that the applicant purchased parking permits. Commissioner Dunlap was aware of the restaurant and hoped the restaurant would be successful. Parking was an issue;therefore, employee parking in the municipal lot was imperative. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Assistant Planner Crager advised that staff had a list of parking spaces that had been committed in the municipal lot but did not have an exact number. Staff had observed the lot and determined that it was not fully utilized at all times. Commissioners reported they had had no ex parte communications with the applicant. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. In reply to Jim Mosher's question, Assistant Planner Crager explained that each parking permit would be assigned to a specific car; therefore, each employee would need his own parking permit. If an employee stopped working at the restaurant prior to expiration of his permit, then his permit could be transferred to another employee. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to adopt Resolution No. approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-037. AYES: Kramer, Koetting,Zak, Dunlap,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler ITEM NO. 4 THE VILLAS AT FASHION ISLAND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(PA2016-179) Site Location: 4200 and 7120 San Joaquin Plaza This item was continued. 3of6 VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEM NO. 5 NEWPORT BEACH SUSTAINABILITY PLAN (PA2016-120) Site Location: Citywide Deputy Director Wisneski advised that the purpose of this item was for the Commission to provide comments and feedback to the City Council before the Council reviewed the Sustainability Plan. Vice Chair Koetting requested staff review the background of the Sustainability Plan for Secretary Zak who was not present when it was presented the previous month. Deputy Director Wisneski reported the Sustainability Plan was developed by a group of citizens and presented to the City Council as a starting point for the community to demonstrate its commitment to sustainability. The Plan identified ideas that were mainly focused on City operations. The staff report included a matrix of concepts contained in the Plan. Many of those concepts had already been implemented. If adopted, the Council would determine how the Plan would be implemented. Potential actions from a planning standpoint are development of policies to reinforce the Plan, consideration of the Plan iAupdati the General Plan, or an action plan to implement the Plan. Chair Kramer suggested Commissioners provide their comuestions and then answer the questions and parameters listed on page 4 of the staff report. Chair Kramer remarked that a host of increased regulations from the Stat posed additional cost and time on construction of projects. He wished to ensure the Plan did not create an undue burden for developers. Overall, the Plan was a good pathway. The Plan contained several mentions of LEED, which was a for-profit company that tended to dominate the sector. He expressed concern about specifically stating LEED as there were other ways to have a green building or green initiatives. Under the Transportation section, he did not find anything about transportation within the harbor. Under the shuttle section, there could be a discussion regarding harbor taxis or harbor shuttles given the increased development along the harbor. Under water conservation, smart water technologies to reduce water usage should be included. He would email his remaining comments to staff. Vice Chair Koetting felt it was a comprehensive report. The main question was how the Council would establish the importance of sustainability in the City. Sustainability concepts would increase the cost of a project, whether it was a public or private or public-private project. He agreed with the Chairman's comments on the building and development side. He questioned whether there would be reduced fees for attaining certain levels. The Sustainability Plan contained good ideas, but it could not usurp the State Building Code. The concept of creating a fast track needed to be clarified. Most cities encouraged but did not require LEED certification for buildings. He suggested awards and prizes could be presented at the annual Mayor's Dinner. With respect to the jobs/housing balance, he questioned whether it would incentivize sustainable development. That discussion should be expanded. He was unsure how green waste worked, but felt the discussion was limited.A rural area would be great for bio-composting. Under the transportation section, he suggested including electric boat valet and bus transportation to the airport. Perhaps the City could pay a small portion of the fare to encourage use of shuttles, Uber and Lyft. Beach signage was a tough issue. He suggested valet and tandem parking at the beach and shuttle vans to the beach. The ideas to shorten commutes were good. With respect to turf removal, the City should remove the grass area behind City Hall as an example. The Water District's rebate program for turf removal could be faster, but the Water District had no more money for the program. Commissioner Dunlap agreed that LEED certification was expensive and there were other ways to comport with the list. Solar water heating was not included in the list. It was very inexpensive and could be installed for all pools and spas. He suggested a comparison with Title 24 of the Building Code to determine items already being required. Nancy Gardner clarified that the Plan should state LEED or the equivalent. LEED standards were the important point. Vice Chair Koetting suggested the School District could bring schools into compliance with sustainability concepts as schools were the worst violators. 4of6 Deputy Director Wisneski indicated staff would write a report of the Commission's comments to forward to the City Council. She would circulate the report for Commissioners to modify with additional comments. Chair Kramer read the parameters from the staff report. Vice Chair Koetting commented that the Sustainability Plan could be modified or tempered. The Plan should cover the basics and staff interpretation of concepts; otherwise, people would not read and utilize it. Ms. Gardner advised that the Plan was a template to begin the conversation. If the Council implemented it, then staff would review it carefully. Vice Chair Koetting questioned whether it was time for a Newport Beach architectural review committee. Secretary Zak agreed with prior comments. The concept and idea were great, but the Sustainability Plan should be tailored more as guidelines with built-in incentives to encourage people to implement ideas. From an operating and efficiency standpoint, implementing ideas from the Plan made sense. If the City created a list and guidelines,then the City needed to be a leader in implementing ideas. Chair Kramer concurred with Secretary Zak's comments. In response to Chair Kramer's question, Deputy Director Wisneski reported staff would provide Commissioners with written correspondence containing their comments. If Commissioners' revisions to the correspondence were consistent with their verbal comments, then the Sustainability Plan would not be presented to the Commission a third time. Assistant City Attorney Torres added that if the Commission desired to see their comments again, staff would bring them back. If not, Staff had enough direction to move forward. In reply to Chair Kramer's inquiries, Ms. Gardner explained that she had been attending committee and commission meetings to obtain an overview of comments. She would work with staff to compile all comments for the Council, noting areas supported and not supported. The Sustainability Plan was always intended to provide incentives. The Council gave no specific instructions other than for various committees and commissions to review the Sustainability Plan. Assistant City Attorney Torres advised that the Planning Commission's input had been in sufficient detail to pass onto the City Council. ... In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Ms. Gardner stated the Council was aware of and encouraged the commission and committee review process. Chair Kramer thanked Ms. Gardner for her time in preparing the Sustainability Plan. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Director Wisneski reported the Coastal Commission had adopted the findings for certification of the City's LCP. She expected to have a fully certified document in early 2017. The Council had two pending appeals, the Village Inn and Santa Ana Cottages projects. A hearing for the Village Inn project was scheduled for the Council's first meeting in January. No date had been set for the Santa Ana Cottages project. In response to Chair Kramer's inquiry, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated Mr. Sullivan appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the Village Inn project. 5of6 Deputy Director Wisneski proposed scheduling a Planning Commission meeting on January 12, 2017 and moving items from the January 19 agenda to January 12. It appeared a quorum of four Commissioners were available for a meeting on January 12. In response to Vice Chair Koetting and Commissioner Dunlap's inquiry, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated a pending application for the Park Avenue project had not been scheduled. A setback determination required Planning Commission approval. Assistant City Attorney Torres cautioned Commissioners that the project was not on the agenda. Chair Kramer preferred one meeting rather than two, but would discuss the matter with staff. ITEM NO. 8 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT None. ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None. X. ADJOURNMENT—7:34 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, December 1, 2016, at 3:00 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,December 1, 2016, at 3:09 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary 6of6 Planning Commission - January 19, 2017 Item No. la Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of December 8, 2016 Jan. 19, 2017, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. ITEM NO. 1 DRAFT MINUTES OF 12-08-2016 Changes to the following draft minutes passages shown in italics are suggested in strikeout underline format. Page 2: "Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to adopt Resolution No. 2040appreving 2040 approving Modification Permit No. MD2016-016." [space missing] Page 3: "Motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to adopt Resolution No. _ approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-037." [Resolution number is missing — it should be inserted before signing] Comment on Page 4, paragraph 5, sentence 4, (quoting Chair Kramer): "The Plan contained several mentions of LEED, which was a for-profit company that tended to dominate the sector." I believe the minutes accurately reflect what was said, but the comment puzzles me—as does everything about LEED and the influence it has over public decision making. The Wikipedia says LEED is a program developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, which it identifies as "a private 501(c)3, membership-based non-profit organization" founded in 1993. It goes on to say (at the first site linked) that "LEED certification is granted by the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI), which handles the third-party verification of a project's compliance with the LEED requirements." The website of the GBCI contains this FAQ: "GBCI was a 501 c6 non-profit. Does the fact that it is now incorporated affect its tax status/non-profit status?No, GBCI remains a 501 c6/nonprofit." Understanding that from a public perspective the distinction between "non-profit' and "for- profit' activities is not always clear, and that obtaining LEED certification apparently requires paying hefty fees (to GBCI?) and hiring presumably for-profit outside consultants (as mentioned in a separate comment by Commissioner Dunlap), was the comment about LEED itself being a "for-profit company" an error?