Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01_01-25-2018_ZA_MinutesNEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach Corona del Mar Conference Room (Bay E -1st Floor) Thursday, January 25, 2018 REGULAR HEARING 3:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. Staff Present: Patrick J. Alford, Zoning Administrator Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Liane Schuller, Contract Planner Chelsea Crager, Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner David Lee, Planning Technician II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. III. MINUTES ITEM NO. 1a. Minutes of December 14, 2017 Action: Approved ITEM NO. 1b. Minutes of January 11, 2018 Action: Approved IV�•111=f�Gla�_1:71�tH11��'ib'7 The Zoning Administrator requested Item No.3 be heard first. 01/25/2018 ITEM NO. 3 Davis Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-084 (PA2017-195) Site Location: 720 Via Lido Nord Council District 1 Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the request is for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling. The project includes replacement of the existing bulkhead in place and in-line with the adjacent bulkheads. The project complies with all development standards and no deviations are requested. The project does not include development bayward of the existing bulkhead. The proposed replacement bulkhead will protect the proposed structure at a new height of 10 feet NAVD88. A Coastal Hazard Report was prepared and concluded that replaced bulkhead with the increased top of wall would protect the proposed project from coastal hazards including sea level rise over the life of the structure or 75 years. The proposed finished floor is 10.75 feet NAVD88 and complies with the minimum required 9 feet NAVD 88 finished floor. The project is conditioned to require that the owner enter into an agreement with the City for a waiver of future protection. Water quality issues were address with an approved Construction Pollution Protection Plan (CPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The proposed project does not impact public access or coastal view roads. Whelan added a correction to Condition No. 7 to read: This Costal Development Permit does not authorize any development bayward of the exiting bulkhead. Whelan concluded that staff was able to make all of the required findings and recommends approval to the Zoning Administrator. Page 1 of 5 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 01/25/2018 Applicant Eric Aust, Architect, on behalf of the Davis Residence, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke and corrected a typo. He added that he would like clarification on how the height of the proposed development is being measured and clarification on the finished floor and existing grades shown on the exterior elevations of the plans. There were no other public comments. The Zoning Administrator asked staff to clarify the measurement of height and the existing grades per the Zoning Code and related to the proposed dwelling. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 2 Streiff Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-075 (PA2017-180) Site Location: 488 62nd Street Council District 2 Liane Schuller, Contract Planner, provided a brief project description stating that applicant is requesting approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling and attached garage. The proposed development complies with all current development standards including setbacks, height, parking and FAR. The development further complies with the standards and approval requirements of the City's Local Coastal Program. Approval of the CDP will not affect public recreation, access, or views. Applicant Craig Schultz of Laidlaw Schultz Architects, on behalf of the property owners, Mathieu and Kimberlee Streiff, stated that they had reviewed the draft resolution and agree with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. A member of the public, Jim Mosher, questioned how building height is measured, whether the development will impact coastal access, and whether the approval includes any offsite work between the site and the water. Ms. Schuller addressed Mr. Mosher's questions, responding that building height is measured above the minimum finished floor elevation of 9.00 (NAVD 88), and that the approved scope of work is limited to the applicant's site and no offsite improvements are being considered. Mr. Alford posed follow-up questions to Ms. Schuller, in order to further clarify that the site currently contains a single-family residence and that the development of a new single-family residence will neither affect nor change current access conditions, and that no nexus exists to impose or require additional public access. There were no other public comments. Action: Approved ITEM NO.4 Borba Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-096 (PA2017-221) Site Location: 5205 Seashore Drive Council District 1 Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the request was for approval of Coastal Development Permit to allow the demolition of an existing duplex and the construction of new 2,449 -square -foot, 3 -story single-family home and attached two -car garage. The project also includes hardscape and drainage. No deviations to the development standards are requested and the application does not propose and would not approve any new or existing development seaward of the private property. He indicated that a coastal hazards report and wave uprush study was prepared and it concluded that the 14.5 NAVD88 finished floor elevation is sufficient for the anticipated 75 -year economic life of the structure. He stated the project complies with drainage and water quality standards and that staff recommends the zoning administrator find the project exempt for CEQA pursuant to Class 3 and that the draft resolution be adopted. Page 2 of 5 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 01/25/2018 The Zoning Administrator requested the following be added to the facts in support to finding B dealing with public access: lateral access provided by the public beach adjacent to the project site. Applicant Eric Mossman, architect, on behalf of the property owner, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment the public hearing was closed. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 5 Greubel Residence Costal Development Permit No. CD2017-110 (PA2017-259) Site Location: 800 West Ocean Front Council District 1 David Lee, Planning Technician, provided a brief project description stating that provided a brief project description stating that applicant is requesting approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling and attached garage. The proposed development complies with all current development standards including setbacks, height, parking and floor area. Mr. Lee stated that a setback determination was approved by the Director on December 7, 2017, which changed the rear setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. The development further complies with the standards and approval requirements of the City's Local Coastal Program. Approval of the CDP will not affect public recreation, access, or views. Applicant Jerome Greubel stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke and questioned whether the previously approved setback determination is consistent with the Zoning Code, and whether the setback determination should be processed concurrently with the Coastal Development Permit. Another member of the public, Susan Skinner, spoke and questioned whether the setback determination should be processed concurrently with the Coastal Development Permit. Mr. Lee addressed Mr. Mosher's comments and stated that the Director may redefine the location of the setback line from 10 feet to 5 feet. Mr. Lee also addressed Mr. Mosher and Ms. Skinner's concern regarding the setback determination, stating that a public notice was sent out to the neighboring properties, and that there was an appeal period that passed with no appeals. The Zoning Administrator confirmed with staff that once the setback determination was made, it becomes a development standard for the site and the coastal development permit is reviewed against the setback determined by the Community Development Director. The Zoning Administrator clarified that the setback determination has already been processed and is not a part of the coastal development application. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 6 Chocolate Bash Minor Use Permit Amendment No. UP2017-027 (PA2017-194) Site Location: 2233 West Balboa Boulevard Council District 1 Chelsea Crager, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the application is an amendment to an existing minor use permit to extend the hours for a take out service, limited, food service facility, Chocolate Bash. The existing minor use permit was approved in 2015 with hours of operation of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., daily. The establishment is currently operating out of compliance with this approval and is open past 11 p.m. The application to extend the hours until 2 a.m. is a response to Code Enforcement action. The property is located in a mixed-use zone and there are residential properties and uses immediately surrounding the tenant space. Two letters of opposition were submitted to the Planning Division: one from an unidentified group of neighbors citing concerns with traffic, noise, and crowds, and another from a representative for the property owner. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to conditions. The draft resolution contains a condition of approval extending hours to 2 a.m., however the Zoning Administrator Page 3 of 5 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 01/25/2018 may consider earlier hours to address the concerns brought forward by the submitted letters. The Zoning Administrator may also consider additional conditions of approval, such as a one-year review. Applicant Charles Farano, on behalf of Rasha Albasha, the tenant, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. He also noted that there is a dispute between the tenant and the property owner regarding the interpretation of the lease, and that he does not believe it is proper for the City to make a determination regarding that matter. He stated that the original business intended to close at 10 p.m., however many patrons preferred later hours. The applicant attempted to submit the application for the amended use permit with the property owners approval, however was unable to obtain authorization from the property owner. The City agreed to process the application without the property owner's signature. There are several restaurants in the area that are open late. There is public parking in the area. He stated that the business is successful. Mr. Farano submitted to the Zoning Administrator a letter of response to some of the complaints received by the landlord. He stated that he does not believe the complaints are valid. He stated that the business does not advertise to any specific group and does not discriminate against any customers. The tenant does their best to address parking issues litter and any other issues that may be caused by their customers. The Zoning Administrator asked the applicant how late the establishment had been operating. Rasha Albasha, the tenant, stated that they had been open until 12 a.m. weekdays and 1 a.m. weekends. The Zoning Administrator asked if the applicant was aware of the condition of approval limiting the hours to 11 p.m. Ms. Albasha responded that she was aware, but would lose customers if she complied with that condition. She stated that many of her customers arrived late. The Zoning Administrator noted that since she stated that the business was operating based on the wants of the customers, and asked what assurance the City would have that any conditions of approval would be obeyed. Ms. Albasha noted that she would comply with the conditions of approval. Mr. Farano added that they submitted the request to amend the minor use permit as soon as possible. The Zoning Administrator stated that he is concerned that the applicant will not comply with conditions of approval. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Angela Degroot representing American Commercial Equities III, the property owner, spoke and stated that they had submitted a letter to the City that outlined the lease agreement and other issues. She stated that they appreciated successful businesses but needed to balance the needs of residential and commercial tenants. She stated that there are rules and an hours of operation limitation of 11 p.m. for all commercial tenants. She stated the property owner's opposition to the project. One member of the public, Karin Martin of Pacific Planning, representing the property owner, spoke and stated that she had submitted a letter to the Planning Division that afternoon. She stated that processing a planning application without a property owner's signature was inconsistent with the City's standard procedure. She stated that the property owner has been willing to work with the applicant; however, the tenant has changed the hours. She stated that there are other businesses in the area that are open late; however, those businesses are not located on mixed use developments with residential units. She stated that she does not believe the project complies with the General Plan because it does not balance the needs of residents, businesses and visitors. She stated that the applicant has been advertising late hours online. She stated that she does not believe the Findings for approval can be made. Angela Degroot, representing the property owner, stated that the property owner attempted to work with the applicant to address concerns of other tenants and was unsuccessful. There have been complaints regarding parking, noise, and loitering. She had previously submitted reports to the Planning Division from a private security company noting the applicant's late hours. She noted that the applicant has more than 6 seats and previously had seats outside. She also noted that late hours created litter and loitering issues. The Zoning Administrator asked what the security report was documenting. Ms. Degroot responded that the report documented that the applicant was the only business open late and that there were illegally parked cars. The Zoning Administrator asked how it was determined that the cars were customers of Chocolate Bash. Ms. Degroot stated that the security report was based on observation. The Zoning Administrator asked staff to respond to comments. Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager stated that the requested hours of operation do not create a larger parking demand pursuant to the Zoning Code. The Zoning Administrator asked how the parking requirement was established. Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager Page 4 of 5 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 01/25/2018 stated the take-out service, limited food service facility requires a rate of 1 parking space per 250 gross square feet. The use may only have up to six seats to maintain this designation. The property is legal nonconforming with 42 spaces required for all of the commercial tenants and six provided. Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager further stated that the application was submitted in response to Code Enforcement action for late hours of operation and that the draft resolution includes facts in support of findings that the application is consistent with the General Plan. Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez added further that the General Plan policies do not prohibit the hours of operation; however, hours of operation are considered when analyzing use permits and determining what is appropriate. The Zoning Administrator asked if the area was mixed use or purely residential, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez confirmed that the area is generally mixed use. The Zoning Administrator asked if staff generally recognizes that in a mixed use area some uses may be open late and we anticipate that the residents of these areas are aware of that. Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager confirmed that is correct. The Zoning Administrator asked if there was any Code Enforcement action in addition to the hours of operation. Assistant Planner Crager stated that there was action regarding outdoor seating and more than six seats that had been resolved. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke and stated that the required findings include compatibility with the surroundings and that the use has already proven this is not the case. There were no other public comments. The public hearing was closed. The Zoning Administrator stated that he was concerned that violations would continue. He stated that a closing hour of midnight is more appropriate and that the applicant may apply again to extend the hours at a later time. He stated that if there are further violations the City will begin proceedings for revocation of the Minor Use Permit. Action: Approved 1 71134190191PilPi1:11116491ZIZ[a]ZIFIT:141! 117_\11:1 ��61 One member of the public, Karin Martin, asked about public access to the audio recording of this meeting. One member of the public, Charles Farano, asked about whether the letter he submitted at the meeting would be part of the record. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, commented that this Zoning Administrator Meeting did not seem to appear on the City's homepage. He also asked about the appeal fee for coastal development permits and where the public can access Director's Determinations. F. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on January 19, 2017, at 3:15 p.m. in the Chambers binder and 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 January 19, 2017, at 3:12 p.m. Patrick J. Alford, Zoning Administrator Page 5 of 5 Zoning Administrator- February 15, 2018 ITEM NO. 1A & 313 - ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED Zoning Administrator Draft Minutes of 1-25-2018 and Stravos Residence Coastal Development Permit (PA2017-249) Regarding Item 1 (Minutes of January 25, 2018): * I believe Gregg Ramirez (4 places) is now "Principal" Planner rather than "Senior" Planner, although I don't recall if he was on Jan. 25. * On page 4, Angela "Degroot" should be "DeGroot" (4 places) * On pages 4 and 5 (1 place each), "Karin" Martin should be "Karen" Martin * Also regarding the last public comment on page 5, today's Zoning Administrator hearing is, again, on the City's online calendar, but does not appear under "Meetings" on the home page. Regarding Item 3 (Stavros Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-106 (PA2017-249)): * The finding on page 3 of 5 of the proposed resolution (that 1034 West Balboa Boulevard "is not located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline") is incorrect per the "First Public Road" layer recently added to the City's General Information Map. Yours sincerely, Jim Mosher