Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190822_PC_MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes August 22, 2019 In answer to Commissioner Weigand's query, Commissioner Koetting related that he has sufficient time to serve as Chair. The Planning Commission unanimously appointed Commissioner Koetting as Chair. Commissioner Ellmore nominated Commissioner Weigand for the office of Vice Chair. The Planning Commission unanimously appointed Commissioner Weigand as Vice Chair. Chair Koetting nominated Commissioner Lowrey for the office of Secretary. The Planning Commission unanimously appointed Commissioner Lowrey as Secretary. V. PUBLIC COMMENTS None VI. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VII. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 Minutes of August 8, 2019 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Chair Koetting to approve the minutes of the August 8, 2019 meeting with Mr. Masher's suggested revisions. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Koetting, Weigand, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Rosene Lowrey, Kleiman ABSENT: VIII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 THE GARDEN OFFICE AND PARKING STRUCTURE (PA2019-023) Site Location: 215 Riverside Avenue Summary: A coastal development permit (CDP) to demolish an existing restaurant/office building and associated surface parking lot and to construct a new 47-space, two-level parking structure and a 2,830-square-foot office building. A conditional use permit is required to authorize the construction of the parking structure adjacent to the residentially zoned property. A modification permit is required for 12 tandem parking spaces on the first and second floor levels of the structure. The project includes hardscape, drainage, and landscape improvements. The proposed development complies with all applicable development standards including height, setbacks, and floor area limits. The project is designed to provide surplus off-site parking for The Garden shopping center located directly south of the project site. Approval of off-site parking use and any other uses which require parking in the structure will require the processing of a separate conditional use permit and coastal development permit. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 under Class 32 (Infill) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 2 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2019 3. Adopt Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-024 approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-003, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-003, and Modification Permit No. MD2019-003. Associate Planner Makana Nova reported the applicant proposes to demolish an existing office building, vacant restaurant, and 18-space surface parking lot and to construct a new 2,830-square-foot office building and 47- space parking structure. A coastal development permit is required for demolition and project development within the coastal zone. A conditional use permit is required for a parking structure located adjacent to residential properties. A modification permit is required for the tandem parking proposed to serve office tenants. Associate Planner Nova indicated that the project site contains 16,290 square feet. Residences are located to the north of the project site. Cliff Drive Park is located immediately west of the site. The project site is located directly north of The Garden shopping center. The development is intended to provide off-site parking for the shopping center. Staff is reviewing an application for a new restaurant located at 2902 West Coast Highway. The proposed office building would contain 2,830 square feet in two stories. The parking structure would provide 47 parking spaces on two levels. A portion of the second level would be covered with a trellis. An existing retaining wall located at the north end of the property would remain, and the parking structure would be built into the slope. Associate Planner Nova continued, identifying that the property is zoned Commercial General (CG) with a floor area ratio (FAR) limit of 0.5. Existing development on the property contains slightly more than 8,000 square feet, and the FAR almost meets the 0.5 limit. Proposed development would reduce the existing square footage significantly, and the use would be office only. The resulting FAR would be 0.17. The height limit for a flat roof is 32 feet, and the project proposes a roofline at 32 feet. The existing development has a flat roof, which measures 28 feet. Associate Planner Nova specified that the applicant proposes a general office use, which requires parking at a rate of one space per 250 square feet of floor area for a total of 12 parking spaces. The applicant proposes providing the 12 parking spaces in a tandem configuration. Vehicles would enter and exit the parking structure's ground level via Avon Street and the second level via Riverside Avenue. Six tandem parking spaces would be located three on the ground level and three on the second level with employees utilizing the front spaces and visitors and/or employees occupying the rear spaces. Associate Planner Nova described the bulk and scale of the proposed development, indicating that the project would be either less than or similar to the existing development. For the most part, the structure would be built into the slope to reduce the bulk and scale of the structure. A coastal view point is located adjacent to the project site at Cliff Drive Park. The project site is visible from the edge of the lawn area in Cliff Drive Park. The architectural exterior elevations of the proposed project are designed to be similar in materials and style to those of The Garden shopping center. Associate Planner Nova reported that staff has analyzed the project as a Class 32 exemption under the CEQA Guidelines and prepared a traffic trip analysis, a noise study, a Water Quality Management Plan, and a water/sewer generation study. The noise study considered a 24-hour operation and vehicle and circulation movement for a similar office use in Lake Forest. In response to public comment regarding the potential for piece-mealing the project, staff is comfortable with the parking structure and office building proceeding. A separate application for a restaurant is under review. The parking structure would provide parking for The Garden shopping center as a whole. The office building and parking structure could operate independent of the restaurant. The traffic study found a reduction in the number of average daily trips (ADT). The existing uses generate 294 ADT, and the proposed uses would generate 46 ADT. The project has been noticed in accordance with Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program (LCP) standards. Associate Planner Nova discussed public noticing provided for the project and noted that contact information for the courtesy notice to the homeowners association has been updated since the submission of the application, and notice has been provided to the new contact person. Ten members of the public have submitted written comments, five supporting the project, three opposing the project, and two requesting a 3 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2019 continuance of the item. Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the item so that staff can further analyze the CEQA determination and LCP standards as a result of the comments received. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Principal Planner Gregg Ramirez indicated the application for the restaurant could be heard independent of the current application because the restaurant applicant could request a parking waiver or other off-site parking solution. Associate Planner Nova explained that the current application includes a parking management plan. Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill advised Commissioners not to delve into the details of the restaurant application as it has not been agendized. Commissioner Kleiman felt the Planning Commission's inability to discuss the details of the parking structure by itself or in relation to the restaurant project suggests the two projects are reliant on each other or at least interconnected. Associate Planner Nova stated the Planning Commission can discuss use of the tandem parking spaces and the fact that the structure provides surplus parking. The Planning Commission is not considering the manner in which a future use may utilize the surplus parking. In answer to Commissioner Rosene's query, Associate Planner Nova related that the parking supply does not generate traffic in the trip generation calculations. The off-site use of the parking spaces is a component of the future application. In reply to Chair Koetting's questions, Associate Planner Nova stated the project could be considered as a small office building and a large parking supply with or without tandem parking. Chair Koetting remarked that the tandem parking would not work well. Associate Planner Nova explained that a condition of approval requires signage directing customers and employees of the office building to utilize the tandem spaces. A parking operations plan is included in the packet and discusses use of the spaces. The operations plan proposes signage that would limit the tandem spaces to employees. The applicant has provided a materials board and the project architect can address the materials in greater detail. In response to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiries, Associate Planner Nova reported staff relies on homeowners associations to update their contact information with staff. Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis added that staff provided notifications to homeowners associations as a courtesy. Staff may provide email notifications to homeowners associations, but an email notification is not required. Associate Planner Nova clarified that the Code does not allow staff to omit parks when measuring the 300 feet for notices. Associate Planner Nova further advised that Condition of Approval No. 5 requires an on-site parking coordinator to be designated. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Scott Laidlaw, applicant representative, reported the project reflects the Mariners Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework through enhanced architectural finishes, strong integration of landscape, five-sided design, and pedestrian orientation. Exterior finishes are consistent with the Garden project across the street. The roofing material is Flintlastic roofing material with an impregnated aggregate in a sandy buff color. The view from the park was not taken from a public area of the park but from the property line. The project will reduce the existing floor area by 65 percent. The allowed FAR is more than 7,500 square feet of general commercial use. A development of that size would require more than 50 parking spaces. The project will improve sightlines and increase setbacks from adjacent residences. The amount of impervious surfaces has been reduced by 33 percent. Leases for professional office space can include self-management of the six tandem parking stalls. He proposed tandem parking in order to create the most efficient footprint possible. The office building will be restricted to the lowest intensity use, which will be consistent with the intention of the strategic plan. Backfilling the retaining wall will allow significant plantings. With the reduced building footprint, landscape area will increase 150 percent, and encroachments into parkland can be removed. Susan Hori, of Manatt Phelps, and representative for the project applicant, advised that Condition of Approval No. 2 indicates the space is to be used for professional offices. As part of a lease for professional office space, the landlord can assign parking spaces to the tenant. The tandem parking spaces will be managed through assigned parking. On-site security will monitor parking. The applicant held an open house for the community on July 21 to introduce the proposed project. Invitations were sent to residents and owners of homes located within 300 feet of the project site and the Newport Heights Improvement Association. At Council Member 4 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2019 Avery's request, two additional individuals were invited to the open house because they are actively involved in community issues. At Ms. Palmer's suggestion, the project team spoke with the new owners of a property located in the notification area. Participants in the open house appreciated the project providing additional parking and expressed positive comments about the appearance of the proposed project. The project team invited Cliff Haven residents to the open house, and the residents of 2919 Cliff Drive attended the open house. There are no recorded deed restrictions on the property; therefore, the building height is consistent with requirements. The property manager has contacted a tenant and is making all reasonable efforts to accommodate the tenant, but negotiations are ongoing. The applicant will address pickup times with the trash contractor. The restaurant project can be considered without the parking structure through modification of parking standards or off-site parking. The noise study found that the project would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards of 55 dB during the day and 50 dB during the night. There is no riparian habitat on the project site as it has been fully developed. The project will not impact the vegetated slope. The project continues the redevelopment and revitalization of the area and provides a unified vision for the retail uses. In response to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiry, Associate Planner Nova indicated staff wishes to consider the comment regarding riparian habitat in more detail and requests the item be continued. Chair Koetting and Commissioner Rosene disclosed that they visited the site and spoke with the applicant. Commissioners Kleiman and Ellmore disclosed no ex parte communications. Commissioner Klaustermeier disclosed a drive by the site. Commissioner Lowrey disclosed a conversation with the consultant. Vice Chair Weigand disclosed that he met on-site and communicated via telephone with the consultant and spoke with residents and association members. In reply to Chair Koetting's questions, Ms. Hori stated a parking management plan for 215 Riverside has been submitted. Tandem parking is the best solution for making the best use of the property. Mr. Laidlaw added that tandem parking is a creative and beneficial way to provide an efficient project that serves the community best. Twelve parking spaces are provided for employees and customers. The alternating color of brick will reduce the mass of the structure, provide contrast and visual interest, and respect the corner. The proposed parking ramps will be significantly longer than the existing ramps, and the slopes of the proposed ramps will be 1 0 to 11 percent. In answer to Vice Chair Weigand's query, Mr. Laidlaw felt a parking structure on the corner would be less desirable than landscaping, an office building, or pedestrian activity. The property owner is interested in the project generating some revenue, which the office building will do. Professional offices will be a good addition to the area. In response to Commissioner Ellmore's inquiry, Mr. Laidlaw advised that the parking structure will not be a fee lot and will not have gates. Charles Klobe, Newport Heights Improvement Association Board Member, remarked that the tandem parking is designed for valet use at another time. The office building will not provide any real revenue because of the ownership of the brokerage firm and tenant. Excess parking is not needed after 5 p.m. unless there is another use on-site. He suggested the Planning Commission continue the project to such time as it includes the restaurant. Peggy Palmer advised that she did not receive an invitation to the open house. Residents opposed rooftop parking in the Mariner's Pointe project. The AutoNation project, which included rooftop parking, was denied. The parking structure appears to be closer to the homes on Cliff Drive than Mariner's Pointe and AutoNation. If the restaurant is proposed atop the existing building, it will block views from public parks. The Planning Commission should review the two projects together. Car carriers for Sterling BMW drop-off and pick-up on Avon in front of the existing building. Jed Robinson, Newport Heights Improvement Association President, questioned whether the applicant could provide additional parking in another manner and how the parking structure would be tied to the two developments as they are located on separate parcels. A parking attendant or parking fee would be important to manage for traffic flow. 5 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2019 David Grant, resident of Cliff Drive, commented that the project is fabulous and one of the best projects in Newport Heights and Newport Beach. It will be a tremendous improvement to the area. Stephanie Sitzer Pilalas appreciated the aesthetics of the project, but she has not investigated its impacts, contrary to Ms. Hori's statement. She would provide her position regarding the project once she received additional information. Jim Mosher had difficulty believing the concept that increasing the supply or access to parking will not increase traffic in the area. He questioned whether parking would be restricted to serving The Garden in some way. The applicant did not discuss pedestrian access to the parking structure. He could not find a condition restricting the use of the office building to professional office. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. In response to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiry, Associate Planner Nova reported one restaurant is currently operating in the center. In reply to Commissioner Klaustermeier's query, Associate Planner Nova advised that bifurcating the two projects would not change the CEQA findings because staff is considering a similar CEQA exemption for the restaurant project. In answer to Commissioner Lowrey's questions, Associate Planner Nova indicated staff is not required to re- notice the project if it is continued. Staff wishes to review the CEQA analysis and LCP policies in relation to public comments received earlier in the day. Principal Planner Ramirez added that at least 30 days would be needed for a biologist to prepare their analysis and for staff to prepare documents for Planning Commission review in advance of a hearing. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis related that staff has provided the Planning Commission with an application for a specific project. The Planning Commission may direct staff to present both projects. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing to inquire of the applicant. In reply to questions from the Planning Commission, Ms. Hori stated the property owner is not present. She preferred to keep the two projects separate because the 215 Riverside project has more contained issues and can be processed more quickly than the restaurant project. The two projects can operate independently. The restaurant application has not been deemed complete, and the traffic study is not complete. Vice Chair Weigand suggested presenting the projects together may be in the applicant's best interests. Ms. Hori indicated the project team would discuss the Commission's and the public's comments with the property owner. Chair Koetting remarked that presenting the projects together could facilitate a parking analysis. If the two projects remain separate, he recommended eliminating the tandem parking, which would result in an over- parked office building. Commissioner Kleiman believed the CEQA determination could determine whether the projects remain separate or together. Commissioners appear to agree that the project is well-designed. The applicant intended to create a less impactful project and attempted to scale down the project. The interconnectedness of the two projects is an issue. The restaurant project seems to be reliant on the current project. In reply to Commissioner Klaustermeier's question, Associate Planner Nova explained that staff reviewed the application and felt it could standalone and serve as parking supply for the office use, the shopping center, or a different use. As a standalone project, the applicant could proceed with construction of the project. The shopping center is ready to accept tenants with leases. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill advised that staff could re-notice a hearing if the Planning Commission continues the project to a date certain. The Planning Commission does not have to decide at the current time whether the projects proceed separately or together. 6 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2019 Vice Chair Weigand remarked that the Planning Commission could approve the current application and later deny the restaurant application. The applicant will probably not construct the two projects separately. He suggested the applicant present the projects together. Motion made by Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to continue PA2019-023 to September 19, 2019 with staff to provide notice of the new date. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Rosene NOES: RECUSED: ABSENT: ITEM N0.4 COAST BUSINESS CENTER PARKING WAIVER (PA2019-101) Site Location: 2121 East Coast Highway Summary: A coastal development permit and conditional use permit for a reduction of 18 of the required 160 off- street parking spaces to allow the entire 31 ,806-square-foot Coast Business Center building to be occupied by medical office uses. Coast Business Center is an existing office building currently occupied by a mix of professional office and medical office uses and a tutoring center. The existing on-site parking is provided in a two-level, subterranean, 142-space parking structure accessible from Avocado Avenue. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-025 approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-025 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-025. Associate Planner Chelsea Crager reported the Coast Business Center is an existing office building. The application requests an 18-space parking wavier, which requires a conditional use permit and a coastal development permit. The office building was constructed in 1984 and contains 31,804 square feet of gross floor area. A two-level, subterranean parking garage provides 142 parking spaces on-site. The zoning district for the site is General Commercial Office (CO-G). Office buildings are located adjacent to and across the street from the project site. Residential zoning and a gas station are located across Avocado Avenue. The applicant would like the ability to convert all uses in the office building to medical office, which would require a total of 160 parking spaces. A parking study for the project concluded that the maximum demand would be 123 parking spaces if the entire building was medical office. Current tenants include medical office, general office, a tutoring center, and outpatient surgery. The entrance to the parking garage is not gated. Staff recommends approval of the project. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Associate Planner Crager indicated the medical office building located at Hospital Road and Superior Avenue has a gross floor area of 45,100 square feet and provides 183 parking spaces, which is approximately one space per 246 square feet. Chair Koetting felt a parking rate of one space per 200 square feet is not sufficient for medical office. Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications. Steve Mensinger, Mesa Management President, advised that the medical offices would be oriented to cosmetic medicine, which is very light and non-intensive. The building offers an abundance of parking. In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's question, Mr. Mensinger indicated the building is approximately 87 percent occupied. The vacant space was occupied by a retail use and would be divided into smaller medical offices. Chair Koetting remarked that the parking study did not explore the parking need for a 100-percent leased medical building. Therefore, the parking study did not accurately find 123 parking spaces are sufficient. In answer to Chair 7 of 10