Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190919_PC_MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes September 19, 2019 2. Waive City Council Policy L-6, Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way, to retain noncompliant private improvements consisting of a step and planter walls that encroach into the Via Orvieto public right-of- way, contingent upon all conditions of the Encroachment Permit process being met; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-027 waiving City Council Policy L-6 and approving Encroachment Permit No. N2019-0337. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the applicant requests a waiver of Council Policy L- 6 to retain existing non-compliant private improvements consisting of a step and two planter walls. Staff recommends the Planning Commission waive the Policy and approve the project. Chair Koetting noted this type of improvement is quite common. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine advised that the City charges a one-time fee for the encroachment permit and agreement. The agreement contains an indemnity provision that transfers liability to the property owner. The property owner learned of the unpermitted encroachment during staff review of plans for other improvements on the property. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that unpermitted encroachments are usually identified when property owners apply for building permits. The City is not proactively enforcing unpermitted encroachments. In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiry, City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated the City and the property owner will sign the agreement, through which the property owner will assume liability for the encroachment into the right-of-way. Motion made by Commissioner Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to approve the project as recommended by staff. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Rosene NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: VII. 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 parking structure adjacent to residentially zoned property. A modification permit is required for 12 tandem parking spaces on the first and second floor levels. The project includes hardscape, drainage, and landscape improvements. The proposed development complies with all applicable development standards including height, setbacks, and floor area limits. Staff requests a two-week continuance to October 3, 2019, in order to complete additional biological resources analysis on the project. Recommended Action: 1. Continue the item to the October 3, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the item was continued from the August 22 meeting, and the public hearing is open. Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the item to October 3 so that a biological resources analysis may be completed. Stephanie Sitzer Pilalas believed the applicant's presentation of the office building project separate from the restaurant project has caused community anxiety and is a red flag. She suggested the Planning Commission 2 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2019 continue the office building project until such time as the restaurant project is set for hearing. Bifurcating the two projects reeks of impropriety. The Associate Planner appears to be advocating zealously for the project. Peggy Palmer hoped staff would review egress/ingress to the parking structure from Riverside because of the number of children who travel along Riverside. Hal Woods felt the community is receiving conflicting information. He questioned the project being exempt from CEQA. The restaurant and the parking structure should be reviewed as a whole. Neighbors are concerned about noise, light, and pollution from cars. Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore to continue the item to October 3, 2019 and to direct the applicant to present the two projects together. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the restaurant project will not be ready for Planning Commission review on October 3. If the Planning Commission wishes to review both projects as one, staff recommends the current project be taken off calendar and re-noticed for a date when the restaurant project is ready for a public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill added that noticing requirements may preclude presentation of the restaurant project on October 3. Amended Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore to take the item off calendar and to direct staff to present the two projects together. In reply to Commissioner Klaustermeier's query, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the two projects may be considered separately because one does not rely upon the other. Staff can evaluate the parking structure as an off-site parking structure for any use in the vicinity. Staff does not believe independent review of the projects violates any laws. The two projects can be heard together. The applicant chose to submit separate applications in order to avoid delay. In answer to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the applicant is not present because they assumed the item would be continued to October 3. The applicant wanted to proceed with a hearing on October 3. If the Planning Commission wishes to hear the two projects together, the second project may be ready for hearing by the end of the year. An application has been submitted for a restaurant, and staff is evaluating parking for the restaurant. Commissioner Lowrey remarked that the applicant understands the neighbors' issues and decided to submit separate applications. The current project should be reviewed on its merits on October 3. Postponing the project indefinitely is unfair to the applicant. Vice Chair Weigand suggested the Planning Commission discuss hearing the two items separately or together at a future meeting when the applicant is present. Commissioner Kleiman noted on August 22 the Planning Commission continued the item to allow staff time to resolve some of the outstanding issues and to determine if there is a bifurcation issue. The Planning Commission should continue the item to October 3. Vice Chair Weigand requested staff review the bifurcation issues carefully and ensure the Planning Commission is protected legally whether or not it chooses to combine the two projects. Substitute Motion made by Commissioner Kleiman and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to continue the item to October 3, 2019. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Weigand, Lowrey, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Rosene Koetting, Ellmore 3 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2019 Vice Chair Weigand disclosed communications with members of the public. Other Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications. ITEM NO. 4 VERIZON MONO-EUCALYPTUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY (PA2018-010) Site Location: 1600 Newport Center Drive Summary: The applicant requests a conditional use permit and a coastal development permit to install 12 panel antennas, 12 radio units and 3 raycaps on a new 43.5-foot-tall telecommunications mono-eucalyptus for Verizon Wireless. The mono-eucalyptus will exceed the 32-foot height limit by 11.5 feet. The associated telecom support equipment will be ground-mounted and screened within a new 225-square-foot enclosure. (This application was continued from the May 17, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.) Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-028 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2018-005 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2018-004. Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications. Planning Consultant Liane Schuller reported Verizon proposes to install a new facility within the Corporate Plaza West area of Newport Center. The Planning Commission heard AT&T and Verizon's joint application on May 17, 2018, at which time the Planning Commission continued the hearing and indicated slimline monopoles were not aesthetically appropriate for the location. A conditional use permit is required for a freestanding facility and to exceed the 32-foot height limit. A coastal development permit is required because the location of the proposed facility is within the Coastal Zone. The monopole will measure 43 feet 7 inches in height, which complies with the height limit for the area. The applicant proposes to install an equipment enclosure adjacent to the tree and a small meter pedestal immediately adjacent to the tree. The applicant proposes to screen the monopole with eucalyptus and sumac trees and to plant a hawthorn hedge around the equipment enclosure. The applicant has provided service coverage maps showing current and proposed areas with good coverage and weak or intermittent coverage. Condition of Approval 6 contains a typographical error. The maximum elevation height should 145.6 feet. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the project. In response to Chair Koetting's query, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated a 36-inch box eucalyptus will provide more screening at the time of planting than a 24-inch box. In reply to Commissioner Rosene's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that several years ago, the City reviewed two developments at the Newport Beach Country Club. The first development, a golf club facility, has been completed. The second development to reconfigure tennis courts and construct a stadium court, tennis clubhouse and spa, 27 rental bungalows and five single-family homes has received entitlements. The bungalows will be almost directly adjacent to the proposed mono-eucalyptus. Staff does not believe the telecommunications facility will be incompatible with the future development of the tennis club. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Peter Blied, applicant representative, related that the applicant accepts the conditions of approval with the amendment to Condition of Approval 6. The proposal conforms to the Sight Plane Ordinance, and the landlord supports the current design. In answer to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Mr. Blied explained that wireless facilities are usually smaller in residential areas. He did not believe the mono-eucalyptus would be the tallest wireless facility in Newport Beach. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that a few facilities located in industrial areas are taller than the mono-eucalyptus. Typically, wireless facilities are 35 to 60 feet tall. 4 of 7