Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200416_ZA_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 04/16/2020 Page 5 of 8 Ms. Perez continued that the replacement streetlight pole design is consistent with the size, shape, style, and design of that existing, including the attached light arm and luminaire. The new luminaire height will match the existing luminaire height. The proposed streetlight will look like the existing streetlight with the addition of the shrouded telecom equipment on top of the pole. Visual simulations of the facility, depicting the existing and proposed conditions, have been prepared by the applicant and are included as Attachment No. ZA 6 of the staff report. Assistant Planner Perez explained that the applicant has studied four alternative sites for this proposed project. Their analysis is available as Attachment No. ZA 3 of the staff report. Ultimately none of the sites were found suitable due to a variety of reasons. These reasons vary from conflicts with existing retaining walls, conflicts with existing street trees, lack of space, incompatible slope material, and existing utilities/drainpipes. Ms. Perez mentioned that staff had received multiple public comments in response to the proposed project. Comments were regarding the feasibility of Alternative Site No. 4 and its aesthetic merits, as Alternative Site No. 4 sits in front of a solar panel installation. Ms. Perez stated that there is a correction needed in the draft resolution. Staff mistakenly wrote that the streetlight was located between the first public road and the sea, however, Bayside Drive is the first public road paralleling the sea and the streetlight is located to the east of Bayside Drive, making it outside of this area. Applicant Franklin Orozco, on behalf of AT&T Mobility, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing in the room and on the phone. One member of the public, Robert Stemmler, stated that he had also submitted a written comment. The adjacent R-1 residence mentioned by staff, located at 1409 Dolphin Terrace, belongs to his parents. The Stemmler family objects to the installation of the telecom equipment at the proposed location and instead believes Alternative Site No. 4 to be a superior option for a variety of reasons including topography, available space, and the large solar panel array backdrop. Mr. Stemmler stated that the stairs which make Alternative Site No. 4 not viable are not permitted, should not be there in the first place, and should therefore not be considered when evaluating Alternative Site No. 4. Mr. Stemmler then explained that the landscaped hillside adjacent to the proposed location provides seating areas for the homeowner’s enjoyment and their enjoyment of those areas would be impacted by this installation. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. Zoning Administrator Murillo confirmed that he had received the public comments. In response to Zoning Administrator Murillo’s question regarding the stairs at Alternative Site No. 4, Ms. Perez confirmed that the stairs are not permitted nor allowed. In response to Zoning Administrator Murillo’s inquiry, Ms. Perez confirmed that there is an encroachment agreement which allows landscaping at the proposed project site limited to a height of 36 inches. Zoning Administrator Murillo stated that he had observed earlier that day during his site visit that Alternative Site No. 4 is located at a curve on Bayside Drive and is highly visible to motorists and pedestrians, whereas the proposed location is in line with the surrounding streetlights. Additionally, highly landscape hillside at the proposed site provided visual interest and distraction. Zoning Administrator Murillo asked staff to revise Fact 4 of “Section 1 Statement of Facts” of the draft resolution to clarify why the project is exempt from a coastal development permit and to also add two conditions of approval: 1) that any landscaping removed as a result of the project will be replaced and 2) that the applicant will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Action: Approved as Amended ITEM NO. 5 Buchannon Street Partners Medical/ Dentist Office Minor Use Permit No. UP2020-002 (PA2020-009) Site Location: 20361 Irvine Avenue, Units B1 Council District 3 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 04/16/2020 Page 6 of 8 Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the applicant is requesting a minor use permit to operate a new dental office within The Jetty, an existing office park. The project site is located on Irvine Avenue, near Mesa Drive, and is zoned SP-7/PA (Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Professional & Administrative Office District) and the General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site is General Commercial Office. The proposed dental office would occupy an approximately 2,700 square-foot suite on the first floor of Building B. The proposed dental office will operate with only one dentist, one dental assistant, and one administrative assistant at any given time. The practice will provide standard, nonsurgical, dental procedures and is anticipated to see seven to eight patients a day for an average visit of 45 minutes. The facility will operate with standard business hours i.e. approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. The proposed use will be of a moderate intensity and consistent with the purpose and intent of the PA zoning district. Additionally, there is adequate parking available onsite. Ms. Perez explained that while a dental or medical office use is not specifically listed within the PA zoning district as an allowed use subject to approval of a minor use permit, a recent Director’s Determination found that medical office uses and similar uses are consistent with the purpose and intent of the PA District and therefore allowed, subject to the approval of a minor use permit if the project exhibits three specific characteristics including: 1) operates similarly to the surrounding tenants, specifically with similar hours and similar days of the week, 2) has a limited number of staff and patients as to maintain a moderate intensity of use, and 3) has adequate parking available onsite. Zoning Administrator Murillo stated that the Director’s Determination referenced in the staff report was to become effective at close of business on April 15, 2020, and Ms. Perez confirmed that no appeals to the determination had been received. Phil Greer, on behalf of the applicant, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing opened the public hearing in the room and on the phone. Hearing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. After closing the public hearing, Zoning Administrator Murillo stated that the Planning Commission has previously reviewed three similar applications of whether medical is a compatible use for this district and has found each time that the use is compatible. He further clarified that up to 20 percent of the complex can be used for medical without affecting parking and with this approval, medical uses would increase to only 16 percent of overall uses and thus still be a subordinate use. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 6 TNS Development LLC Residence Coastal Development Permit No CD2020-009 (PA2020-010) Site Location: 706 West Ocean Front Council District 1 Liane Schuller, Planning Consultant, provided a brief project description stating that the applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new 4,280-square-foot, single-family residence with a roof deck and attached 809 square feet of garage parking for three cars. Garage access is currently taken from the Ocean Front alleyway, and the new garages will maintain this same orientation. The project has been reviewed and cleared by the Public Works Department for access and right-of-way issues. A coastal development permit is required for the demolition and new construction on a site located within the coastal zone. The project complies with all applicable development standards, including the standards and approval requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program. Public coastal access is provided and will continue to be provided by street ends throughout the neighborhood leading to the public beach area, and there is no intensification of use that would create an increased demand for access and recreation opportunities.