Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2005"Planning Commission Minutes 02/17/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 6 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn02- 17- 05.htm 06/24/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins - all Commissioners present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Temple presented a 5 year pin to Commissioner Selich and Chairperson Tucker in recognition of their service to the City. She then noted that Mr. Campbell is one of he five finalists for Employee of the Year award this year. Mr. Don Krotee of Newport Heights noted discrepancies on the December 9th minute between what he believes he said and what was recorded in the minutes. He then stated for the record and presented a written statement: • It is important to understand the seriousness and long term affects of a modification to a City's General Plan and the way this changes communities as result of land use decisions such as the proposed project. Please don't loos sight of this issue. • Use Permits in other municipalities often times are considered final (they are many times treated like decisions from a higher court) and are not changed lightly. In that the subject application is a rehearing of what was decided some 22 years ago in a former CUP, in a most contentious process, this Commission' revisit of those facts, must meet a higher standard to be acceptable. • Overbuilding is not in the fabric of our residential community; and, this project is overbuilding the site and significant damage to the community will result. All of the factors that go into the equation (community impacts and benefits) must be examined. • Commissioner Eaton represented that the St. Marks Presbyterian Church building committee felt that a parking standard in excess of the standard that resides in the Municipal Code was necessary for adequate parking at St. Marks. I believe this project is similar and should use a similar parking ratio. If this more restrictive, different and more accurate parking standard or ratio were to be used, this site would be several hundred parking spaces short of serving the occupancies set forth in the conditions of approval. For this reason, I believe the " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn02- 17- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/17/2005 Page 2 of 6 parking arrangement as suggested in the conditions will fail the community. request that the Commission use a more restrictive parking ratio similar to ti- used by the St. Marks building committee in that the sensitivity of parking at Marks is similar, albeit for different reasons, to the sensitivity o the subje application. noted that Mr. Krotee's recollection was confirmed by the tape of the December ing and the narrative of this meeting will augment the prior meeting but will ni ge the minutes of the December 9th meeting. OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 11, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 20, 2005. Approved was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as modified. yes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ITEM NO.2 PA2002 -265 SUBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church (PA2002 -265) doption of two resolutions reflecting the recommendations of approval of the St. Approved ndrews Presbyterian Church Expansion project and the certification of the EIR. removed this item from Consent Calendar and noted that there were no additic ctions suggested since the publication of the report except Commissie :ins wanted clarification on item 4 on the resolution recommending approval of ct on handwritten page 10. A minor change in the second sentence to move ithetical phrase related to the gross square foot, forward in the sentence to e, total development. Staff agrees to this change. nissioner Hawkins added another minor change on handwritten 13 to C in church in paragraph 9. Lion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to adopt the recommendation roval of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Expansion project and certification EIR with the suggested changes. Tucker asked if there were any comments. comment was opened. " file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn02- 17- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/17/2005 Page 3 of 6 Public comment was closed. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None * * HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Ellis Residence (PA2004 -265) ITEM NO. 3 308 Evening Canyon Road PA2004 -265 Appeal of the Modifications Committee's approval to allow structural footings that encroach 12 Removed from inches into the required 6 -foot side yard; a basement - access stairway that encroaches 2 feeil calendar into the required 6 -foot side yard setback; and a 3- foot -high protective guardrail and retaining walls that are more than 3 three feet tall to be located within the 25 -foot front yard setback in conjunction with the construction of a new single - family residence. The appellant has withdrawn this appeal. Remove from calendar. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to remove PA2004 -265 item from calendar. yes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes. None Absent: None Abstain: None * ** SUBJECT: Civic Plaza Sign Regulation Amendment ITEM NO. 4 Civic Plaza, 1 Civic Plaza PA2004 -272 request to amend the Civic Plaza Planned Community (PC -19) Text to modify the existing Recommended sign regulations relating to project identification signs by changing the size, location, number, for approval and the inclusion of tenant names. Chairperson Tucker noted the new text under project tenant identification signs refer to the signs being permitted at major entry access from adjacent streets. Do we hav minor access? It looks like we have just three access points and each of them is here the signs are intended to be located. Ms. Ung, referencing the site plan as part of the attachment, noted there are several entry ways into the facility even though they are not a major entryway, but still an access point. That is the reason we have the word "main" in there. Chairperson Tucker then asked if there was any limitation on letter sizes for the projec tenant identification signs? It refers to 18 inches on the project building identification signs, but I didn't see other limitation. Ms. Ung answered there is no limitation on the size of the tenant signs because the applicant did not ask for one. We deliberately set the overall size of the monumen signs to give flexibility should they have a tenant name that is long or anything else added to that. Chairperson Tucker noted the panels on those are only 5 and 1/2 inches, so it would not be 18 inches. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn02- 17- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/17/2005 Page 4 of 6 missioner Eaton noted that on handwritten page 20 the 5 112 inch is the size of ing rather than the size of the panel. )irperson Tucker noted there is no individual limit but the sign plan that is not part text shows that it is 5 1/2 or 6 inches. Ung answered that the size of the tenant sign is not included in the text itself. imissioner Hawkins noted he would like to incorporate the application limits in tl ndment so that what they are applying for has some bearing on what we a Ming. He suggested language to include, the monument sign shall be limited to in height and 11 feet in width and a follow on sentence would be, signage letterh be limited as in the application. Tucker noted this is a zone text and we need to call out what we want here. Ung suggested that we could incorporate the signage that the applicant submitted. : would be the standard size for both the tenant and size of the monument signs. iirperson Tucker noted that would be incorporated into the text so that it refers to inches for the tenant names. Temple suggested saying lettering on the project tenant identification sign shall °d as depicted on the exhibit. The exhibit will be made part of the zone text. Tucker agreed. comment was opened. . ria Broming of LPA, Inc., representing the applicant, noted that they are Bement with what has been discussed. She then noted that on the monument s the project name that we are adding, it is actually 12 feet, not 11 that we posing. It is not clear on the exhibit because it has been reduced, but looking it was submitted, it was at 12 feet. arson Tucker affirmed that the monument sign shall be 6 feet by 12 feet; building identification sign is 5 feet by 12 feet. Broming noted that is acceptable. nissioner Eaton asked if there was any intention of putting a comer sign at S< and San Joaquin and would these regulations allow that even if that was not at this point? Broming noted we are not currently planning on this nor is it their intent? Tucker noted that there is a typical Irvine Company monument at that corner. Ooner Eaton then noted that the language in Section 3 ought to refer to t owner rather than The Irvine Company in case The Irvine Company decides " file: / /N:lApps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn02- 17- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/17/2005 Page 5 of 6 sell. Ms. Broming agreed. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Code Amendment No. 2004 -01 or Civic Plaza (PA2005 -272) amending the project/tenant identification monument sign dimensions to 6 feet by 12 feet and attaching to the PC text, the exhibits that are in the staff report that indicate the letter dimensions of the signs, changing the name oll he Irvine Com an y in the proposed text to property owner. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None UBJECT: Rudy's Pub and Grill (PA2004 -273) ITEM NO. 5 3110 Newport Boulevard PA2004 -273 Request to permit additions and alterations to an existing eating and drinking Continued to establishment. The applicant proposes to add a retractable roof over a portion of the 03/03/2005 building, an exterior patio adjacent to Newport Boulevard and second floor office pace. The Modification Permit request is to permit alterations of portions of the firs floor and the new second floor office space that encroach 4 feet into the required 10 foot alley setback. Ms. Temple noted that staff requests that this item be continued to March 3, 2005. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to March 3, 2005. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Discussion of the Zoning Code Revision project directed by City Council. ITEM NO. 6 taff gave an in depth overview of the presentation made to the City Council at th Discussion - meeting of February 8, 2005 regarding zoning compliance review issues in the Planning Department. The Planning Commission was informed of the City Council direction to commence consideration of Zoning Code revisions which could simplify zoning regulations and the plan check process, including the formation of an Ad Ho Committee to oversee and guide the revisions, to include the participation of Planning Commission members. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that at the last meeting o February 8th, the Council approved a budget amendment to augment and expand the scope of work for the sign code revisions; a hearing was conducted on the changes to the medical office parking requirements and an Ordinance was introduced that will be approved at the next meeting; an appeal by the Butterfields was heard on the approval of the Circle residence at 3315 Ocean Blvd., the Council sustained the Planning Commission action and amended the location of the top level deck by pulling it back an additional 2 and 1/2 feet; and, " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn02- 17- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 02/17/2005 Page 6 of 6 the Council approved a Professional Agreement with Griffin Structures not t( exceed $578,185 to do a schematic design for a new city hall on this site. Commissioner Eaton suggested that since the Council reaffirmed that this will b( the site of the new City Hall, would that have any affect on those two Genera Plan Alternates that have alternative City Hall locations. b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Commit - Commissioner Selich noted that a report was given on hotel demand and economics of hotel uses and how it relates to the General Plan alternatives part of the economic analysis. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Updc Committee - no meeting. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Toerge asked that a line item on the Lo Coastal Program Certification Committee be added. Staff agreed. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future for action and staff report - none Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted that th( LCPCC has started to meet again to review draft implementation documents. The first packet containing administrative procedures for the issuance of Coasta Development Permits and the processes associated with them were reviewed b� the committee on February 1st and 16th. The first packet for public access wil be reviewed by the LCPCC on February 28th and staff now has a schedule( meeting with Coastal staff on February 25th to review the status of the Land Us( Plan application that has already been deemed complete. Project status - Chairperson Tucker mentioned that St. Andrews is having some meetings that will introduce the general aspects of the parking agreement, bul apparently there is no parking agreement yet. The District wants to be sure that the neighbors are aware of what is going on. The process is inching along. Mr. Edmonston added that the Church has announced several open house meeting: where the community can come and review both the plan the Church hac developed by Linscott Law and Greenspan as well as a plan that the school hac prepared by LPA Associates. Both are on the table and they are seekinc community input. h. Request for excused absences - none. I ADJOURNMENT: 7:35 D.m. IADJOURNMENTI CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING " file: / /N:1 Apps1 WEBDATAI Intemet \PlnAgendas120051mn02- 17- 05.htm 06/24/2008