Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/20020 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley - STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Todd Weber, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes of February 21 2002 as revised. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Public Comments: Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, March 1, 2002. Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 7. 2002 1811 Quail Street • (PA2001 -157) Re- adoption of a Planned Community Development Text Amendment to Newport Place Planned Community Block G & H, permitting a 1,590 net square foot addition to an existing office building located at 1811 Quail Street. Chairperson Tucker noted that the Planning Commission had seen this previously and this is a technical clean up only. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance rescinding Ordinance No. 2002-003 and re -adopt Planned Community Development Text Amendment No. 2001-002 as depicted In the attached industrial statistical analysis by adopting Resolution No.1551 entitled, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommending that the City Council Rescind Ordinance No. 2002 -003 and adopt an ordinance approving Planned Community Development Text Amendment No. 2001-002 for Property Located at 1811 Quail Street." Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajonian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None • ... SUBJECT: Pacific Republic Capital Office Building 1150 Granville Drive (PA2001 -161) Development of an 8,000 square foot professional office building with below grade parking. The application includes a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning Code Amendment to increase the existing development allocation from 5,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet. The Code Amendment Includes a request to reduce the rear yard setback of 35 feet along Newport Center Drive to 25 feet. The project involves the establishment of a Site Plan Review (SPR) Overlay District for the project site to allow Planning Commission review of the project. A Modification Permit is requested for an additional monument sign. Commissioner Gifford asked for additional information regarding the setbacks of the surrounding buildings. Ms. Temple stated: • Looking at all the surrounding buildings, both office and residential in the vicinity, the most commonly existing setback is 35 feet and in the residential area it expands to as much as 40 feet. • Corporate Plaza Planned Community area setbacks are larger. • She then distributed a copy of a digital aerial photograph with an overlay of parcel lines in red showing the relationship between INDEX Item 1 PA2001 -157 Recommended for approval Item 2 PA2001 -161 Recommended for approval City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 existing buildings and the parcel lines. • The property in question has been marked with an approximate 25- foot line and would be less but comparable to those within the vicinity of the project. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added: • The setback from the project overhang is 20 feet. • There are 5 -foot roof overhangs. • There is one place on the second floor where there is a deck with a railing at 20 feet and is shown as a railing on the elevation plan only. • Because we did not notice those particular setback encroachments, assuming that the 25 -foot setback is established on Newport Center Drive, they would require the approval of a modification permit. • It is our intention to renotice the hearing for the City Council including those modifications for the roof overhang and the deck and a portion of the subterranean parking structure that also goes beyond the 25 feet. Ms. Clauson added that approval of the project would be subject to the need for a modification. This project is a recommendation to the City Council on the General Plan. • Ms. Temple added that there have been other issues where compliance with the Code arose. If this project was not going before the City Council, one of the options would be to approve the project with a condition that a subsequent modification application be submitted and reviewed by the Modification Committee. The Commission could, if they found that Issue to be substantial enough, simply continue the hearing to allow for appropriate notice so that the entire project and all its aspects could be heard at one time. It would be how significant you deem the consideration of the modification to the overall approval of the site plan. Chairman Tucker noted that we should go ahead and listen to all the aspects of the item and then review the options. Commissioner Kranzley stated as a tenant of the 1100 building for three years, the intersection of Granville Drive and the driveway into the bank parking lot and the driveway Into the tennis club is at best hazardous. What can be done to help or create a less hazardous Intersection? Mr. Edmonston answered that both that piece of Granville Drive and the bank property and the property servicing the tennis club are all privately owned over which the City does not have direct control. We have worked with the tennis club and The Irvine Company when they were developing their property looking for alternative alignments there. The use of the tennis club parking lot as a through way is of great concern to the tennis club and so they put in speed bumps to slow that down. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 Ms. Temple added that Corporate Plaza West is owned by The Irvine Company, the Cal Fed bank is owned separately and O'Hill Partnership owns the tennis club. Ms. Clauson added that for any accidents that happen on private property, the City would not have liability. If anything happens on public property, If there is an engineering design it is signed off, there is immunity to the City. At Commission inquiry, she added that there would be no liability to the City. Discussion continued on the parking, site distance criteria and traffic through the private lots. Commissioner McDaniel asked why we are asked for an increase In the entitlement? It is a beautiful building, but other than a windfall profit for somebody that we would be giving this applicant as opposed to somebody else, I hope someone can give me an explanation. Commissioner Selich asked that in reviewing the site plan and building design, did staff pursue holding the 35 -foot setback on Newport Center Drive and either sliding the building back closer to Granville Drive and reducing that setback or looking at making the building longer and skinnier? One of the restrictions this building has is the 90- degree parking in the parking structure that makes it 60 feet wide. Did you look at doing angle parking with a one -way drive with an entrance in and an exit out of the structure to get the building so it was longer and skinnier and not encroaching into the setback areas? Ms. Temple answered: • There has always been an interest by the various project proponents to reduce the setback on Newport Center Drive. • Did not talk specifically about the issue of changing orientation as a means to achieve a different building footprint. • Talked about extra coverage and reducing the setback on Granville Drive as being needed in order to preserve the setback on Newport Center Drive. During this most recent review, we did not go through extra- ordinary discussion in regards to re- siting or re- planning the building. There is rationale and justification for this request, this Is the project the applicant wanted to submit. The overall design and the modest height of the structure combined with the fact that a large amount of the building becomes less and less visible as you go up Newport Center Drive due to its Increasing grade, does lessen the impact to the public roadway of the reduction of the setback. That combined with the maintenance of a broader setback to a residential neighborhood in Newport Beach, In our opinion, was an appropriate balance to strike in this project. Commissioner Selich then distributed to the Planning Commission a copy of the • original site plan that was proposed when the zoning and the general plan was INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 changed on the property back in 1994 adding this is a comparison to what we have now. Bill Ficker, 1127 Granville Drive spoke as a representative of the applicant noting: • Ownership came about through foreclosure approximately two years ago. • Following the foreclosure, the applicant decided it was not practical to build a spec office building on that property, especially one of 5,000 square feet. • They want to use the building themselves and probably rent part of the space at first until they expand Into It. • The applicant is a capital company providing for mainly new medical industries. • Presently, they occupy office space In Corporate Plaza. • They decided this would be a good headquarters for them and permit them to build a nicer building and be in a nicer location. • 1 suggested that there would have to be some benefit to the community in general, although it isn't as great as the benefit to the Granville neighborhood in particular. If we could do a building that has the support of the neighbors, that might be reasonable. Primarily, the maximum building possible on site was 8,000 square feet and that is what we have requested. . That permitted us to park all of the cars under the building and do a building that is more organic in design using stone and maintaining a lot of landscape over 59% of the site. • During our submittal of the plans, they were reviewed by Planning, Public Works and Building Departments. We increased the turn around area so you don't just go down a ramp. There is a place for delivery trucks to park and a handicap space outside for convenience. All except two cars would be parked under the building. • The perpendicular parking is, in our opinion, the most practical way because all the parking is below grade. This permits us to use one ramp, which helps a great deal with the development of the site and reduces the length of the building. • We were trying to reduce the mass of the buildings as reflected in our drawings with low eaves, sloping roofs and hip roofs. • 1 thought with the 25 -foot setback, a 4 or 5 -foot overhang or small balcony in front of the second floor mezzanine seemed logical and not offensive. • At that time we thought we would be working with a Development Agreement and would be coming back with very specific construction drawings that would be scrutinized at that time. • We feel we could work within this envelope that we have projected. • We have the support of the Granville Association and we do something that is pretty good visually for that area. • Looking at the model, 25 or 35 feet Is a very big setback, especially . with the scale of the building. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 • • The building across the way is 35 to 45 feet above the sidewalk grade and is set back 35 feet. Their underground parking does protrude 10 feet into that 35 -foot setback. • We have a five -foot intrusion into that 25 -foot setback for a piece of the basement and that is primarily for handicapped parking access. The project protects the Granville area from future developers coming in and building a 5,000 -foot glass box and paving the lot for 20 cars parking with no controls by the City. We have tried to do something here that is of exceptionally good quality. Commissioner Agajanian asked about the interest in having the additional entitlement. The proposed 60% increase in floor space was for the benefit of whom? Mr. Ficker answered that his clients wanted to build a bigger building if they were going to develop it for their own use. They felt they had to have a larger building they could grow into. The benefit to the City is putting all the parking under the building. This building will not look smaller than a 5,000 - square foot building, however, a 5,000 square foot building could be a greater mass due to the limit of the height. What protects the neighbors is that this building will be a lower key building and will not go up to the maximum height because of the additional area. The important thing is that you and we have control of the aesthetics and design of this building. Seth Oberg, 1117 Granville Drive, spoke as President of the Granville Homeowners Association noting: • The association scheduled a number of meetings over the past few years for presentations about this project. • There have been no serious objections raised about this design. • We are interested in the aesthetics of this building and we feel the design is very pleasing. • He urged that the Commission approve the request to reduce the 35 foot setback along Newport Center Drive to 25 feet so that the building is moved back as far into the back of the lot as possible. • Granville Drive is a private street owned by the Homeowner's Association and we are used to the park like atmosphere and wish to retain as much of that landscaping as we can. • We ask for a condition on this that the on -grade parking be limited to the two spaces that are in the proposal. We wish to limit the amount of parking on grade to preserve the landscaped look of the lot. Mr. Ficker noted that moving the building back, every foot that we gain is meaningful in the ramp slope to get from the street down to the drive into the parking area. Public comment was closed. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 Commissioner Selich stated his concerns of preserving the 35 -foot setback on Newport Center Drive that we have with all the other buildings. I received the 1994 staff report that included the site plan that I passed to the Commission earlier. I think the two site plans speak for themselves and the building that will have underground parking and more landscaped area, is worth giving the additional 3,000 square feet for. We are not creating some kind of precedent on the setback because it is important that we have the setback. Mr. Ficker brought up some good points about the site lines, low profile of the building versus other buildings that are much larger in scale; the slope going down to the building and the fact that the building does sit at the first floor level substantially below Newport Center Drive. Looking at all of this, I support the project and it is worthwhile giving the extra 3,000 square feet to get the parking under the building. It is probably not feasible to do that type parking for 5,000 square foot building. I am in support of the project. Commissioner Kranzley noted that having worked next door for a period of time, he was concerned about the increase of trips and entitlement. I think this is a superior design and has been said, giving the parking underground, it will also maintain a park like area around the building that has such a low profile. It provides a superior building for that corner. I am in support of this project. Commissioner Gifford noted she is in support of the project for the reasons that • have been mentioned. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the project. He stated that this is not to be Interpreted as a precedent because the increase in the entitlement is not a large amount. I would not support anything of that large size, but the fact that it is 3,000 square feet does not make it that big an issue. Given that it is a superior design we are getting, I think it is an equitable trade -off that we are getting. I am in support of the project. Commissioner Kiser noting his agreement with the previous statements stated he supports the project. He asked that the monument sign adjacent to Newport Center Drive not limit the site distance to Newport Center Drive. The design of the building fits well on the site and in the neighborhood. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the project as his concerns /questions have been answered. Chairperson Tucker noted: • Looking at the Newport Center Drive setback, buildings along this perimeter do not have this sloping that obscure part of the building, this is unique. • The 25-20 feet is not inappropriate given the circumstances. • The neighbors are happy with it. • Supports this project. • Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any comments /questions on the INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 conditions. Commissioner Gifford, referring to page 9 of the staff report, 'the Site Plan Review process establishing 12 standards for review of projects and their applicability to the project as being discussed on items A through L. Item A regarding the large trees that will be removed, how is that to be restituted? Is that mandatory? Todd Weber, Associate Planner answered that the two tall Eucalyptus trees located towards the center of the lot identified on the second sheet of the plan set, will need to be removed because they are right in the middle of where the building is anticipated to be located. With the improvements to the entry drive, etc., some of those trees along Granville Drive may need to be either removed or re- located to accommodate that drive. The applicant prepared a landscape plan that was presented at your chair this evening that shows the landscaping proposal. This landscape plan can be tied to the conditions of approval. Discussion then followed: • The three tall Eucalyptus trees on site and three fichus trees that are in the way will be removed. • Most of the planting there now, will stay. It will be thinned out. • The street tree planting that Is there now will stay. • We are adding a couple of trees on Granville Drive. • Ms. Temple then suggested two changes: • Condition 1 - add after January 8, 2002 and landscape plan dated 0310512002. • The stamped date on the plans shall be changed to August 13, 2001. • Staff will go through and itemize each sheet and date in the conditions. A condition to be added: The monument sign at Newport Center Drive and Granville Drive shall comply with Pubhc Works Design Standard 110L. Commissioner Selich asked: • Criteria on landscape plans showing the tree sizes, etc. Ms. Wood answered that there is no criteria in that regard. There could be a condition that a more detailed landscape plan be reviewed by the Director, or, come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gifford asked in referring to the Landscape Plan: How do we compare what is existing to what is going to be done? Ms. Wood noted that we need more specifics as well as language that trees that are to remain, need to be protected during construction. Following a brief discussion, it was decided by the Planning Commission that the issue of landscaping need not come back to the Commission and that staff • - INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 should handle this item. • Condition 8 will have added verbiage, The applicant will retain as much of the existing plant materials on site as practicable and to the extent that material is removed, it will be replaced with like material to create a similar screen than what exists presently and shall be protected from damage during construction. • Condition 12 shall read; Storage outside of the building shall be prohibited. • A condition shall be added to - Limit non - covered parking to two spaces. Chairperson Tucker stated that we have reviewed this project. Procedurally we probably should have had some other things noticed, but that can all be corrected at the Council level. I see no reason to bring this item back to the Commission. The rest of the Commission agreed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment (GP20014)03), Code Amendment (CA2001 -003), and Site Plan Review 2002 -001 (PA2001 -161) subject to the findings and conditions of approval in the draft resolution attached as Exhibit 1. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich • Noes: None SUBJECT: Mortazavi Triplex (PA2001 -193) 1324 W. Balboa Boulevard • (PA2001 -193) Request for an addition and alteration of an existing nonconforming triplex. The existing triplex is nonconforming due to the fact that it is located in the R -2 District where two dwelling units are the maximum allowed. The triplex is also nonconforming in that the property provides only three parking spaces where the Zoning Ordniance requires a minimum of six spaces (2 per unit). Ms. Temple reported that staff has requested a continuance of this item to March 21, 2002. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to March 21, 2002. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None max♦ INDEX Item 3 PA2001 -193 Continued to 03/21/2002 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: I Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2002 a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood reported that at the City Council meeting of February 26th it was noted that the Cannery Lofts project has been called for review and that public hearing will be March 12"'; the Van Cleve appeal was on the agenda but was continued to April 9th and the appointment of the General Plan Advisory Committee was made with 38 members. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Kranzley reported that there was a meeting on Monday at which was discussed the information that was going on to the workshops. d) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Selich asked staff to bring back a suggested procedure for minimum requirements for landscape plans. Include in that the size of trees as well as the criteria for how they are sized, rather than just using box sizes, using tree calipers for deciduous and non - deciduous trees and ground trunk height for palm trees, etc. • e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f) Status report on Planning Commission requests - none. g) Project status - none. h) Requests for excused absences - Commissioners Kranzley, Kiser and Selich are excused from the March 21 sr meeting. M 1`• ADJOURNMENT to 7:30 on March 21, 2002: 7:45 p.m. EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 10 INDEX Adjournment