Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/2009CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 2009 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren— all Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Michael Torres, Deputy City Attorney Chris Savan, Planning Technician Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 2, 2009. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 17, 2009. ITEM NO. 1 Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: McDaniel SUBJECT: North Newport Center Planned Community Amendment (PA2009- ITEM NO. 2 111) PA2009 -111 100, 150, 180, 190, 450 Newport Center Drive and 5100 Plaza Colony Continued to 10/22/2009 A planned community text amendment to incorporate portions of Block 100, Block 400, Block 800, and Newport Village into the North Newport Center Planned Community and a code amendment to change the zoning classification of these properties from APF, PC -28, PC -23, and PC 27 to PC -56 on Districting Maps Nos. 48, 49, and 50.1ocated at 2865 E. Coast Highway. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/2009 Chairman Hawkins noted he is an office tenant at 110 Newport Center Drive and will recuse himself from this matter. Vice Chairman McDaniel asked about the continuance requests. Planning Manager Patrick Alford noted staff had received two requests from property owners for a continuance of this item and neither of them expressed a date for this matter to come back. However, they did ask for more time to study the amendment to determine if there was any impact on their properties or development rights. As stated in the staff report, our intent is to simply limit those properties owned by the applicant and should not affect the development regulations on any property outside those areas. Vice Chairman McDaniel asked if this item should be continued Mr. Alford answered it was made clear in the report that no other properties except for the applicant's will be affected by this amendment. Perhaps following testimony by the public and staff there might be an indication to continue. Commissioner Toerge noted it would be prudent to open the public comment for testimony. It is appropriate to continue this item following discussion by staff and the Commission who will address their concerns. Commissioner Hillgren noted he has similar thoughts. The neighbors need an opportunity to study any potential changes. The intent is not to modify the development rights, but looking at the text it seems there are potentially substantial modifications. I would like to understand this before we act on it and having extra time might be helpful. Vice Chairman McDaniel asked for testimony on having this item continued. John Hamilton of Block 100 noted that it appears the proposed changes do affect his block and his entitlements and rights. It is not appropriate to act on this without the time to study this. At Commission inquiry, he stated a two -week continuance would be sufficient. Dan Miller of the Irvine Company noted this document contains what was approved two years ago when the North Newport Center Planned Community was set up. This document, while lengthy, has been approved and is being edited to add three other blocks. Continuing, he noted: ➢ Two years ago, the goal was to consolidate various Planned Community (PCs) within the Newport Center to have consistent rules, design guidelines and processes spelled out. That was also the determination by staff; however, they first undertook the update of the Zone Code, which is still going on. We started the process due to the timing of the updates to start our goal of one PC for Newport Center. That document was created and approved by Council before tonight. ➢ The document tonight contains changes that are not substantial and includes our properties that are totally built -out, Blocks 100, 400 and 800. There is no more entitlement on them and we are not askina for Page 2 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/2009 any increase in density or intensity, or changes in the allowable permitted uses. Blocks 400 and 800 have old planned community text and we are basically modernizing those and having all the guidelines, restrictions and processes brought up to today's requirements. Block 100 is just general zoning. ➢ The goal of City staff was to get all these things in a Planned Community; it only affects our holdings and does not affect any other property. It doesn't allow us to transfer square footage into these blocks as that would be another City Council action we would have to go through. ➢ Block 500, which contains only our properties, and a number of buildings are excluded as there are too many small property owners to take this all at one time. We can not force them into our PC and that would be a City goal in the future. Vice Chairman McDaniel asked about a continuance. Mr. Miller noted he does not want a continuance as there is no impact on any other property owner. This amendment is modifying what has been approved to include three more blocks and apply, in most cases, more restrictive zoning and requirements on us, not anybody else. There is no reason for a continuance. This amendment has to go to the City Council at a future meeting. Vice Chairman McDaniel asked if there was anyone else in the audience who would like a continuance, there was no response. Commissioner Toerge asked if there would be a hardship if this item was continued. Mr. Miller answered we have to go before the Airport Land Use Commission because it is in the height zone and even though we are lowering the height limits, we are going on October 15`h as that has to be done prior to going to the City Council. The other thing is we are trying to get to the Council prior to November when they will be involved with the new city hall. I am worried about missing that window and missing the City Council meeting. Commissioner Toerge noted the timing is hard for another party as well as the Commission to study this application. Mr. Miller answered a two -week continuance would work for him. He asked that the item be discussed and then if there are items that need clarification, they could come back in two weeks with that information. Commissioner Unsworth added he would like to hear what the applicant has to say. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to hear this item now and then continue it for two weeks. Vice Chairman McDaniel noted a two -week continuance is acceptable. Page 3 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/2009 Commissioner Peotter noted he could not support the motion as stated as he would rather wait until hearing the item and then determine if it would be continued or not. Commissioner Unsworth noted he could not support the motion as stated. Ayes: Eaton, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: Unsworth and Peotter Absent: Hawkins Vice Chairman McDaniel asked staff to proceed. Mr. Alford noted this amendment: ➢ Is to add equivalent land use and property development regulations from the Block 400, Block 800 and Newport Village PCs and APF District into the North Newport Center PC. ➢ It would remove references to these properties from the Block 400, 800 and Newport Village PCs. ➢ It would amend the Districting Map Nos. 48, 49 and 50 to reflect zoning and classification. The objective is to have no increase in range of permitted or conditional) permitted land uses and no increase in development density or intensity. Staff worked with the applicant to insure this. ➢ However, there are a couple of regulations that we could not work out by the time of publication. There is a proposal in Block 800 that medical retail be permitted with a minor use permit. This is currently permitted by the Block 800 PC; however, there is also limitation that this type of retail use be limited as a convenience nature and ancillary to seniors' residential facilities. Staff recommends honoring this and transferring this provision in the PC and is reflected in the resolution. ➢ In Block 800 there is a provision that would allow senior- oriented residential to exceed the 245 dwelling unit limit that is currently in the PC; however, we feel this is inconsistent with the Land Use Element which sets the development limit at exactly 245 units. We recommend that all references to that be removed from the proposed Planned Community text. ➢ One item that is not in the report, Table 4, which gives the parking regulations, proposes that the parking provisions for Black 100 and Bloc 400 be included in the PC. However, this would mean lowering the parking standards for these areas and that was not our intent. Therefore, we recommend for Blocks 100 and 400 that the Table reflect that the will adhere to the parking requirements of the Zoning Code. ➢ Other changes occurring as part of this amendment is Table 2 (Development Limits) being updated to reflect the City Council approved Transfer of Development Rights. Council has reviewed the initial approval through subsequent occasions that certain transfers and conversions were traffic neutral and consistent with the General Plan and so approved those. This is simply bringing the Table up to date to reflect those approvals. ➢ Another fix is to reflect all the Planning Director's interpretations regarding ambiguities or silence in the document that are not covered by Page 4 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/2009 the PC or the Zoning Code and are being incorporated as part of I recommended changes. ➢ This amendment is comprised of two categories: one is the translation existing regulations and second, is an update on all things that he occurred since the PC was originally approved. Commissioner Eaton asked about his inquiries. Mr. Alford added: ➢ On whether it is in the public interest in breaking up zoning of 4 more blocks in Newport Center - Table 4 reflects a Council- approved trip neutral transfer through the process of a traffic study and consistency with the General Plan. ➢ The overall goal is to have one PC for all of Newport Center and it is oui goal that these properties will eventually be incorporated; short of the cooperation of the owners of the other properties, only the City can do that and the applicant can only propose zoning reclassification for their properties. There is no reason to hold back on the applicant's request and eventually the City will have some type of PC amendment tc incorporate those areas not under the applicant's control. ➢ Indications of regulations being less restrictive — There are no changes of resulting increase in land uses or development intensity /density, Changes to administrative procedures are not considered less restrictive: it is just a different process. Items that may require Planning Commission approval are going to be delegated to the Planning Director, The notice radius is 300 feet. ➢ Permitting 2 free standing business signs along San Joaquin Road with higher letter height — this is one of the translations of the PC and exist: on the ground. We recognize that a few things were missed in the PC following a two -year administration period and are trying to incorporate those and bring up to date. ➢ Adding language stating Council approval of the transfer of development rights is a ministerial action — Policy LU6.14.3 authorizes transfer of development rights in Newport Center; the Planned Community currently establishes the procedure and requires trip neutrality and consistency with the General Plan. It is an administrative action by the City Council. Commissioner Eaton asked if the other property owners are notified of a tran of development rights occurring within their block. Does the Council have discretion to not approve a transfer even if traffic neutral? Mr. Alford answered he would get that information. The language states when can't be approved, it does not say the Council is compelled to approve it. F continued with the final inquiry about the intent, purpose and effect of desic regulations. These basically reflect what has happened in the administration the Planned Community over the past two years. Some situations were n covered by the PC or Zoning Code and are reflected on Pages 9 and 11 of tt Design Regulations where the issue of roof structures and architectural featur( were not clearly addressed. The Commission would have the opportunity Page 5 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES make changes if they felt interpretations were incorrect. Commissioner Eaton noted his concerns of pages depicting signs in guidelines, Newport Village reference and Block 500 open area. Mr. Alford stated it is the existing situations that are being incorporated in thi amendment. Newport Village is not proposed to have any new land use; it i basically a landscaped corner strip, which is addressed under open spac corners. He added that he would verify the corner count in Blocks 500 and 400. Commissioner Unsworth noted his concern of Development Rights whether it would change from discretion to ministerial act. Mr. Alford noted the criterion used for these transfers is not changing. The ne language us an attempt to make it clearer; however, if Commission wishes, could be modified. Mr. Torres noted that it is staff's position that this has always been minister and this language verifies that. The language currently written could I interpreted to be discretionary, the way the change is proposed will make ministerial. Mr. Alford noted that if the Commission wants, they can give direction on how might deviate from the standards as long as it is less restrictive than curr zoning allows. Commissioner Hillgren noted his concerns: ➢ The computation of square footage density; ➢ Change in definitions to tunnels and shafts; ➢ Change in the measurement standards as relates to what the floor a is; ➢ Parking ratios and standards; ➢ Height measurements and views of screened mechanical equipment; ➢ Approvals and /or ministerial actions. Mr. Alford noted: ➢ This comes out of the interpretations made by the Planning Director the organization of the PC and reference to the Zoning Code. ➢ The interpretation does not affect key elements such as tr, generation and would be types of utility corridors and areas of heE screened rooftop mechanical equipment, etc., which could have b interpreted as floor area, but the Director determined that was not intent. It is appropriate to include that in the PC now. ➢ What is being proposed is the parking standards be revised to m clear Blocks 100 and 400 that are part of the PC continue to regulated by parking standards of the Zoning Code, which is the s: as today. ➢ Height exceptions for architectural features for lower level developn 10/08/2009 Page 6 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/2009 are in the Zoning Code but it does not address situations on high -r areas. The Planning Director made the interpretation regarding this the North Newport PC area. Commissioner Unsworth asked about the senior congregate care and traffic. Mr. Alford answered the Block 800 provision allows for more than 245 dwellii units if you can show the number of trips is no more than you would have at 2, regular units. This was done under a previous General Plan. The current of is more precise in the development allocations. Staff felt any interpretation th would allow you to exceed that number of units would be inappropriate al inconsistent with the Land Use Element. There are provisions where they coy propose senior housing under the General Plan but that is a separate procedu and is more appropriate than adding this provision in the PC. Commissioner Toerge noted his concerns: Definitions, and suggested using the BOMA standard, which calculate the square footage. Why do we have the special calculation? w Issue of appurtenances that do not have to be screened such e wireless antennas, etc. that exceed the height limit should have sour restriction. We should set and adhere to a height limit. Architectural features definition might be too broad. ➢ Definition of service tunnels is too broad and allows for maintenanc personnel space to be occupied that does not have to be parked. This document seems to give more authority to the Planning Direct( than we've seen before. Transfer of development rights as ministerial actions. ➢ Why zero setbacks on Santa Maria Road in Block 800? ➢ New language for exclusion on Page 13, how much of that spat currently exists in Fashion Island and was it counted before now and if is not could it create additional entitlement? There might be state legislation to allow density bonuses for seni( living, would that override city limits? ➢ Why aren't accessory, ancillary and support uses less than 5,OC square feet included in calculation of required parking? ➢ Page 21 chart does not include maximum letter /logo height restrictioi why? F Page 22, signs are not limited in Block 500; maximum sign size is n( restricted, why? ➢ Why are support uses exempt from parking requirements as defined c Page 35? Mr. Miller stated: This report brings forth things that are already on the books. ➢ We are trying to be consistent. ➢ The Development Table reflects the past history and does not incl new intensity or development. ➢ The Council has basically acted on the issue of development tran and is done with certain findinqs. If there is a neqative traffic impa( Page 7 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/2009 can not be transferred. There is no discretion on that and is how it is being done today. F We are fine with the old language, which is still ministerial or the new language that is also ministerial. There will be no change. ➢ Issue of existing interpretations is what we wanted to do to specify what is there on the ground now. The specifics make it clear what we and staff can or can not do. ➢ There are no new signs and the Table indicates what is existing there now. Santa Maria is a private street and the zero setback is what is there today. ➢ The issue of tunnels, we look at that as a passageway to get to and from; however, if there is a concern about the possibility of rooms, we can put language in that section to make it consistent with practices and for clarity. ➢ The Planned Community text was approved as part of the Development Agreement and is a contract. Discussion continued on the lack of maximum sign size, sign inventory, building sign examples, transfer of development rights, anomaly on Block 100 in the General Plan and overall traffic impact criteria. Public comment was opened. Mr. Hamilton, property owner in Block 100, asked if there was a change to a parking lot that became a parking structure is there consideration for other property owners. Mr. Miller answered there are parking agreements and all property owners' needs and rights have to be addressed. Public comment was closed. Vice Chairman McDaniel noted his concern with any policy that can not be changed; and, giving all that power to one person and ministerial changes. This item was continued to October 22, 2009. SUBJECT: 31st Street Lido, LLC (PA2009 -096) ITEM NO. 3 500 31 st Street PA2009 -096 A use permit application to exceed the base height limit of 26 feet of the 26/35 Approved Height Limitation Zone pursuant to Section 20.65.040.0 of the Municipal Code. The applicant is proposing a mixed -use building with a maximum height of 32 feet. Chairman Hawkins returned to chair the rest of the meeting. Chris Savan gave an overview of the staff report. He noted an addendum to Section 2, Item 3 of the draft Resolution which states that the applicant will be Page 8 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES responsible for any litigation in regards to the approval of this project if so carried out by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Eaton noted there was no condition to reflect the finding. Mr. Savan noted this can be added as part of the recommendation. Mr. Glen Gellatly, project designer with Bissell Architects, representing the applicants noted: ➢ This project came before the Commission and was approved five years ago. ➢ They have read and agreed to all conditions, except Condition 13. There is precedence in the Cannery Lofts project for tandem parking with residential parking in a two -car garage. They are proposing what is consistent and compatible with the area. ➢ We had discussed the issue of tandem parking when talking with staff. ➢ The concern of tandem parking was brought up only a few days ago and in order to satisfy this concern, major architectural and structural revisions would be required, which would impact not only the visual aesthetics on the alley elevation, but also the internal floor plan and functionality. It would also affect neighborhood compatibility with how the garage doors are handled along the alley. ➢ He asked approval of the project as designed. Commissioner Eaton asked if the prior approved project involved tandem parking. Why is there tandem parking now? Mr. Gellatly answered, no. The tandem parking came about due to the handicap width change to 8 feet, not 5 feet. The first commercial parking space is for an employee and then guest parking follows in behind in that area. Commissioner McDaniel asked about the location of the handicapped parking and was told it was in front of the building. Mr. Savan noted that the 2005 approval contained a proposed curb cut in front that was wider but because of the increased aisle width for the handicap space, it was not achievable with the design. They therefore moved it to the rear. The General Plan Policies in the Circulation Element require a convenient access to commercial parking spaces. This design would not allow the use of the garage space for commercial unless there was some structural changes. There is seven inches along Villa Way where it could be altered to accommodate that garage area. The purpose of this condition was to achieve compliance with the General Plan policy in the Circulation Element. Mr. Gellatly answered there is a structural situation with sheer panels on either side of the garage door made of solid steel. Once those are limited then the numbers do not add up and the end result would be a funny looking elevation. All the garage doors have walls on either side and are framed nicely. It is nice to have residential parking in the garage. Chairman Hawkins asked for the lanquaqe for the new condition. 10/08/2009 Page 9 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/2009 Mr. Torres noted it would be the same language as presented in the North Newport Center, which is required by the Municipal Code. Any time there is discretionary approval involving CEQA, the applicant is required to indemnify the City because it is the applicant's project. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Gellatly answered he and the owner agree to this additional condition. Commissioner Hillgren noted his concern with Findings 3 and 5 that relate to the increase in height shall not result in floor area exceeding the floor area otherwise permitted. The occupiable floor area is below the square footage that is allowed, but architecturally you have decks in a building structure over a lot of open space. From a density point of view, can we make this finding? If you were to extend that second floor across, it would exceed the floor area. How was that dealt with? Mr. Savan noted the deck space is not enclosed and therefore not included. Mr. Alford added the required finding is saying that by increasing the height, they are not getting additional floor area as the building would not be entitled. By definition in the Zone Code, if it is open on two sides it is not counted as floor area. In terms of making the finding, it can be made as it is not counted as floor area. Mr. Gellatly noted other buildings in the area have similar heights, and it is 32 feet all the way through the project. We have intentionally dealt with the scale and mass by dropping the roof towards Villa Way by 5 feet thereby creating an average height of 29 feet. The floor plans, if carried through, would not have adequate height along Villa Way along the plate line because of the roof slope. This building has a ceiling height of 9 feet at the first floor and has low ceilings at the first and third floors and allows close to a story and a half space in the dining, living and a portion of the kitchen area. Commissioner McDaniel asked staff if the '05 approval included a height variance. Mr. Savan answered yes, it was almost the same design just the configuration on the ground floor was changed in terms of the wall placement. Commissioner Peotter noted the 1.25 FAR is designed to limit intensity not so much the mass. Mr. Alford added floor area limits (FAR) were a major concern due to traffic for residential as the larger the buildings bring more people thereby more cars and traffic. The provision is that by allowing additional height that you are not adding additional floor area. We've since had instances where that could include something that has easily been turned into floor area. We believe it is a question of intent relating to the intensity of the development and not the aesthetic of it. Public comment was Page 10 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/2009 Dino Caponelli, local resident, referring to Page 27, noted his concern of the design of the new on- street parallel parking spaces on Villa Way and how it would affect the turning radius. Chairman Hawkins suggested inserting "and approve' in Condition 16 to address the concern. Discussion continued on the amount of space between the parking spaces. Public comment was closed. Mr. Gellatly stated he had met with Public Works regarding this layout on Villa Way and it was done at their direction. Commissioner Toerge, referring to Page 3 of the draft Resolution, suggested to strike the third paragraph under D -1 as it does not support the finding and the prior two paragraphs do support the finding. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Peotter to approve Use Permit No. UP2009 -027 with the attached Findings and Conditions as edited by deleting the last paragraph on page 3; delete the second sentence of Condition 13, add, the indemnification language to the conditions that the applicant indicated they would accept, and in Condition 16, add, 'and approve' in the last sentence. Mr. Alford, referring to Condition 13, suggested we clarify that the front space in the tandem arrangement would be marked and designated for the employee and the rear space be designated for the customer. The maker and second of the motion agreed. Mr. Gellatly noted his applicant agrees. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren N I None Motion was made by Chairman Hawkins and seconded by Commission Peotter to dispense with the Additional Business. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None City Council Follow -up — Planning Commission reports. — Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a Page 11 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/2009 future agenda for discussion, action, or report — Requests for excused absences —none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 P.M. CHARLES UNSWORTH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 of 12