Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/2015 - Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers—100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, March 19, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER -The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Tucker III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers and Tucker ABSENT: Brown (Excused) Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Michael Torres, Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer; Fern Nueno, Associate Planner; Jim Campbell, Principal Planner; Jennifer Biddle,Administrative Support Specialist IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Tucker invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on items not on the agenda, to do so at this time. Jim Mosher spoke regarding improvements in the appeals process and suggested making the Planning Division Action Report a readily-accessible publicly-posted document, updated as decisions are made. He additionally suggested that when a Planning decision has been made, that could be appealed, but was made not in a noticed public meeting, that the notification of that decision be noticed to the people who would have been noticed, had a public hearing been held. Seeing no others wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Tucker closed Public Comments. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES-None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 2015 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Tucker noted that minor corrections to the minutes were suggested by Mr.Jim Mosher. Chair Tucker opened public comments. Seeing no one wishing to comment, Chair Tucker closed public comments. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Koetting to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of March 5, 2015, as corrected. AYES: Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Brown VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 INGRAM VARIANCE (PA2014-131) 2723 Ocean Boulevard Page 1 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/19/15 Summary: A variance application for an addition and remodel of an existing single-family residence allowing: 1) a new, two-car garage to encroach 10-feet into a required 10-foot rear setback along Way Lane; 2) an addition to encroach 10-feet into the required 10-foot front setback along Ocean Boulevard; and 3) an addition and a new deck/guardrail at the rear of the residence to exceed the 24-foot height limit to grade by approximately 19 feet. Construction will not exceed the top of curb height from Ocean Boulevard. Associate Planner Fern Nueno provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing location, surrounding land uses and properties, existing conditions, details of the proposed addition, reason for the variance request, compliance with all other development standards, site plan, previous variance approvals for the subject property and properties in the area, existing garages, floor plans, proposed two-car garage, existing retaining wall, landscaping, and minimal changes to the view from the rear of the property. In response to Chair Tucker's inquiry, Associate Planner Nueno reported there is an existing retaining wall at the property line on Way Lane. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's question, Associate Planner Nueno explained existing setback encroachments for which variances were previously approved. Associate Planner Nueno continued with the presentation addressing details of the proposed additions, minimizing alterations to the bluff, grade variations, project renderings, existing and proposed architecture, alley access, findings, alternative options for the Planning Commission's consideration, and staff's recommendations. She reported that the project architect distributed additional materials for review. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Associate Planner Nueno reported that the Planning Commission should consider that the exercise room, the children's study and office could be considered additional bedrooms or for other uses. She added that the office is not for commercial use but rather an office for the property owner and that the property is zoned residential. Replying to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Associate Planner Nueno addressed the existing garages and the conversion of one of the garages to another use as well as pedestrian access from Ocean Boulevard. Chair Tucker invited the applicant forward for a presentation. Chris Light, architect, provided a presentation on behalf of the applicant. He addressed the site topography, examining the neighborhood to evaluate the existing community, existing structures and improvements, development of the present plans through working with staff, goals of the applicant, preservation of the natural terrain and open space, and he explained the exhibits provided. Mr. Light responded to questions from the Commission regarding the trash collection site, narrowing the driveway, plans for the garages, and the light well. Chair Tucker opened the Public Hearing. Charlie Bogner, 2800 Bayview Drive, commented on the size of the lot, the number of variances approved and specifically the height variance and encroachments requested. He expressed concerns with the massing between two existing buildings. Discussion followed regarding sloped roof height limit and the flat roof height limit and impacts to views. Jim Mosher spoke regarding a possible need for a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed construction. He commented on categorical exclusions and parking in the front yard setback. Chair Tucker closed the Public Hearing. Associate Planner Nueno reported that the property is located in the coastal zone but is also in the exclusion zone, noting that if it meets the criteria for the exclusion order, it would be exempt from Coastal review. There is Page 2 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/19/15 a separate process for notifying the Coastal Commission of the project. If a variance is approved at this time, the project would be in compliance with the Zoning Code and the project would meet the criteria of the categorical exclusion order, and Coastal Commission review would not be required. She referenced Condition No. 2 of the exclusion order regarding parking in the front yard setback. Staff would need to evaluate the matter to determine whether or not the exclusion order is met. She added that the subject property is not designated as a coastal bluff in the Bluff Overlay District. Regarding impacts to public views, Associate Planner Nueno reported that Ocean Boulevard is designated as a coastal view road but that is why there is a height limitation for curb height limit and this project does not exceed that. Views from Ocean Boulevard towards the water are maintained. Staff believes that the project does not affect public views or private views from neighboring properties. In reply to Commissioner Lawler's questions, Associate Planner Nueno reported that the applicant has been working with staff for a long time and concerns with improvements within Ocean Boulevard rights-of-way have been expressed by staff. She added that recommendations to eliminate the driveway on Ocean Boulevard were formed after staff reviewed the final set of plans. She reported that there are six houses in the neighborhood that have Way Lane and Ocean Boulevard access and that two (including the subject house) have a driveway on Ocean Boulevard. Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski reported that when staff evaluates variances, it comes down to whether or not the findings can be satisfied. Staff determined that a better design was to provide access from Way Lane and that the driveway accessing the front was not necessary. She referenced City Council policy that addresses the need for Ocean Boulevard right-of-ways to be improved for public purposes. Discussion ensued regarding to the two houses that have driveways on Ocean Boulevard, the probability of people parking in the ten-foot wide driveway, staffs recommendation to eliminate the driveway, elevations, and possible impacts to views of the ocean. Motion made by Vice Chair Kramer and seconded by Secretary Myers to adopt Resolution No. 1975, approving Variance No. VA2014-005 as modified to allow for a narrowing of the driveway allowing for a one- car garage, the applicant to work with staff and Public Works to see if a hammerhead could be constructed, and, allowing for a two-car garage on Way Lane, and allowing for the requested heights. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine reported that the recommendation of Public Works was to eliminate the driveway on Ocean Boulevard as it would add two on-street parking spaces, it would provide a public benefit through an improved sidewalk and additional parkway improvements, there would be ADA improvements on the sidewalk, and it would comply with Council Policy L-2. He noted that the General Plan addresses closing curb cuts where feasible and safety concerns relative to vehicles backing onto Ocean Boulevard. In response to Commissioner Koetting's questions, City Traffic Engineer Brine stated that the driveway would be eliminated but there will be a pedestrian walkway from Ocean Boulevard to the property. Chair Tucker indicated he is generally supportive of the variance, but his inclination would be to support staffs recommendation to eliminate the driveway on Ocean Boulevard on the basis that it complied with Council policy. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski referenced a redlined resolution approving the applicant's proposal and Associate Planner Fern Nueno distributed copies to the Commission. Discussion followed regarding the applicant working with staff regarding a hammerhead and the possibility of the applicant converting the one-car garage to another use and losing their driveway. Associate Planner Nueno reviewed the redlined version of the resolution. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Associate Planner Nueno commented on proof that the existing garage encroachment is or is not detrimental. Page 3 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/19/15 The motion carried as follows. AYES: Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, and Myers NOES: Hillgren and Tucker ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Brown ITEM NO, 3 UPTOWN NEWPORT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT(PA2015-015) 4311 &4321 Jamboree Road, North side of Jamboree Road, between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street Uptown Newport requests an amendment of the Uptown Newport Development Agreement (DA) to modify Section 3.1 to change the payment of public benefit fees to the City from the issuance of building permits to the issuance of certificates of occupancy; and modify Section 3.2.1 to change the payment of fees in-lieu of parkland dedication for all units at the issuance of the first building permit for any unit to the issuance of building permits on a per unit basis. Chair Tucker noted that this amendment is to change the timing of payments. Principal Planner Jim Campbell noted there have been discussions between the applicant and staff. Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres reported that City Council will hear this after the Planning Commission's recommendation. City Council has not taken formal action or formed an opinion. Commissioner Lawler recused himself from hearing this item as he has a real property ownership interest immediately to the south of the project, and departed the Chambers. Chair Tucker opened the Public Hearing. Fred Fourcher, 507 Larkspur, Corona del Mar, and co-owner of a building adjacent to the subject property, expressed concerns that the deal has changed with respect to the City receiving development fees. Additionally, he expressed concerns that it changed from a balanced development project to low-income. He noted that the FIR states that there are no traffic impacts with respect to the airport and stated he does not understand that determination. He added that there was going to be a larger park but that has also changed and that having a proper-sized park for residents of the project is important. Adriana Fourcher, 507 Larkspur, Corona del Mar, and co-owner of a building adjacent to the subject property, opined that it would behoove new City Council Members to visit the subject property. She noted the size of the project and impacts to the community and expressed concerns with changes from the original plans. Jim Mosher spoke regarding possible changes in ownership and wondered about the reason for changes to the agreement. Chair Tucker noted there have been many hearings on this project and commented about the owner building all of the affordable housing at one time. He commented on the sale of the property and the expectation that there will be more sales of more parcels. He addressed the size of the park and did not see that either the project or the amount of fees has changed. The only change, as proposed, is the timing of when the fees will be paid. Principal Planner Campbell reported there are two, one-acre parks, one in each phase and there will be some in-lieu fees to be paid. The only change currently before the Planning Commission is the timing of fee payments. Vice Chair Kramer commented on an additional interest relative to the fees. The applicant is actually paying more money to the City than originally determined. Page 4 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3119/15 Chair Tucker invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. John Santry, Executive Vice President for Shopoff Realty Investments, reported that the project always had an affordable component and that an adjustment was requested to construct them in the first phase. He added that affordable units cannot be segregated into a single building and that the units will be the same standard units as the others. He noted that Shopoff Realty investments is still a partner in the deal and that it will be a long-term owner and is actively involved. He provided a status update on the construction process and addressed the for-sale component, the proposed parks, fees, the park in-lieu fee and the public benefit fee. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Santry noted that there is a precedent in a deal that was made with Meridian, in terms of their request. He added that their public benefit fees are based on certificates of occupancy and not building permits. Chair Tucker closed the Public Hearing. Motion made by Chair Tucker to adopt the resolution recommending City Council approval of the First Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA2012-003. Secretary Myers commented on the original deal noting that when a deal is approved, it should not change. He did not agree with payment of public benefit fees upon issuance of certificates of occupancy, but that he would like the City receiving the benefit of the money sooner, rather than later, as per the agreement. He stated he will not support the motion. Commissioner Hillgren recommended that City Council take up this topic and stated that it is out of the Planning Commission's purview to change the original deal. Chair Tucker noted that this matter is a recommendation to the City Council. Assistant City Attorney Torres reported that the Municipal Code allows for amendments to Development Agreements so that it is not abnormal to have a Development Agreement amended. Secretary Myers commented on material or design changes to the project as understandable but noted that the request is to change financial terms that were understood by the applicant,well before the deal was struck. Chair Tucker stated he does not see the applicant's request as material or detrimental for the City. Commissioner Hillgren stated he shares Secretary Myers's thoughts in that the Planning Commission does not have the basis for recommending a change to an economic transaction. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of setting a higher escalation, cost of funds, City Council's purview to negotiate business deals, the public benefit component and the Planning Commission's purview. Chair Tucker's motion was seconded by Vice Chair Kramer. Assistant City Attorney Torres stated that the motion could be amended asking the City Council to consider additional fees, but not necessarily imposing that at this time since that is outside of what is being considered at this time. The motion failed. AYES: Kramer and Tucker NOES: Hillgren, Koetting, and Myers RECUSED: Lawler ABSENT: Brown Page 5 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/19/15 In response to Vice Chair Kramer's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Torres reported that according to the Municipal Code, matters such as this are to be reviewed by the Planning Commission,with a recommendation to City Council. In this instance, the project is not changing, but the timing of the payments will be. The law indicates that it is first reviewed by the Planning Commission and then by Council. He noted this is more appropriate for Council review; however, it is included in the Development Agreement so it is before the Planning Commission. If there is a lack of a recommendation or a"no"vote, the matter dies here, and does not go before Council. Commissioner Hillgren stated the intent is to pass this on to Council for its consideration. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Koetting and carried to recommend this item to City Council with a recommendation that City Council consider additional incentives to the City for the requested change in the timing of payments. AYES: Hillgren, Koetting,and Myers NOES: Kramer and Tucker RECUSED: Lawler ABSENT: Brown Chair Tucker stated there are some matters where City Council does not care what the Planning Commission thinks. He added that Council will figure out whether they want to ask for more incentives,or not. Commissioner Lawler returned to the Chambers and took his place on the dais. VIII. NEW BUSINESS ITEM NO. 4 HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR WEST NEWPORT MESA(PA2015-047) West Newport Mesa Discussion of a Zoning Code Amendment to allow increased residential building height in the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District within Statistical Area A2. in West Newport Mesa_in conjunction with the provision of enhanced project design and amenities. Associate Planner Nueno provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing the proposed amendment, vicinity map, initiation of the amendment by City Council, land uses in the vicinity, General Plan policies implemented through the Zoning Code, height limits for properties in the district, building height stipulations, and details of the proposed guidelines for the district. She presented an example of a nearby project that could be developed through the height overlay. Associate Planner Nueno noted the need for Planning Commission feedback and stated that depending on the discussion and direction provided, staff will schedule a noticed public hearing for the next Planning Commission meeting and that, if approved by the Commission, the matter will be forwarded to City Council for review. She added that correspondence was received and forwarded to the Commission regarding the development of a specific plan for the area. However, Council has only directed the establishment of an overlay district, at this time. In answer to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Associate Planner Nueno stated that forty feet would be the maximum height for sloped roofs and flat roofs and would accommodate a three-story design with a roof deck and guardrail. She added that the proposed height overlay would be for additional height over what is already allowed under discretionary approval in order to allow for a three-story design with a roof deck to take advantage of views in the area. In order to provide enhanced amenities, enough area is necessary, and the Planned Development Permit requires a one acre minimum. Smaller lots have the potential to be merged in order to take advantage of the overlay district. If the site is less than an acre, it may not be large enough to provide any benefit to the City or neighborhood for having the additional height. She addressed existing and proposed setback requirements as well as landscaping, creation of a"village"and street improvements, and noted that the guidelines will help with development of a cohesive, public realm. Page 6 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/19/15 In reply to Chair Tuckers inquiry, Associate Planner Nueno stated that evaluation would be done on a case-by- case basis in terms of those wanting to take advantage of the overlay. Chair Tucker commented on specific plans and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski noted that, in this kind of setting, specific plans have been used less and less as this is a built environment with multiple property owners. In such cases, master programs and design guidelines are more commonly used. Discussion followed regarding parks, getting cooperation from property owners, and creating and offering incentives for public benefits. Chair Tucker opened public comments. Alan Beek, SPON Secretary, referenced a letter submitted to the Commission and commended staff for focusing on the subject area. He added that staff is making a good start in the right direction and suggested holding community meetings regarding the issue, and stated that SPON is concerned that the entire area should be treated comprehensively rather than piecemeal. Jim Mosher spoke of the need for clarity in terms of what Council expects the Planning Commission to achieve. He discussed the process of the initiation and how it was brought about at the request of Council Member Petros with little direction to the Planning Commission. He commented on promises made that have not been realized regarding implementation of specific plans. David Szecsei spoke regarding the bottom portion of the subject zone as being included within the coastal zone and asked if consideration has been given to a possible need for approval from the Coastal Commission. Additionally, he wondered why the same differential cannot be made regarding the heights of sloped roofs at 40 feet versus 35 feet for flat roofs, and required guest parking is not as clearly defined as the common open space requirement and suggested stating a specific percentage above the code requirement. He wondered whether the impact of additional traffic has been considered and mentioned the possible need for a traffic study. He suggested the need for more discussion with all stakeholders. Coralee Newman, Principal of Government Solutions, 1881 Dover Drive, resident of Newport Beach, and representative for the property owner that initiated the discussion, commented positively on the proposed overlay. In terms of traffic and the General Pian of 2006, the.,public voted on the General Plan and stated that they saw this area as high-density residential. However, there is no intent to increase density and that the request is that the area be considered to be improved with a new type of product that currently is not allowed. There is no new traffic being generated by the proposal. She added that this is asking the Planning Commission for the ability to do some creative planning and that the product is very popular with the younger demographics. The proposed zone change is not forcing anyone to build that product, but merely allowing development of the same. She noted that the benefit includes the ability to do some beautification with greater setbacks, more open space, and more parking than what currently exists. She added that the subject property is within Council Member Petros's district and that is why he brought it forward to Council. Chair Tucker closed public comments. In reply to Chair Tucker's question, Associate Planner Nueno reported that the size and unit count would remain the same or may decrease because of the additional setbacks and amenities required and confirmed that the floor area would be more vertical. Chair Tucker expressed concern about reducing the floor area, but noted that this is just another option available for new development. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski added that it can be demonstrated that an 18 dwelling units per acre development can be achieved with the stated setbacks and on-site amenities and that the overlay offers flexibility. Discussion followed regarding the density, parking, landscaping, providing views, setbacks, amenities, and open space. Chair Tucker commented on specifying the quality of the architecture and materials. Page 7 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/19/15 Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski noted that language can be added to the code specifying criteria to ensure quality of the architecture and materials. Chair Tucker stated he would like that explicitly addressed. Associate Planner Nueno reported that depending on the feedback at this meeting, staff can have the matter scheduled for a public hearing on April 9th. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the density and the possibility of increasing the number of units or floor area ratio. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that staff does not anticipate offering a density bonus and that more units would only be allowed subject to the density-bonus law(affordable housing). Discussion followed regarding the possibility of a bonus density with the contribution of some community benefit. It was noted that doing so would require a General Plan Amendment. Vice Chair Kramer commented positively on the proposed overlay and stated his support. He stated he would like additional discussion regarding the possibility of adding five feet relative to a sloped versus flat roof for increased architectural breadth in the area. Commissioner Koetting commented on the need to consider signage and crosswalk amenities to identify the "village"for increased cohesiveness as part of a specific plan. Chair Tucker commented on the Planning Commission's free reign as this is an area under the Commission's jurisdiction, and commented positively on the proposed overlay. He directed staff to move forward with the ordinance, schedule the matter for a public hearing, and that this direction does not imply that the Planning Commission will recommend approval as presented at the next hearing. Chair Tucker confirmed that there was no opposition to the direction provided by the Commission to staff. 1X. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO.6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that on March 10th, Council conducted a study session related to alcohol-serving establishments on the Peninsula. They requested the business community to come together promoting a best-practices approach and sharing knowledge to address issues that have been raised. Additionally they requested that any pending applications that would have been addressed through the Zoning Administrator, be presented to the Planning Commission. She added that currently, there is one pending application for alcohol to be served at Lido Live Theater which will be presented to the Planning Commission within the next few months. Regarding Sessions,the deadline for appeal was today and no appeals were filed. Council approved condominium regulations for Balboa Island and at its next meeting the Council will consider an initiation for a minor code cleanup that will be presented to the Planning Commission,for review. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski addressed the Planning Commission schedule for future meetings and items for discussion. She offered options for meeting times for a study session on April 9th to discuss the LCP. The Planning Commission concurred to meet at the regular time, 6:30 p.m. Page 8 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/19!15 ITEM NO. 7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski addressed the process for generating meeting minutes and discussed the need to improve the consistency of the minutes, making sure that the minutes are clear to outside individuals and that sections of the minutes that may generate more public interest be more detailed. Chair Tucker noted the importance of having increased details when the Commission considers issues that run with the land (Le., a liquor permit on the Peninsula), and summary minutes on items such as a building being built where once it is built, it is built, and more details regarding more contentious issues, He suggested generating a two-page summary to provide to the minute service, of the Planning Commission's expectations. He added that the staff member responsible for presenting the original item should be responsible for reviewing the minutes for accuracy. Vice Chair Kramer suggested that the City Attorney also review the minutes. Commissioner Hillgren commented on efficiency, intent versus verbatim and providing guidance to the minutes service on the materiality. Commissioner Koetting felt that the minutes are too blunt and commented on the importance of Council "getting the flavor"of the discussion for increased understanding. Chair Tucker asked that the matter return to the Planning Commission as an agenda item to involve public comment. ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Lawler requested an excused absence for the Planning Commission meeting of April 9th. Commissioner Koetting requested an excused absence,for the Planning Commission meeting of April 23rd. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 2015. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, March 13, 2015 at 2:37 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on Friday, March 13, 2015, at 2:41 p.m. Larry 1`6`ckef, Chair Jayf Myer , Se reta y l Page 9 of 9