Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/19/2006Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 17 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PinAgendas/2006 /mn01- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary David Lepo, Hogle Ireland, consultant planner PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on January 13, 2006 CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 5, 2006 ITEM NO. 1 Minutes Approved Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None OBJECT: Sheldon Residence ITEM NO.2 14 Old Course Drive PA2006 -225 Appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2005 -103 (PA2005 -225) for a 1-foot Approved encroachment of a detached accessory structure within a required rear yard setback. The applicant requests a 5 -foot encroachment within a required 10 -foot rear yard setback as originally proposed within the application. Mr. Brandon Nichols gave an overview of the staff report concluding that in staffs opinion there is no practical difficulty associated with the property and therefore no hardship results from http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PinAgendas/2006 /mn01- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 2 of 17 Irequiring the standard 10 -foot rear setback. I Commission inquiry, Mr. Nichols stated that the determination made by the Zoni ninistrator was based upon the information that was provided at the Modification hearing. of the appeal staff did an in -depth analysis of the lot characteristics compared to others community. Based on that information staff determined that the first finding could not Carmel, architect who worked on the design of the subject proposal noted: . Shape of the lot is five sided, . Fitting in this extra structure along with a swimming pool and other improvements, it to be in the 10 -foot setback. . Property backs up to a greenbelt and a street with another greenbelt, and the house is 150 feet away. . No impact on any neighbors by this encroachment. Steve Sheldon, applicant, presented three letters of support from neighbors, his ngs and then noted: . Rear property line is not straight. . Proposed structure varies as far as to the amount of encroachment. . Backyard is designed for family use with a cook center and pool as well as the structure. . Neighbors prefer to have the pool house back against the wall because of the way look into the property. Will plant trees and screen the pool house from neighbors and will maintain landscape at the roof line. . Other pool houses in One Ford Road have been granted this same encroachment. . He then made a presentation depicting where modifications have been granted in neighborhood for accessory uses. . His lot is a custom lot on a little over 1/4 acre. . He then presented possible findings for the Commission to use in order to grant encroachment. ssioner Cole asked if the applicant had looked at a re- design to shift the angle of the amount of space lost and height of the house. r. Sheldon answered that he would lose space in the rear (about 20 - 25 feet). The pool eight is about 14 feet and 6 inches with a wood burning fireplace chimney of 18 feet. He a would modify the chimney to make it smaller. comment was opened. http: / /www. city.newpoit- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn0l- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 ,ott Hart, citizen, spoke as Chairman of the Architecture Committee of the Homeowi sociation. He noted they have reviewed the plans and believe they are fine. There has t review process and a sign -off with the neighbors around this home and impacted by nject. The association is fine with the encroachment. comment closed. Tucker asked what the purpose is to have a rear yard setback. Temple answered that setback yards assure adequate separation between >r public/common areas in order to preserve light and air. imissioner Tucker noted that in this case there aren't any structures that would benefit setback, would it make any difference with a separation if the building was set all the to the property line? It doesn't seem like there is anybody there. Temple answered to another home, you are correct. itinuing, Commission Tucker noted that behind the property line is a common area lot Iscaping that is seen by people in the next development over. The houses in Belcourt )ss the street from where this particular house is. I understand the purposes of the setba in this particular case I'm having a hard time how the benefits of the setback are adver cted by the location of the structure. Temple answered that staffs rational on this really has to do with the fact that all osed improvements could be designed in a conforming fashion if changes were made. Tucker stated that if this case had come before, this application would have Temple answered when you reference the barbecue and fireplaces, things that were given e are small structures. This proposal is a very substantial sized building and is ven rent in our opinion. imissioner Tucker noted he agrees and if there was anybody around them it would have er challenge. However, in this particular case there is nobody around it. We probabl ild have had a new finding in the requirements that gave us the latitude in situations wher particular setback serves no purpose in this type of situation where there is nobody around. Temple noted that for this Planned Community, where the lots are generally large, yF the regular Zoning Code allowed lesser setbacks for accessory structures; however, t by the way side. Many of the arguments in this particular application made by icant, perhaps the Homeowners Association might consider. suggesting to the City that I nd the Planned Community, or areas of the Planned Community, that would address imstance for any type of accessory structure, would be to us the better solution beca are actually changing their regulations to address the unique characteristics of 1 iirperson Toerge noted the original request was for a 5 foot encroachment into the 10 iack for the perimeter wall of the structure, and an additional 2 feet encroachment reds setback 3 feet for the eaves. Staff answered yes. Continuing, he noted the Zc iinistrator made that finding. Given the lack of impact on adjacencies he is conflicted a ideology of this policy and the practicality that there doesn't seem to be an impact. >sioner Henn noted there is large mature landscaping along the back property line the Belcourt areas. This residence is not visible to homes across the street. Page 3 of 17 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn01- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 4 of 17 modification would not defeat the intent of the Code here. Hawkins asked if Belcourt had objected to this project. Hart answered they have not spoken to Belcourt at all as it is not their responsibility to ide of their association. )mmissioner McDaniel asked about the agreement of trees to be planted. Is there writing to document this? Temple answered you would have to add a condition to maintain the landscaping -ted on the approved site plan. )mmissioner Hawkins noted that there will be a lot of wasted space with the required setbacl the back. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to grant the appeal for the approva Modification Permit No. 2005 -103 for a 5 foot encroachment of a detached accessory ucture within the required rear yard setback together with the eave encroachment of 2 feet. ie landscaping as depicted on the site plan together with a reduced fireplace chimney vcture to the minimum extent required by the Building Code for a gas fireplace is to be Sheldon noted he has agreed to the landscaping on the site plan and to maintain it to ht of the roof which is 14 feet. mmissioner McDaniel noted he is not in support of the motion because there is plenty of rc this lot to accommodate the proposed structure as is. There is an opportunity available to Acant without this modification. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole and Henn Noes: Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel Absent: None Abstain: None OBJECT: Sober Living by the Sea ITEM 2811 Villa Way PA2005-13 -13B Request for approval of Use Permit No. 2005 -031 to allow a substance abuse counseling Continue to enter. The application also requests the approval of an Off -Site Parking Agreement and a 02/09/2006 Modification Permit to allow the construction and use of an off -site parking lot located at 280 Lafayette Avenue, accommodating 12 employee parking spaces, two pair of which will be in tandem configuration. Additionally, a parking waiver of 43 spaces is requested in association with the use. Henn recused himself from this deliberating on this item. overview of the staff report was given by Jaime Murillo. He noted the reason for this a for a use permit, an off -site parking agreement and a waiver of the remaining 42 ces based on the finding that the parking demand is less than what the Code :ause of the operational characteristics. imissioner Tucker noted that the matter before the Commission has to do with the type that it is, which affects the amount of parking that is required. Staff answered yes and oval of a club facility and parking that is associated with that. Tucker noted it is an issue of a club or not a club and not based on the use that http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PhiAgendas/2006 /mn0l- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 5 of 17 d within the community. Therefore, people should not give us testimony of the of the club, that is really not relevant. Deputy City Attorney answered that the primary focus is on the parking and of a club. iairman Toerge noted that there is not a clear cut classification for this use. One alternative classify it as medical establishment. Temple noted that there are medical offices that hold meetings of this size; however, d not be consistent with the Code to classify this as a medical use. It is not a hospital !nts do not stay over night. issioner Hawkins, referring to Section 20.05.030 Sub Section B - residential care lin shared living quarters for 6 or fewer persons with physical or mental impairments ntially limit one or more of such persons major life activities. This classification inch homes, sober living environments, etc. He asked why staff eliminated this residential and what does sober living mean? Temple answered that use classification was recently adopted and added specifically for ip recovery homes in residential areas. Harp added that this use in residential is not designed for assembly uses. Sober living is ip home of people who have had an addiction to alcohol and they are living together in fence of 6 or fewer people. This statute is intended to allow them to live together as ar :r family would. There are state laws that prohibit the City from treating these hom( gent from any other homes within the City. ussion continued on residential care facilities, commercial area uses, parking req regulations. Tucker asked if the use permit was not allowed, what are their choices? Temple answered that the applicant has a choice of another commercial location or t J move out into houses. They would have to comply with the Building and Fire Codes pancy. An assembly use on a residential property is no different than a party. Harp noted his agreement. lic comment was opened. finis O'Neil, representing the applicant, noted: • This is an assembly with no medical treatments and is therefore a club that requires a u permit for this particular location in the Cannery Village Specific Plan. • Sober Living by the Sea could also operate without an assembly; however, they need use permit for the assembly area. . This facility has operated for the past 7 years and it was brought to the attention of operators and owners of the facility that they needed a use permit as a result of a inspection that occurred in furtherance of licensing requirements by the State of Califor . They are applying for a use permit and there is no attempt to circumvent the law. http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn0l- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 . The staff report is comprehensive about the operating characteristics of the facility. . Waiver of 42 parking spaces is appropriate due to the proximity of the Municipal lot. . He then made several references to the staff report. . This facility has been a good neighbor and distributed a letter of support from Chamber of Commerce. . He noted that they have read and understand all the findings and conditions within the staff report. Commission inquiry he added: . The clients are restricted from using a car to travel to the facility and are to use a bike the duration of their treatment; the clients agree to a curfew which is at 10:00 p.m., and drug testing. . There are no out patient services planned for this project. . The evening sessions include lectures, computer studies, education and are handled different stages as the client proceeds through the program. . The facility operates vans for clients' use . The majority of clients enroll in this program and are not related to any requirements of court system. Wright, director, noted: . Clients attend on a voluntary basis or through an intervention process. . College program is offered. . Clients are transported in vans. . Clients are prohibited from the use of cars in the 90 day primary residential program. Toerge noted this is a land use decision and encouraged participants to be brief. n Weeda, business owner in the Cannery Village area, referenced and distributed a noted: . Does this meet the land use and the intent? It has elements of a social club and hospital. . Minimum standard should be based on the hospital use. . This project does not fit within the Cannery Village Specific Plan. . This area is changing to residential mixed use that is pedestrian friendly with visitor retail commercial. Page 6 of 17 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn01- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 7 of 17 . This does not meet the criteria of the land use guidelines and you must hold the minimum standard with equal application to surrounding properties. . Parking is not adequate and no waiver should be allowed. . Basic use of medical office use would be a standard of 35 cars and they have 13. • The Coastal Commission has the overriding authority. . Development and use permits are opportunities for the Planning Commission to non - conforming uses into conformance. . This needs to go to the Coastal Commission, and the Planning Commission and Council do not have the authority to grant this waiver due to the intensification or alter of the use, which clearly this does. . He asked that this application be denied and or that it be required to go before the Commission. Commission inquiry, Mr. Weeda added: The proper thing is to find out what is allowed there in that space. They can c administration and adding parking is a positive thing and should have been done sooner. . Moderate group meetings so that they are smaller or have them off site. ner Tucker noted that having the applicant appear to the Coastal Commission is that we have the ability to require. Temple added that Coastal Development permits are required for new development. N< :lopment is happening with this project and is a re -use of an already developed property. standard that would require a Coastal Development permit is not met. ing a brief discussion, Mr. Harp advised against adding a condition regarding ission action. ace Low, resident, referring to his submitted letter, noted that this project should not have issification of a social club. They have been here for 7 years without a permit. They have reement with the Newport Club to do their group counseling there. What's wrong with that alternative? If you go to the web site you get a clear indication of what type of businf .se folks are in. It says they are state licensed, drug testing is done and reports are sent in. Allen, applicant, noted when he discussed this project with the City he was told the nseling was allowed. He asked the Fire Dept and Building Dept. for inspections. Sobe ig by the Sea has been in the community for over 20 years and at this location for 7 years. then discussed his goals, residential treatments, one on one counseling as well as grout nseling and these are private pay clients who come to this facility. iissioner Hawkins asked about the additional certification from the State. What would in terms of numbers and what would be done? Allen answered that under State law the Department of Alcohol and Drugs certification is intary practice. It does not increase numbers but increases accountability. The reason f certification is for a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" with certain standards http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn01- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 8 of 17 He explained the standards and differences. Staid, local resident, noted his opposition to this application due to traffic, noise, and ant of people in the neighborhood. tt Devalier, local resident, noted his opposition to this project due to the amount of c ked, confrontations with people, intimidation and noise and concern about the safety ople in Cannery Village. He asked that the parking waiver not be granted and that emission needs to establish standards. At Commission inquiry, he noted he has istered any complaints with the local Police Department. roe Dobbie, business owner in Cannery Village, noted he has never had a problem w Der Living by the Sea people. It is a high crime area due to the many bars and restaurants area, but not due to the Sober Living or the Newport Club. This operation has been goi for 7 years and has been good neighbor. They offer good services and have not intensifi, it use. iissioner Tucker noted this is a land use issue with a parking waiver, a club type use other use, and the modification for tandem parking. iy Cardos, local resident, works next to the Sober Living and reported that she has a problem with their parking or bicycles being out of place. Reese, local resident, distributed a hand out and asked that it be read by imissioners. He noted that staff has not done enough research and that the State does i elate the facility now. The staff reports are different and you need to see that you have information you need before coming to a decision tonight. He noted he filed a park plaint six months ago about the commercial vans in the parking lot. Granting t ication would set a precedent for the future. missioner Tucker clarified his perception on this issue and how a business mind works. d the Commission does not have a good choice and that it is something that is regulated and Federal and that the City has to live with. ianie Rosanelli, local resident, noted that the number of parking spaces is not enough. will be more retail /residential with redevelopment in the area and asked where additiona are going to be parked. She noted this is not the right place for this use and asked tha ig spaces not be given away. Liskin, local resident, noted that the residents should come first, visitors, then businesses. s and alcohol scare people. He asked that a good quality of life be provided for the locs Mosen, local property owner, noted he would not move into an area within five urants, micro brewery. nis Helfand, local resident, discussed personal history of addiction treatment. He there was no car use by clients of the facility and random drug testing. Andros, local resident, noted: . Discrepancies between staff reports. . Sober Living web site states that there is outpatient service in three separate locations. http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn01- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 9 of 17 . States it is licensed by the State of California. . According to Dunn and Bradstreet - they are identified as a specialty hospital, real agency, manager specialty outpatient clinic. . As residents, we are asking that you look at the use. They serve a purpose for community, which is their goal. . We are concerned with the zoning and there is a medical zone that allows for this use. . Not all of the information is being presented accurately. >ioner Tucker noted that there is a condition that states that the out - patient previously operated shall be prohibited. Person, representing the applicant, noted: . At the time of the application process, he knew nothing of an outpatient program. He, since then, discussed this issue with the Director who offered and is willing discontinue this service. comment was closed. Eaton asked Mr. Person: . Is there staff on site 24 hours a day? Mr. Person answered no staff after 10:00 p.m. . Length of the off -site parking agreement. Mr. Person answered that the room in back 2809 Villa Way is owned by the same party as across the street. Since 2002 that srr room in the back has been on a month to month basis for a parking agreement and t landlord assures us that will continue. . How many people are counseled there at one time and what is the maximum occupancy of the assembly room? Mr. Person answered that at the time the fire inspection tooN place, because of the single entry, we were required to limit that room to 49 people. Typically there is between 15 and 30 clients at any one time. All we are asking for is tc continue an existing business that has been in place for 7 years. . Is Sober Living by the Sea planning on expanding? Mr. Person answered that there currently 72 staff members of which at this particular facility there are 16 assigned. . What is the ultimate enforcement ability with who agrees to the no car and or the curf regulations? Mr. Person answered that having a vehicle is not conducive to recovery. this is violated, they could be removed from the program. . What about the curfew? Ms. Wright answered that no clients in the 90 day resident) treatment program have a car. We have different programs. This Use Permit is for the! day residential treatment program and the clients are not permitted to have cars. The are other clients who come in for counseling, but they do not use the larger assemt room. When a client violates a rule we address that by either asking them to go to different facility, perhaps they may have to do extra 'step' work, there are a lot of differe ways we work with them to get them to correct their behavior. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn01- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 10 of 17 . How many clients do you handle a week that are not in the 90 day program? None of other clients use that entrance to that building at 2809. on Toerge asked if the resolution and conditions of approval have been read by and do they agree to them? Person answered they have read the resolution and agree to all the findings and conditions. Commission inquiry, he noted that the maximum number of people involved in counselinc ssions would be 30 people. Most of the meetings are smaller and include 10 - 15 people. e larger meetings might happen once a day. There are staggered meetings throughout the y. They are operating at capacity for this facility and for the number of homes they want tc iintain. There is no present intent to enlarge and by the conditions imposed, it puts a natura it on it. If there is a problem, you have the opportunity to bring it back. The only people usinc use buildings are people prohibited from having a vehicle. nmissioner Tucker suggested having a condition on capping the number of employees vans have to be on the off -site lot at night. Person agreed to both. >sioner Eaton asked if a condition for a one year review would be acceptable? Mr. answered yes. missioner Hawkins, referring to Condition 20, eliminated the wording ... Condition 7, eliminate the wording, ... "can not be provided ". What is the r pancy of the site as noted in Condition 30? Person agreed and noted that the Fire and Building Departments have different numbers. have agreed to the 49 in the larger meeting room based on the Fire Departmen iirements. The meetings have about 20 - 25 seats set up. Tucker: . Condition 20 - eliminate second sentence. . Condition 32 - is this needed? Person answered that condition 32 was required by the Police Department. We would e a special event there. nmissioner Tucker suggested, "no special events permits are allowed." for condition 32 outpatient treatment is eliminated. A condition to limit the number of employees at any e would be set at 10 and add a condition for a one year review. Person agreed. ion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 2005 -031, Off -£ ping Agreement No. 2005 -005 revised version issued January 18th, and Modification Per 2005 -133 (for the employee tandem parking spaces) subject to findings and conditions oval with changes (PA2005 -136). 'he changes are: one year review by the Planning Commission, limit number of employees 0; delete second sentence of condition 20 and the program participants shall not operate mo shicles and the applicant shall have a policy; maximum occupancy limit per Building Coc hange on condition 22 the word consultant to consult; condition 32 no special event perm http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PhiAgendas /2006 /mn01- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 be allowed. applicant agreed to all the amended conditions. )mmissioner McDaniel noted he was not in support of this application. He noted 0 oject has been placed in this area but does not have enough parking, and the parking too large. He is not concerned where this might go if it moves from this area. )mmissioner Eaton noted that with enforceable conditions regarding bicycles and the off irking enhancement will take care of the employees' parking. The use is problematic as tl no definition that addresses what this project is and the question is what should it be class ? With the one year review, we will have the ability to look at the operation and have iility to revoke it if it is not working correctly or detrimentally. I therefore am in support of missioner Hawkins noted this is a difficult choice. The resident facilities are outside of ou fiction and the Zoning Code has been crafted to accommodate those and it is a matter o and or Federal law in connection with that. This is different and is within our jurisdiction. wavier of 40 parking spaces with the findings based on available parking 285 feet awal this facility is not right. You will not find people walking a football field length. The cipal lot is not conveniently located to this site. The applicant has been reasonable with the modified conditions; however, I don't believe we can fit this use with these findings at thk ion. I can't support the motion. iairperson Toerge noted he is compelled by three significant elements of this application. Or that there is a clear commitment for the use of bicycles; an operation that is in existence for gars with no registered complaints, and we are now going to put a one year review on it th +es us the opportunity to collect information during this time to allow us to assess. For thoe asons, he noted his support of the motion. Harp noted that the Commission can reserve the right to modify this proposal, but they ( revoke it. The only way to revoke this if the applicant had violated some of the conditions. ssioner Hawkins suggested having the findings as a condition to allow the opportunity because of the violation of that condition. s. Temple suggested that another condition such as that any vehicles coming to the site e associated with its operation that can not be accommodated in the available off -site pal cation and on site spaces must park in that lot. Then if they do not, for whatever reason, t a violation of that condition. mmissioner McDaniel noted that if this use permit is approved, it goes with the land. So matter what goes in that building will have the waiver of 42 parking spaces. Temple noted it would have to be a similar operation. nmissioner Cole noted he is concerned with the parking waiver. If this is classified as a cl it would require 57 spaces. This is the opportunity for the Planning Commission, and giv public testimony of the residents and local businessmen, I don't believe just the 13 spaces ig to be enough. There is testimony that there is a parking problem there. There is enou ertainty with the occupancy levels that they can accommodate in the room, there is a lack :tailed parking survey and, that in my opinion, is necessary in this case. We don't have tl ilability of a lot of things that are important in order to make this major decisions. Withc information, I am not in support of the motion. The public facility is not convenient enoul will not solve potential problems that could occur even with the conditions that are hard )roe. I am open to a continuance for a more detailed parking survey. Page 11 of 17 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn0l- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 12 of 17 )mmissioner Tucker noted the club use choice creates an issue which is the parking auirement, which in this particular case with creating those spaces on site and the conditions operation take care of that issue. However, the majority of the Commission is not in favor o s so either we ask the applicant if they want to continue the matter or we vote. iairperson Toerge noted we have discussed this item thoroughly. ibstitute motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to continue this item for two weeks. >. Temple noted that if the continuance was for a parking study to be conducted, it would no enough time. She then asked what information was needed. Cannery Village parking is ed by many people from within this area and to try to separate out who is from this facility is enormous task. iissioner Cole asked if we maximize the occupancy levels of this facility, we should amount of occupancy level for parking. Is. Temple noted during the day there is almost always convenient parking in the village. hear is that the real parking problems on the street start up when all the restaurants go to ill operational mode in the evening which starts around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. finis O'Neil, representing the applicant, noted that if a continuance for a reasonable period could generate the type of information that is being requested we certainly would agree Because of all the uses that impact the parking in this area it is difficult to identify with t s and restaurants. We can give better occupancy numbers; however, no matter the figu / are all riding bikes except for the staff and vans that pick up and drop people off. Whett need more than 13 spaces of site, that is all we have. There are parking stickers that ha n obtained and are used by consultants and employees that work there. nan Toerge noted he would not support a continuance as this is an operation that in operation for 7 years. This is the second time we have heard this and has adeq cation. All people coming to this site as clients will be using bicycles. ioner Tucker noted he supports a two week continuance. It is incumbent on to provide better information. We are unable to define a scope of study, but obvic a is botherina some of the Commissioners. Toerge, McDaniel None Henn HEARING ITEMS the meeting resumed. 100 -600 West Coast Highway I PA2004 -141 lest for approval of a Use Permit, Modification Permit and Development Plan, to allow the Approved opment of a 56,000 square foot shopping center and two -level subterranean parking ae. The site is approximately 2.57 acres and is currently occupied by 8 detached nercial structures that would be removed. The request includes consideration of a Use it to allow buildings to exceed the base height limit of 26 -feet up to a maximum height of 35 a Modification Permit to allow a commercial building to encroach into the required 5 foot rear yard abutting residential properties to the north, and a Modification Permit to allow a cape planter to be built less than the required width of 4 feet along Coast Highway. The ct also includes right -of -way dedication along Coast Highway for widening of Coal http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /xnn0l- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 13 of 17 Highway adjacent to the project site, installation of a traffic signal on Coast Highway, grading,) landscaping, site lighting and site walls. Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in connection with the application ove. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, with changes incorporated in the with mitigation measures indicated, the subject dedt lopment will not result in a Sig[ ect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Ne :claration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or the City of the subject application. Campbell gave a brief overview of the staff report. Staff has a resolution with findings ditions of approval for adoption. He noted condition 88 regarding pile driving needs to ad. The duplicate conditions of the Mitigation Measures have been deleted and staff I timbered the conditions. He noted language to be inserted into the resolution and referen handout that was distributed. rperson Toerge noted that today's hearing date needs to be incorporated in the resolution. Edmonston suggested that on the proposed condition 88 eliminate ... "to provide required ks." These are related to a separate structural system not related to piling. imissioner Tucker referencing the finding on the slope behind the property, the feasibil e needs to be addressed. He asked the applicant for his thoughts on how much squa age is needed to have a quality development and attract quality clients. Why do you thi need 56,000 square feet in that particular location? Beiswenger, Mariner's Mile Gateway, LLC, property owner and developer, answered: elopments need to be of a certain critical mass in order to justify improvements of the sca are being proposed here, which essentially is a retail center. It is also critical to have a rr for in a shopping center. In this case that mini anchor is going to be a drug store. TI erty could not be meaningfully developed with less then 56,000 square feet. A smal alopment would not offer the same mix or quality of users and we would have to revert Fidually developing the lots into fast food and other types of uses that currently exist on t way now. We know the City and community are not in favor of seeing that type alopment on this property. )mmissioner Tucker noted the Mariner's Mile framework speaks in terms of high .velopment. So the only way to do the high quality development is to have the project the scale that you are proposing? Beiswenger agreed. Toerge, referring to the plans, asked about the distance between floor plates in !an parking. r. Beiswenger answered that the first level of subterranean would be 9 feet and 6 inches e top of the slab to the lowest hanging point of any equipment or beam in the ceiling of the vel. The lower level of subterranean, should we build that, would have a lower height of a feet 4 inches to the lowest clear pipe or mechanical equipment or fire sprinkler. The p dicate that there will be about 9 feet and 6 inches clear in each level. imissioner Hawkins asked in order to accomplish the goals of the project, is it possible buildings in other ways? Is the presence of an anchor facility necessary for this project? http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn01- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Beiswenger answered that after reviewing various configurations, it was determined this best siting possible to allow for the widening of Coast Highway. It is absolutely necesst an anchor facility and the additional leases that have been executed have a co -tenar ✓ision that we have the drug store as an anchor to those smaller shop tenants. He answer : he has read, understands and agrees to the conditions. imissioner Tucker noted the language dealing with the feasibility needs to be inserted staff is working on that. Campbell referred to the handout noting the shaded text to be included in the finding on >mmissioner Hawkins noted that the standard was "practical," not "feasible." He read Policy the existing General Plan. ing discussion, and that it had been determined that it was not a natural landform, fined to replace 'feasible' with 'practical' and that further analysis was not necessary D. The Commission agreed. imissioner Cole asked about the retaining wall and the materials used. Staff indicated would come back for review. ssioner Hawkins suggested a change in Section 1 of the resolution concerning on the mitigated document. He suggested adding , ".....environment after mitiga oner Tucker noted on condition 24 regarding the trees, what will those trees grow in? 60, needs to mention angled parking as it is on the site plan. Campbell answered that planter pockets will have to be created with the proper drainage. sioner Hawkins noted the response to comments to CalTrans comments rec needed. Condition 36 should be amended to include, ... and will obtain all ry... Staff agreed. tinuing Commission Hawkins noted on condition 13 replace the word reduce with add .... "or above residences ". nissioner Cole asked about condition 54, is that review and approval? Staff answered yes. tion 63 can we designate where those will be? Staff answered that the floor plans and site will be referenced. 3ioner Hawkins suggested adding, "... prior to the issuance of grading plans... in condition 59. Staff agreed. comment was opened and closed. Commission inquiry, Mr. Beiswenger noted the changes were acceptable. lotion was made by Chairperson Toerge to 'ermit No. 2004 -025 and Modification Permit 00-600 West Coast Highway subject to the aport and as modified this evening. None approve Development Plan No. 2004 -001, U No. 2005 -117 (PA2004 -141) for the property findings and conditions as set forth in the st Page 14 of 17 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn01- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 15 of 17 Absent: None bstain: None ECT: Widening Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Rocky Point �m rvv. a Discussion Item >sion of the widening or improvement of Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Rock Only to provide three westbound lanes as a priority project for the 2006 Capital Improvemen am (CIP). Temple reported that the City is starting the preparation process for the Capi iovement Program. Should the Commission feel that the City should make a higher prioi a further non - structural widening improvement on another portion of Coast Highway not ociation with Mariner's Mile Gateway, but would be just a prioritization issue for the Put rks Department for the CIP. Do you want to make that recommendation and if so, we woi ig it in the context of the Capital Improvement Budget considerations. There are at least b dy Sessions on the CIP and then three to four on the rest of the budget and then a put iairman Toerge noted his concern of recommending this without a public hearing and businesses along the frontage. . Temple answered if this recommendation was made, the Council could tell the Public Wo partment to place this as a priority, then the Public Works Department would automatically outreach to inform the citizenry. )mmissioner Tucker noted that this was a suggestion that Commissioner Eaton wanted ve discussed by the Planning Commission and is an internal matter. He asked if the right iy in front of McDonald's was improved through the width of that project, would that allow t ariner's Mile Gateway project impacts to be improved so that area would function better w( the traffic signal? Edmonston answered that the improvement does take a triangular piece along the fron McDonalds to finish the transition but that using the entire frontage would not make it ter. The design we have meets the standards for transitions and is significantly longer at is there today and we are satisfied with that. )mmissioner Tucker noted that the theory advanced to him was that the stack up has a lot with the left turn movement at Riverside Drive and if there was a dual left it would shorten t cle and that would do a lot to alleviate the stack up back to Dover. We have the right of w the McDonald's. Temple noted the City has not taken the offer yet. There has been a number of a to address the 12 feet need for the future widening, through time. We know the is set back sufficiently on the lot. )mmissioner Eaton noted that maybe there was some way for the Council to look at tl sirability or feasibility of attempting to find some way to get the rest of the two lanes convert( three lanes up to Rocky Point where it becomes three lanes again. The reason I suggest( at is there is a perception that this causes the congestion on Mariner's Mile. The diminution •ee lanes to two is what causes the congestion. It is a perception that Green Light capitaliz every time they do a campaign. I thought if there was any chance that the completion of tl )riner's Mile Gateway project would allow the City to do in some way an interim re- striping moving parking to be able to extend the third lane through, then that would be an advantage. nissioner Hawkins asked if the CIP budget would not avoid any CEQA requirements tt a project would have? He was answered no. Continuing, this project would be subject http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn0l- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 16 of 17 some CEQA compliance and there would be noticing. He then noted it is a laudable goal to gel his done but this is problematic in part because of the parking problems this could create if we extend it all the way beyond the Balboa Bay Club. Extending it somewhat beyond the gateway to or through the McDonald's property is an interesting idea. If you have the Offer of Dedication and you are not eliminating on- street parking, I think it is an excellent suggestion and I would welcome the opportunity to get that portion to the Council in connection with the Capital Improvement Program. Chairperson Toerge noted he supports the recommendation of a comprehensive review o pedestrian and vehicular circulation but that we do public outreach and that we notify every caner affected by this. Absent this, I am not in support of this. Commissioner Tucker noted that the councilmember who represents this area is aware of our discussion. He then asked staff to report back on the McDonald's right of way and what would happen if we suggested the widening. We could then send this along to Council for their deliberation. Discussion continued. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item, ask staff for a brief report on he status of the McDonald's situation at the next meeting. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the City Council discussed the Baysid Residential Planned Community; the Santa Barbara Condominiums and Corporate Plaza West projects were approved; reconsideration of and Arts and Cultural Resources and an Historic Resources Elements of the General Plan was made, and a budget amendment for the General Plan Update information program was continued. b) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Henn stated EDC will have a sub - committee to review the drafl Economic Development plan and it is expected to be done within 60 days. c) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee Commissioner Eaton noted there has been no meeting. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Certification Committee - Chairperson Toerge noted there have been no other meetings. e) Report frorr. Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee Commissioner Eaton noted no meeting. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none and there was a discussion of tied votes. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. Project status - none. i Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 P.M. ADJOURNMENT http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn0l- 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 17 of 17 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn0l - 19- 06.htm 06/23/2008