Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/2000CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Commissioner Kranzley- excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood - Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple - Planning Director Daniel Ohl - Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonton - Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner Niki Kallikounis - Planning Department Assistant C l Commissioner Gifford moved to nominate Commissioner Tucker as Secretary. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford Noes: None Absent Kranzley Abstain: Tucker Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, April 7, 2000. • Commissioner Tucker elected Secretary Public Comments Posting of the Agenda P • r�L City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 SUBJECT: Annexation of Bay Knolls Area General Plan Amendment, Prezoning Amendment, sphere of influence change, detachments, necessary to complete annexation of the Bay Knolls area to the City Planning Director Temple commented that, as noted in the staff report, the proposed General Plan and zoning amendments are intended to accommodate the annexation of the Bay Knolls Area to the City of Newport Beach. Currently the area is either within the corporate boundaries of Costa Mesa or within that city's sphere of influence. The zoning regulations represent a hybrid of Costa Mesa and Orange County zoning and is intended to minimize the number of legal non - conforming created as a result of the zone change. Ms. Temple noted that staff would recommend one modification to the proposed development standards for this annexation area. Costa Mesa and the County of Orange do not utilize Newport Beach's average roof height interpretation for the purposes of measuring the height of buildings. Since staff is suggesting approving a 35 foot height limit, which is substantially higher than Newport Beach's typical R -1 residential zoning, staff suggests that the zoning limitation include a note: "That this is a maximum limitation, and the average roof height in the Zoning Code Regulations does not apply in this overlay district. Ms. Temple introduced Mr. Dave Kiff, Newport Beach Deputy City Manager, who is the project manager for the annexation project. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Kiff explained the largest portion of the territory seeking annexation is in the unincorporated area. There are two areas that are actually a detachment from the City of Costa Mesa. Mr. Kiff commented that the area that goes farthest to the west to Santa Ana between Santa Isabelle and 22nd Streets is not included in the annexation because part of it is unincorporated, and there may be a small portion that is in the City of Costa Mesa. Mr. Kiff commented that the City of Newport Beach and the City of Costa Mesa staffs met with their respective Fire and Police personnel and they believe that it is most appropriate not to have people on opposite sides of the street residing in different jurisdictions. Mr. Kiff stated that is why the map for Bay Knolls goes down property lines and not down streets. This is due to Fire and Police issues. Commissioner Ashley commented that that there would be a gap between the area to be annexed and Santa Ana Avenue, which will be running North /South, which makes it difficult for the County to administer services that would be equal to the quality the people would expect. Mr. riff responded that the City of Costa Mesa is processing an annexation concurrent with the City of Newport Beach that would pick -up the remainder of their INDEX Item No. 1 Moved to Recommend to City Council s • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 unincorporated area at the same time. Commissioner Gifford asked when the staffs of the two cities sat down together, what was the arrangement for community input? Mr. Kiff commented that they did not invite members of the community at that level of discussion. Members of the community typically have an opportunity to comment from here forward. Mr. Kiff reminded that, at this step, they have not filed an application with LAFCO but once they do, LAFCO holds a hearing that is noticed to everyone in the affected area. Mr. Kiff commented that this hearing today is noticed as well, and when the proposal goes to the City Council, that will also be noticed. A fourth hearing occurs after the LAFCO hearing, it comes back to the City Council for discussion. Mr. Kiff offered that, at any time in the process, most specifically at the LAFCO time, LAFCO could adjust the boundaries based on citizen input. At Commissioner request, Mr. Kiff commented that it is his understanding that the Planning Commission's role is to comment on the appropriateness of the General Plan Amendment and the zoning. The decision as to boundaries is made by the City Council when it adopts a Resolution of Intention to file and by LAFCO. LAFCO is truly the governing body that determines if the boundaries are correct. Public hearing opened. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Gifford noted for the record that the Commissioners received a hand - delivered package from the greater Bay Knolls Area homeowners dated April 15, 2000. Commissioner Gifford commented that, as she reviewed the report, rather than have a lot of qualifications as to how they would modify the 35 -foot height limit that is being suggested and adopting a combination of County and Costa Mesa City zoning provisions, it would be more efficient to bring these homes in under the City of Newport Beach's zoning code, so that they would become legal, non - conforming. Otherwise they are going to be legal, non - conforming with respect with one or two specific aspects of the proposed overlay. It might be more efficient to come in under a regular zoning code and if would give certain options to have different kinds of setbacks. Commissioner Ashley noted that his understanding is that the City of Costa Mesa has permitted a 35 -foot height limit where the City of Newport Beach restricts the heights of single family homes to 29 -feet. Also, if the City of Newport Beach were restrict them to their code requirements it would mean that a lot of them would be non - conforming uses under the City of Newport Beach's code. Ms. Temple commented that would be the case. Also in response to Commissioner Ashley's question, the 24 -foot height limit is only in INDEX 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 the R -I and R -2 Districts within the City. Ms. Temple noted that all of the Residential Planned Community Districts have a height limit of 32 -feet with ability to average the height of the roof. The 24 -foot height limitation for single family is not a universal standard within the City. Commissioner Selich commented that the City is considering annexing other areas in the area between Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, which is already built -out such as Santa Ana Heights. Ms. Temple responded that the Santa Ana area is the part of Santa Ana Heights almost totally surrounded by the City of Newport Beach and is easterly of Irvine Avenue. Commissioner Selich asked how the City is planning to handle the zoning there and if the City is considering Newport Coast, how will the zoning be handled there? Commissioner Selich commented to be consistent they need to consider how they will handle all the annexations the City is pursuing. Ms. Temple responded the County of Orange adopted a Specific Plan for the Santa Ana Heights area at the time of the Airport land use compatibility plan. At that time, the City also adopted as pre - annexation zoning a Specific Plan that paralleled the County's Land Use Plan and Development Standards. That has been an un- codified ordinance on the books for many years. The City is currently revising the specific plan that we have already adopted to do two things. One is to bring it into the format of the new Zoning Code and the second, incorporate certain amendments that the County has processed in that area over the years. For clarification Commissioner Selich asked, in essence Santa Ana Heights is going to have its own Zoning District through • the Specific Plan and their standards will be different than the rest of City's R- 1 standards because the are in that Specific Plan? Ms. Temple responded that that is correct and they are also consistent with the County's Plan as it stands today. Ms. Temple commented, in terms of Newport Coast /Newport Ridge, the zoning for those areas under the County of Orange is comprised of two Planned Community texts of which both were processed by The Irvine Company. The current consideration would be that these Planned Community texts would be adopted in whole with no modification by the City of Newport Beach. Ms. Temple explained that is a very unique circumstance because as part of the negotiation for that annexation, the City is also considering a joint powers arrangement, which would provide that the County of Orange would remain the land use authority in that area until all of the properties are built. The City of Newport Beach would not be receiving local land use authority. Commissioner Selich asked if they are annexed by the City they would be governed by PC text and not by the City's standard zoning districts? Ms. Temple responded that is correct and that they would have little ability to make modifications to those planned community texts as adopted by the County of Orange. Commissioner Kiser noted his understanding that combining the Orange County and Costa Mesa standards was something that worked for Bay Knolls 1 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 because of the larger size of the lots in that area. Commissioner Kiser asked if we applied the City's zoning would it give unworkable calculations in floor area ratios, setbacks, etc. Ms. Temple explained that it would not be unworkable but the diff erences would be: • In terms of maximum amount of building floor area you could substantially have more under these regulations because the City's zoning district is a two times the buildable area of the site. This limits the maximum coverage as well as the number of stories. • Front yard setback - while they are the some in the R -1 District of 20 -feet, the City's standard rear yard set back is 10 -feet, and on these lots our side yard setback would be 4 -feet. Both of which are much less than under this proposal. A larger footprint and two times the buildable width would be allowed and they could possibly result in larger buildings being built. However, they could not be built as tall under these regulations. Commissioner Kiser asked staff in their analysis, if the configuration of the lots are what is required in order to make future improvements in the area? Ms. Temple responded it depends on what the City is trying to achieve. If conformity with R -1 standard is important and the height limit is important, and the other potential consequences of reduced setbacks and increased floor area are acceptable, you could go in the other direction. Additionally if there is a little consideration of legal non - conformities, it would be an interesting question as to whether a larger residence size would out weight the maintenance of non - conformities. Commissioner Gifford expressed concerned that these properties are coming into the City and on the other side of Irvine Avenue there are properties that have lot sizes that are slightly different but have the same look and feel of community and it seems divisive to have a different standard. Commissioner Gifford commented if the other Commissioners are satisfied that the overlay district is what appropriate she would go along with it. Commissioner Selich commented that on the one hand the staff developed the regulations that would minimize the number of instances of legal non- conformity, which is good. But on the other hand, looking at the intersection of Tustin and 23rd Street, the lots on the other side of the street are similar in size, shape and types of structures but we will have two sets of zoning regulations applying to those lots. Commissioner Selich asked if the area on the Newport Beach side of Tustin Avenue was in the County at one time and subdivided as it is then the City annexed it and put City zoning on it? Or was it all developed under City zoning from the start? Ms. Temple responded that she did not know. Additionally, in the Westcliff area, the property is not zoned R -1 in most instances, they are R -1 -B. They are in one of the overlay districts. Commissioner Selich asked if there are different B overlays through the Westcliff area or just one B overlay. Ms. Temple commented that she thought most of them are R -1 -B. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Commissioner Gifford commented that they are dealing with an area that is not coherent as an area with a PC text. The boundaries do not take into account the differences of one type of community to another. Commissioner Gifford asked staff what would a R -1 -B look like if they went down the chart2 Commissioner Ashley commented, for example, if they wanted to apply R -1 -B to this area so that it would conform to City of Newport Beach development standards, it might make the units non - conforming. Under our zoning laws, any non - conforming structures could still be added to or changed so as a result, it does not remain static. Commissioner Selich felt it would be a burden to take that many single family homes and put them in a position of being legal non - conforming when we use the overlay in other areas but could see both sides of the argument. Commissioner Ashley commented that he thought the staff prepared a very good proposal for the Commissioners and they have considered all of these things and would be prepared to support the staff. In response to Commissioner Gifford's question, Ms. Temple explained the following development standards: • B District - 6,000 square feet minimum lot area, 20 -feet front yard setback, 6 -feet rear and side yard setback, with 60 percent coverage. . • B -1 - 7500 square feet of lot area, 15 -foot front yard setback, 7 -foot rear and side yard setback. • B -2 - 10,000 square foot lot, 15- foot front yard setback, 10- foot rear and side yard setback, with 60 percent coverage. • B -3 - 20,000 square foot lot - 15 -foot front yard, 10 -foot side and rear yards, 60 percent coverage. • B -4 - In text but a modification of development standards. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to recommend to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 99 -3A and Zoning Amendment 901 providing for annexation of the Bay Knoll Area. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Abstain: None WWW • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 • SUBJECT: Palm Garden 630 Newport Center Drive • Use Permit No. 3555 Amended A request to convert the former Twin Palms Restaurant site to a multi - purpose assembly facility. The proposal requires parking waiver. Senior Planner, James Campbell, commented that this application is for a use permit to reuse the old Twin Palms restaurant. The applicant, Martin Potts and Associates, is processing the application on behalf of the Four Seasons Hotel. The former use of the property was a restaurant and there have been a significant number of complaints for noise over the years. Subsequently the City did some enforcement activities but the restaurant has closed down. The Four Seasons hotel would like to expand their banquet activities in this space. Ms. Temple commented that it would be appropriate to tighten up a couple of the conditions. The conditions have not been reviewed with the applicant and Ms. Temple suggested giving the applicant a few minutes to consider them. • The first would be an addition to Condition No. 1, which requires the development to be in substantial conformance with the site and floor plans and also any increase in the assembly area would be subject to approval of the use permit. • Ms. Temple stated, in order to assure there remains an ongoing amelioration of the previous noise issues that any change from a use as accessory to the adjoining hotel shall also be subject to approval of the use permit. • In item no. 4, a clarification of exactly what the approval is for, alter the word restaurant to a banquet and meeting facility as opposed to a restaurant to clearly indicate that is its intended use and not as a separate free - standing restaurant for the Four Seasons Hotel. Commissioner Gifford asked what kind of technical interpretation could be made of Condition No. 3. Because the facility is not entirely enclosed, how would they interpret outdoor? Ms. Temple responded she would interpret it as anything installed outside the tent on the exterior of the structure. Commissioner Kiser referred to the staff report at the top of page 4 and asked how this proposed use of the facility is very different from what we have in the City. Ms. Temple responded the City has parking requirements for eating and drinking establishments and then proceed to define a series of seven different types of eating and drinking establishments. A separate freestanding type of banquet meeting space is not very typical and we have not added a use classification and a parking code requirement for this type of operation. Ms. Temple commented that based on some past applications, it could be they 9 •211.01 Item No. 2 Approved with Conditions City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 • should consider study some specific parking regulations. Commissioner Kiser, for clarification, commented that the reason there is no such classification is because this facility sits on a parcel next door to the Four Seasons parcel, which would be the operator of the facility. Ms. Temple responded no that the reason there is no parking code requirement is because this type of facility is a relatively new type of use, which we previously did not see, therefore, did not need a parking requirement. Commissioner Gifford asked staff if this space was incorporated within the outside walls of the hotel, would that change things? Ms. Temple responded if this were within the building of the hotel the parking requirement for the hotel building is based on the number of rooms, not on the amount of meeting facilities. In this case, the analysis is quite conservative. Commissioner Tucker commented that it is his understanding the parking gets very close to the requirement on the basis of pooling parking in the 600 block. If the ownership were separated in that area, how do we continue to have that pool parking, how is that tied together Ms. Temple responded that should the facility lose access to its parking, the provisions under which the use permit was approved would no longer apply. They would have to show the City where parking was provided. Commissioner Tucker referred to a statement in the staff report that the applicant would be providing valet parking service for the facility when • events are planned and asked if that worked its way into a condition? Ms. Temple responded that it did not. Commissioner Tucker suggested that they add it as a condition. Commissioner Tucker, commented that his understanding is that the live entertainment permit is not transferable so if the Four Seasons Hotel lost its lease on the Twin Palms, then the live music would go away and they would get an opportunity to re -look at some other replacement of live music. This is so we do not get another situation like the one when Twin Palms was operating. Ms. Temple responded that would be correct, however, the addition she suggested to Condition No. t would not only require re- consideration of live entertainment permit but the entire use permit. Commissioner Tucker suggested that they have a condition for valet parking service, and asked is there were some type of plan required to be submitted. Ms. Temple commented if they provide valet parking they are required to submit a plan to the Traffic Engineering Division for approval. In this particular consideration, the Commission should determine whether the provision of valet parking should be mandatory given the parking situation in the area. Or whether they should be allow to implement valet parking when the particular event needed it in their opinion. Ms. Temple noted that if it is made a requirement then every event would require valet parking. Commissioner Tucker said he was responding to a statement in the staff report and asked if r 1 �J INDEX i U City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 the staff did an analysis as to whether valet parking should be required? Mr. Campbell responded that there is an ability to walk over from the Four Seasons Hotel. There is an area at the front of the former restaurant, a drop - off ring for people who drive to an event, and they would be directed to go into the parking structure. The applicant indicated that valet parking services would be provided when needed. Mr. Campbell commented that a condition be if valet parking is provided, it would be subject to the review of the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Tucker suggested crafting a condition that would require the applicant to come back with a valet parking plan of some type if somebody comes to the determination that parking has become an issue in the area. Commissioner Gifford asked staff what was the condition that was applicable to the Twin Palms restaurant with respect to valet parking? Ms. Temple commented that they were not required to provide valet parking but when they used valet parking, it was subject to a valet parking plan approved by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Gifford asked if Condition 3 could be modified? Ms. Temple responded that they could add the standard condition that any valet parking would be subject to review of the Traffic Engineering Division. Commissioner Ashley suggested allowing the applicant to explain what his plans are because if this is going to be a facility that will be used during the time the hotel has guests who have come there for the purposes of attending a conference, banquet or special meeting in the old Twin Palms restaurant building, there will not be an overflow of parking. On the other hand, if the Four Seasons Hotel would be planning an event that will attract people that are not presently staying at the hotel, it could be at that time we would have the deficit parking condition. Chairman Selich asked if the Use Permit No. 3555 is the Twin Palms and not the Four Seasons use permit? Ms. Temple responded that is correct. Chairman Selich asked if there is any reason that it should be tied into the Four Seasons use permit? Ms. Temple responded that is why she suggested an alteration to Condition No. 1, so that it is clear the approvals were tied. Also because they are on separate parcels, it is difficult to create a use permit that bridges the parcels. It is important that should the Four Seasons cease to operate the facility, any re -use of it should be subject to review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Selich, for clarification, commented that basically if the Four Seasons lets this use permit go that condition would cover that the Planning Commission would have full review of a new use permit on the property. Ms. Temple agreed and clarified that its intent is not just for a restaurant but also for a different banquet and meeting facility. Commissioner Selich referred to Condition No. 3 and asked if they will have ability under the zoning code to ask for outdoor dining and seating area in conjunction with the 25 percent space? Or are they prohibited from that INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 • since they are not an assembly area and not a restaurant? Ms. Temple responded that the accessory outdoor dining provisions relate to eating and drinking establishments and this falls out of that classification. Ms. Temple commented they could not get the 25 percent dining space without a further amendment to this use permit. Chairman Selich explained that he wanted to make sure that they are not doing something that is inconsistent with the way they are treating the Dunes or vice versa and asked if they are being more strict or lenient in parking on the Dunes or the same? Ms. Temple responded that this is much stricter. Commissioner Gifford asked about the implications in terms of the traffic count and how this project is being treated in terms of distinguishing between something being on a separate parcel but has a corollary use as opposed to somewhere enclosed within the boundaries of the hotel? Mr. Edmonston responded that in this particular instance a traffic study was not done because there had been a prior traffic study for the Twin Palms restaurant. There has already been a traffic analysis and Fair Share Fees paid based upon the amount of traffic that the restaurant would have generated. Mr. Edmonston commented that this puts them in a different category than in the case of the Dunes where there is no existing facility that had a traffic study. In this case Traffic Engineering did a cursory review, and the traffic numbers are close to what it will be for the proposed use versus what it was as a restaurant. The restaurant was a daily use as this would not be a daily use. Commissioner Gifford asked if it is consistent with the way they are looking at the conference space for the Dunes and its traffic generation. Mr. Edmonston responded no because the Four Seasons Hotel now has some meeting space in it. As Ms. Temple indicated, if it had been inside the walls, it would have been treated exactly the same. In this case, if it were a bare field and they were proposing to build this facility, because it is not within the walls, it might have been analyzed in more detail. Because it is an existing facility that already had a traffic study done for its previous use, it falls into a different category. Ms. Temple, for clarification, noted that one particular aspect of the Four Seasons approval is that the parking was based on the profile of the hotel including the amount of meeting space. Ms. Temple commented that they did a parking demand study on that basis. Should the profile of the hotel have been different, the results from that parking demand analysis could have been different and perhaps higher than originally anticipated for the size of the hotel with its associated restaurants and meeting spaces. Chairman Selich asked if the study was done in conjunction with the additional tower? Ms. Temple responded a study was done for both the original building and the additional tower. Chairman Selich commented that they have used all of the parking in the westerly side of Block 600 parking structure and asked if there are any other uses, which potentially have legitimate claim to using parking in any other floor area that would be intensified that they would want to come before the • INDEX i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Commission and ask for additional waivers of parking. Ms. Temple responded that staff has discovered through recent research that there is approximately 55,000 square feet of office entitlement remaining in Block 600. However, the property owner has indicated to staff that they intend to transfer it out of Block 600. Chairman Selich asked if they did not transfer it, would they come in and make claim to x- amount of parking spaces in parking structure x? Ms. Temple commented that there is a surplus in the easterly parking structure so it would depend on where they sited the development. If they sited it in a way to be useful to the other parking there would be no problem. Commissioner Tucker referred to a response to his question earlier when he asked if the parcels got separated and the pool parking went away that they would have to come back and provide replacement parking spaces. Ms. Temple commented the basis for the approval is the assumption of a certain number of available parking spaces. Commissioner Tucker asked if that is in the Findings and not the Conditions? Commissioner Tucker noted that he sees it in the Findings. Commissioner Tucker also referred to page 9. the last sentence just before number 4, which states, "The applicant will be providing valet service for all events in order to minimize any parking conflicts." Commissioner Tucker noted that finding is inconsistent as to whether they would provide valet parking for some events or all of the events. Commissioner Tucker commented he could see this as a slightly different situation than the Twin Palms as a restaurant where people come and go, there are all day conferences but if there are 500 people there, . where are they going to park. Commissioner Tucker stated that it is fine to meet Code but the practicality is that you need to find a spot. Ms. Temple commented that the most unusual circumstance in Block 600 is when you talk of the Code parking requirement it is much larger than the demand in both parking structures and both parking structures experience a lot of vacancy and always have. Parking is available, but we are talking about an assessment based on the Code and the other use permits issued in the area. However, it is with the acknowledgement that the portion of the parking structure for the Four Seasons Hotel is one of the most highly utilized parts of the parking structure in Block 600. Commissioner Kiser asked if the hypothetical being discussed is having a meeting of those who are not hotel guests, something that might require a special events permit? If only the presenters are staying in the hotel and all the others were not hotel guests, Commissioner Kiser suggested a condition requiring that would be a use requiring a special events permit? Chairman Selich noted how would that be different from any other hotel having a keynote event. Commissioner Tucker commented that he was not suggesting any additional use. Public hearing opened. Marty Potts, the applicant on behalf of the Four Seasons Hotel and The Irvine II INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 . Company. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Potts if he received the conditions that the Planning Director read and if they were satisfactory to him. Mr. Potts responded that he did receive them and they were satisfactory. Commissioner Ashley asked what type of special events will be scheduled for this facility that would be independent of any guests at the hotel? Mr. Potts responded that they would be events that the Four Seasons would typically have at their hotel. The initial purpose is for it to be an ancillary facility for overflow events such as meetings, seminars, weddings, etc. Commissioner Ashley asked if an organization wanted to have an event at the hotel would they be denied because they are not guests of the hotel? Mr. Potts responded they would not do that. There may be events at this facility, which are booked by the Four Seasons Hotel that may not necessarily be guests at the hotel but it would be a type of event that you could typically find in a hotel. Commissioner Ashley asked if it would be those occasions where there would be a parking problem and would you expect to provide valet parking at those events? Mr. Potts responded that valet parking would be available to any event that would be operated by the Four Seasons. Mr. Potts in response to query noted if the event were to be attended by only hotel guests, valet parking would not be provided. If the event were to be attended by hotel guests and non - guests of the hotel, depending on the demand, valet service would be made available for the event. Commissioner Ashley asked Mr. Potts if he would be ready to accept the added condition that valet parking shall be provided by the operator of the • Four Seasons when there are events that include people that are not staying at the hotel? Mr. Potts responded yes, if there was a demand for it. Commission Tucker commented that he was suggesting that, after a period of time of operation, the Planning Director came to a conclusion that the parking available was not sufficiently accommodating the uses that there would have to be some type of parking plan submitted for approval. Commissioner Tucker expressed that he was looking for some type of condition only as a fall back if the operator is having problems with the valet parking. Mr. Keith Eyrich, Vice President /General Manager of Business Properties for The Irvine Company, responded to Commissioner Tucker's proposed condition and stated it would be satisfactory with them. Commissioner Ashley commented there would be a parking deficit of three stalls of Block 600 if this is approved and asked if The Irvine Company is aware that this would preclude any other immediate building in that area unless additional parking were provided on -site. Mr. Eyrich responded that there has been no discussion in the investment properties group about this preventing, prohibiting or making more difficult any other development planned now or in the future in Block 600. Commissioner Ashley commented that recently there had been studies with The Irvine Company with respect to reviewing the master plan as it applies to Newport Center. Commissioner Ashley noted • INDEX 0 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 that he is aware that another major office building was planned on Newport Center Drive, immediately to the east of the facility under discussion this evening. Commissioner Ashley thought that, at this point, it would preclude this building from materializing. Mr. Eyrich commented that if the company advanced such an application after approval of this application, it would be incumbent upon the company to justify the availability of parking as necessary to serve that facility. Public hearing closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 3555 (Amended) with the following changes to the proposed findings and conditions: • The Findings, on page 9, the last finding before item no. 4, it says, "The applicant will be providing valet service for all events in order to minimize any parking conflicts." and add the words "...for all events, which merit such service in order to minimize any parking conflicts." • The suggested condition language on Condition No. 1 by Ms. Temple that ties this facility to being an accessory use to the hotel. • Amend Condition No. 4 and delete the word "restaurant type" and put in 'banquet and meeting facility" in the first line. • Add a condition that states, "If the Planning Director determines the parking provided under this use permit (pool parking) is not sufficiently accommodating the uses of the facility, the Planning Director may require the owner /operator to submit for approval of valet parking plan and adhere to such plan. • An additional condition that states in the event the pool parking is not available at all times, the applicant will provide substitute parking arrangement that is acceptable to the Planning Director. Ms. Temple added the following condition: • Under the Standard Requirement that a valet parking plan should be subject to review by the Public Works Department. Ayes: Kiser. Ashley, Selich, Gifford, and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Abstain: None 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 • FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3555 Amended The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial" use. A multi- purpose assembly facility with alcoholic beverage service is considered a permitted use within this designation provided it is accessory to a hotel use. The proposed facility will be operated accessory to the adjacent Four Seasons Hotel and is consistent with the General Plan. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act Implementing Guidelines. ♦ Approval of Use Permit No. 3555 Amended to allow a multi - purpose hotel assembly facility to operate in a structure formerly developed for a restaurant will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: ♦ The use is accessory to the Four Seasons Hotel. ♦ There exists sufficient parking in the parking pool for Block 600 of Newport Center to accommodate the proposed use. ♦ Significant traffic congestion is not anticipated by the Traffic Division, which might be detrimental to the surrounding area. ♦ The incremental increase in parking demand for the proposed use can be accommodated by the available parking pool located within Block 600 of Newport Center. WPA Traffic Engineering estimates about 800 surplus parking spaces will be available which takes into account the future expansion of the Four Seasons Hotel. The incremental parking demand of the proposed facility, which is 82 spaces, can easily be accommodated by this surplus, and therefore, a 3 -space waiver is acceptable. The applicant will be providing valet service for all events, which merit such service in order to minimize any parking conflicts. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following reasons: 14 • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 • ♦ The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the provision of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a multi- purpose hotel assembly facility. The provision of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with this type of facility is customary, and no increased alcohol related incidents are expected. ♦ The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting district in which the project is proposed is lower than the percentage citywide, and in the adjacent reporting districts is higher than the citywide percentages, due to more commercial land uses in these three reporting districts and limited population. ♦ There are no residences, day care centers, schools, or park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the project site that will be effected by the project. 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan except as noted below. Any increase in the assembly area shall be subject to prior approval of a use permit. Any change from a use accessory to the adjoining hotel shall also be subject to approval of a use permit. 2. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to the interior of the building, unless the appropriate approvals are obtained from the Police Department and the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 3. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 4. The approval is only for the establishment of a "banquet and meeting facility" and alcoholic beverage outlet as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as the principal purpose for the sale or service of food and beverages. 5. This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to operate as a bar or tavern use as defined by the Municipal Code, unless a use permit is first approved by the Planning Commission. The existing bar area may only be used for restaurant patrons who are provided meal service. 6. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be limited to on -site consumption of "beer and wine and distilled spirits" only and only in conjunction with the service of food as the principal use of the facility. The sale for off -site 15 • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 iconsumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited. Any upgrade in the alcoholic beverage license shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application and may require the approval of the Planning Commission. 7. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner /operator or leasing company. 8. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC. 9. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. If the operator fails to discourage or correct nuisances, the Planning Commission may review, modify or revoke this use permit in accordance with Chapter 20.96 of the Zoning Code. 10. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall be prohibited. . 11. Upon evidence that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise standards established by Chapter 20.26 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code, the Planning Director may require that the applicant or successor retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the restaurant facility to develop a set of corrective measures necessary in order to insure compliance. 12. The hours of operation shall be limited between 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., daily. 13. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 14 All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 section within 180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 15. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. 16. If the Planning Director determines the parking provided under this use permit (pool parking) is not sufficiently accommodating the uses of the facility, the Planning Director may require the owner /operator to submit for approval of valet parking plan and adhere to such plan. 17. In the event the pool parking is not available at all times, the applicant will provide substitute parking arrangement that is acceptable to the Planning director. Standard Requirements 1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The previous conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3555 shall remain in full force and effect if applicable. If there are any conflicts between with • current or past conditions of approval, the more restrictive condition shall take precedent. 3. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. 5. The "banquet and meeting facility" and related off - street parking shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 6. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of this chapter )Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date. 8. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to 17 INDEX • 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 9. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The use of outside loudspeakers, paging system or sound system shall be included within this requirement. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That is, the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods: Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 1 D:00 p.m. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. f tterio exterior interior exteri _r Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property: N/A 65 dBA N/A 60 dBA Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property: N/A 60 dBA N/A 50 dBA Residential property: 45 dBA 55 dBA 40 dBA 50 dBA 10. A valet parking plan should be subject to review by the Public Works Department. SUBJECT: Udvare Residence (Joseph B. Udvare, applicant) 2716 and 2718 Shell Street • Variance No. 1234 • Modification No. 5040 A variance for the construction of a new single family residence which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to permit the following encroachments: • four (4) feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback with the basement level, • two (2) feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback with the first and second floor levels, and • three (3) feet into the required 5 -foot front yard setback with an open deck on the second floor. E INDEX Item No. 3 Continued • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Associate Planner Eugenia Garcia commented that, as noted in the staff report, the property does not have exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to approve a variance. Staff has included an alternative to the Planning Commission if the Commission desires to approve this project. Ms. Garcia commented that staff has also received an inquiry regarding public safety access for a high number of construction vehicles currently in the area or the potential to park in the area in the China Cove development. Staff has looked into the issue and has found that the entire area is posted "No Parking." The applicant could apply to the Public Works Department for a street closure permit, which would allow them to park in the area. However, in speaking to the Public Works Department, such a permit would be issued only if sufficient street width were available for fire access. Additionally, that would allow construction vehicles to park only immediately abutting the property. Therefore, there is no need to include a condition of approval because staff has full ability to design a permit to provide for adequate public safety access. Chairman Selich asked if that was in response to somebody who lived in the area? Ms. Garcia responded that was correct. Public hearing opened. . Joseph Udvare, applicant, thanked the Planning Commission for allowing them to postpone the meeting a few times and staff for their help. Mr. Udvare commented that they have redesigned their plan three times after meeting with the neighbors and think they have a plan that will work. Mr. Udvare commented that Shell Street is dangerous at times with children coming off the beach. Mr. Udvare noted that the way his house is situated now is a blind spot for cars coming around the comer. Mr. Udvare commented that he has met with his neighbors, listened to their concerns and has tried to re- design a plan that would address their concerns and meet their needs. Mr. Udvare expressed that he believes his plans will enhance the neighborhood and create a safer environment for the pedestrians and people coming off of the public beach. Mr. Udvare explained that they are over in their subterranean parking because they were trying to take the parking off of the street. By going underground it takes them from the 1.5 allowable to 1.87. Mr. Udvare expressed that he is asking for a garage area that will take the parking off the street. Mr. Udvare commented that he believes he has satisfied his neighbors and most of the Planning Commission requests but still does not meet code and is asking for a variance and some modifications. Chairman Selich referred to page 6 of the staff report and indicated that if the two properties were developed separately one would have a building -to- land ration of .90 and the corner property would be 1.04, which is more than U • •I,Ir7�:1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 the lots combined. What does that translate in square footage? Chris Light, the architect for Mr. Udvare, recapped the history of the design of plans. Mr. Light commented that they met with the neighbors and tried to resolve their concerns and re- submitted their design to the City. Mr. Light commented that, in their conversations with the City, they discovered if they were processing the two lots independently, they would require multiple variances to comply separately on each individual lot. By combining the two lots, they could alleviate some of the issues associated with processing variances associated with the two separate properties. Mr. Light presented two diagrams that are explanatory relative to the subterranean parking. Mr. Light also presented diagrams depicting, relative to the site, what they could actually propose for coverage relative to the site, and a diagram that shows the actual proposed coverage. The actual allowed coverage would result in approximately 34 percent open space. In the proposed solution they end up with 55 percent open space. Commissioner Ashley referred to the basement level and asked Mr. Light about the full bath, a laundry room, and in the work area, there appears that there is the equivalent of a wet bar and asked if that is correct. Mr. Light responded that Mr. Udvare collects classic cars and that is the reason for the bay windows. Mr. Light explained that the two spaces that are easily accessible would be his everyday cars. The work area is specifically • associated with keeping the cars in top -notch condition. Mr. Light, after inquiry, commented that it is a work sink, not a wet bar. Commissioner Ashley expressed that a lot of properties that bootleg rental apartments into the basement after they have been approved and this looks like it is perfectly suited for that. Mr. Udvare commented that they could eliminate one of the sinks because it is not intended to be used as an apartment. Mr. Udvare explained that the third parking space is designed for two kayaks, a boat and two bicycles. Mr. Udvare stated that the back area in the garage will not be used for any living quarters. Commissioner Ashley commented that if this house is resold, it could be easy for the next buyer to make a conversion. Commissioner Ashley noted that the extra sink is not necessary. Mr. Udvare responded that it is not a problem to eliminate it. Public hearing closed. Chairman Selich asked staff if they calculated the answer to his question if the two lots were developed independently at the .90 and 1.04 ratio. Chairman Selich commented that the implication he gets from the staff report is that if the two lots were developed separately they would be able to have more square footage than what the applicant has requested in his variance. Ms. Garcia responded that building -to -land area ratio would be 20 0 INDEX 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 more, but buildable area would not be more. The interior lot, 30x60, is 1620 gross square feet, and the triangular lot is about 1800 square feet. Commissioner Ashley commented that, In as much as this garage is being put there to insure safety in the immediate area, it is advisable that they acknowledge the fact that there will not be off - street parking or the same conflicts that led to one accident. Commissioner Tucker commented that there was a similar situation on Seaview where they had a basement proposal and the third time it came back, the Commission took out all of the extra space because it was a way for floor area ratio to get bigger. Commissioner Tucker expressed that, in China Cove, he does feel that more should be done to accommodate additional garage parking but that a bathroom is not needed. It is too easy to convert it into a full room. Commissioner Tucker commented that he would have a problem supporting a variance although some of the issues such as open space, lot consolidations and providing more parking spaces are admirable things to encourage. Commissioner Tucker suggested that perhaps they could deny what the applicant had in mind and amend the ordinances for the China Cove area because it is compressed. Commissioner Kiser commented that although there are some technical problems with approving this residence, this design would be a big improvement. Commissioner Kiser commented that the amount of open • space is impressive particularly in opening up the blind comer. Commissioner Kiser also expressed the concern about the downstairs design and the complete bath. Commissioner Kiser expressed that he would like to make this work. Chairman Selich commented that the design is superior and it combines the two lots and would be a big improvement in the area, particularly with the setbacks from the corner and the providing of the parking. However, it does not meet the requirement of the variance and they should look at amending the zoning code if they wanted to do things like this in China Cove. Commissioner Selich stated he would not be in support of a variance but would support changes in the Zoning Code to allow something like this to happen. Commissioner Gifford commented that there is no basis for the findings of a variance although the proposal has a lot of merit except for the additional space in the underground area. Commissioner Gifford suggested they look at doing something in the China Cove area that would not count underground parking space. Commissioner Selich invited Mr. Udvare to come forward and commented that there is a consensus of the Commission not to grant the variance. Commissioner Selich noted that if Mr. Udvare would reduce the downstairs 21 • INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 area, he would be in conformance with the square footage. Commissioner Selich explained that there is a similar situation where they gave the applicant a continuance because he needed modifications irrespective of the variance floor area to back and redesign the building and bring it into the floor area limitations and asked Mr. Udvare if he wanted to take advantage of that or have the Commissioners act on the application as presented. Mr. Udvare expressed that he would like to go back and re -look at the design to conform the bathroom and make the Commission comfortable that it would not be turned into a living space and see how they can downsize some of that area. Chairman Selich commented that they should come back with the correct square footage they are allowed under the Zoning Code, which is approximately 3420 square feet. Chairman Selich noted that the owner of the residence on Seaview came back with 12 square feet over what was allowed and the Commission had him take away that 12 square feet. Chairman Selich emphasized that it is not how close you can get but to bring it into conformance with the square footage permitted. Chairman Selich commented that the decision Mr. Udvare has to make tonight is either to take a continuance to see if they can work something out or to take a denial. Mr. Light asked if they could propose getting the modifications approved • and a continuance relative to the building area ratio? Chairman Selich responded no. Commissioner Tucker asked how the Commission felt about looking at some changes to the Zoning Code that would give more flexibility in China Cove? Chairman Selich commented that he thought it would be different than what they had in the Back Bay area because it would affect a lot of people. Commissioner Tucker suggested that the applicant could ask for a continuance to explore it with staff but it is time consuming. Ms. Temple explained that Commissioner Tucker suggested to her that rather than an amendment that would authorize 2.0 universally in China Cover that perhaps an alternate path that would still allow the City to consider projects in excess of 1.5 in a case by case basis. Commissioner Tucker suggested to Ms. Temple the possible path of a use permit. Ms. Temple commented that, looking at this project and its particular qualities, there were certain things that could be a reasonable justification for approval of exceeding the floor area. In this case, Ms. Temple saw three areas: 1. A project that combines lots. 2. A project that provides greater open space and setbacks than would ordinarily be required. 3. A project that provides more than the required amount of on -site parking. ►ya • INDEX f� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Ms. Temple noted that given the issues that the Commission has discussed, all of these things are in fact design issues, which appear to be important in China Cove. Ms. Temple expressed that she thought that it is possible to craft an amendment to the code, which would be applicable in only limited circumstances and not broadly allow every property owner to implement a higher floor area ratio as a matter of right but allow the Commission full review authority and conditional authority over the approval. Ms. Temple commented that is a better recommendation than the one contained in the staff report. Ms. Temple noted that would involve a code amendment and take some time to bring to both review of the Planning Commission and City Council and then allow the applicant to follow -up with a use permit application. Chairman Selich commented that it sounded like a good approach in terms of the use permit and having those limitations. Chairman Selich expressed his concern was the amount of time it would take. This could take up to a year. Commissioner Kiser asked staff why the combined lots would put a lot in the category appropriate for a use permit for a larger floor area ratio. Ms. Temple responded that the original number of lots established by the original subdivision in China Cove establishes the estimated maximum number of dwelling units, which may eventually be constructed in that area. To the extent that a project combines lots and actually dissolves the internal lot line • that actually removes the ability to break the lots back down and build two units at a point in the future. It would lower the residential density. Chairman Selich commented in general sound planning principles, in any area of the City, where there are sub - standard lots, if they have opportunities to get them combined and get better developments out of those properties, it is worthwhile goal. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Udvare what his thoughts were at this point. Mr. Udvare responded that he has worked on this project since October 1998 and is more than willing to put more time into it to come to a satisfactory solution for China Cove and them. Mr. Udvare expressed that they appreciate all of the Commission's time and efforts and thanked the Commission for all of their input. Chairman Selich commented that he thought the proper motion would be to table the project, and if the applicant decides to come up with another design rather than go with the Zoning Code amendment, they could bring it back to the Commission without filing an application and asked staff if that would be the correct motion. Ms. Temple responded yes at this point, but, at some point, they would be confronted with a denial without prejudice should the permit streamlining time limits come into play. Ms. Temple commented that they could table it for a period of time but if an amendment to the code 23 • INDEX • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 is going to be pursued, at some point they will have to come forward with a denial recommendation. Chairman Selich recommended that the applicant take a table because it leaves the options open and the Commission has to, they can do a denial without prejudice later. Chairman Selich explained that if the zoning change bogged down, the applicant could come back with a re- design. Mr. Udvare commented that he would like to do that and asked for a estimate of a time frame. Chairman Selich responded that it was hard to say because it depended on all the reactions of the property owners of China Cove. It could be four to six months to a year if it gets controversial. Mr. Udvare asked if it is not controversial, how long? Chairman Selich responded approximately 4 months. Ms. Temple agreed and explained they need to draft the original provisions to the zoning ordinance and the staff would attempt to have one or more community meetings to explain the proposals before any hearing notices would be sent out. Commissioner Ashley commented that the Commission consider encouraging people to put garages sub - surface. Commissioner Ashley expressed that he did not believe that garages should not be counted in China Cove against the overall square footage of the house because of the sizes of the lots and the fact that they do not want cars parking at the curb. Also, restrict what can happen at the basement level. Chairman Selich stated that since the applicant has concurred with the tabling of this item and asked if there was a motion to that effect. Commissioner Gifford so moved. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Abstain: None SUBJECT: Naval Residence (Jim Naval, applicant) 1201 Kings Road Variance No. 1237 Request to permit the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, portions of which will exceed the 24 foot height limit ranging from 1 foot to 10 feet. Staff had no additional comments. Public hearing opened. Jim Naval, applicant, explained that the present house has only two - 24 INDEX Item No.4 Continued to May 4, 2000 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 bedrooms and bathrooms and he wanted to make the addition to accommodate his mother. Mr. Navai commented that because of the extreme slope, there is no other room to expand. Mr. Navai commented that he checked with his neighbor directly across the street and she had no objections, and his neighbors to the left and right and they also had no objections. Mr. Naval commented that the neighbors behind and aside away from his residence are concerned. Curt Yeager, 1401 Kings Road, commented that he did not want to set a precedence for other houses on a steep slope. Mr. Yeager respectfully requested that the Commission ask the applicant to build within the allowable of the zoning codes. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Yeager his impression of how much of the second story on the street level encroaches outside of the height zone? Mr. Yeager responded that at the back end it is 8 or 9 feet above the height zone. Chairman Selich asked what percentage of the additional structure that is? Mr. Yeager commented that he did not know. Keith Hosfiel of 1300 Kings Road commented that he is asking for fairness of the neighborhood. Vincent Roman of 810 Kings Road opposed the variance and feels if this variance is granted it will set a precedent on Kings Road for building heights without the benefit of due process of the development ordinances. Mr. Roman gave the Commissioners a letter from Mr. Bruce D'Eliscru of 810 Kings Road representing his views on the problems facing Kings Road. Mr. Roman submitted his comments to the Commission in a letter. Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. Roman if he lived directly across the street. Mr. Roman responded that he was on the inland side of the street to the east. Dr. Nicholas Yaru of 1210 Kings Road disagrees with the variance and asked the Commission to deny. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Ashley referred to the Project Development Characteristics Table on page 3 of the staff report and noted that the existing square footage at two times the buildable area is 13.432 square feet and what is being proposed is 9,200 square feet less and asked for an explanation since it is an addition to what already exists. Mr. Campbell responded that 13,432 square feet is the total gross buildable area that the lot could support, and the proposed column is the breakdown of the total square footage of what the applicant is proposing to add. Mr. Campbell commented that it demonstrates they are in compliance with the floor area limit requirement. Commissioner Ashley for clarification asked if he had only 2,868 square feet 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 existing, not 13,432 and that the applicant would like to add another 852 square feet to the property? Mr. Campbell responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Ashley asked if the applicant intends to add the square footage to a point where it will be 24 -feet above graded street level? Mr. Campbell responded that, at street level, it would be approximately 19 -feet but as it goes to the south, about mid -point it encroaches into the limitation. Commissioner Ashley asked if the applicant was entitled to 19 -feet? Mr. Campbell responded yes and explained that the proposed addition, above the garage, near the front wall of the house is in compliance but the latter part of the addition, as it progresses away from the street is what exceeds the limitation. Commissioner Ashley asked how visible the extension from the properties across the street? Mr. Campbell responded that the height difference between the front and rear of the residence is nominal. If the addition would be cut off at the back end you could not see an appreciable difference if you were standing directly across the street. If you were looking at it from an angle, it encroaches farther out from the natural terrain that would normally be approved and there would be the triangular piece that would block views. Commissioner Selich commented that if you were down the street, you would have to looking at it from a second story level to have it interfere. Mr. Campbell commented that you could see it from ground level but it would not significantly block the view. Commissioner Gifford referred to the comparison of Findings for Approval and Denial, Exhibit A, item #4, bullet 2 says, "...it makes it difficult to design a • second story addition..." Exhibit B, item #2, bullet 2 says, "The existing structure to be redesigned on the lower levels to provide for the expansion of the living area and impact the street side elevation of the home..." Commissioner Gifford asked if they were talking about the difference between a second story meaning above the first story, and the difference between providing an equal amount of floor space in a different configuration? Ms. Temple responded yes. Commissioner Kiser referred to page 4 of the staff report, under the Proposed Building Height, second paragraph, first bullet point, page 5, at the top of the page, the fist bullet point, and asked if they were in conformance of the zoning code. Mr. Campbell responded they were. Commissioner Kiser referred to the second bullet point on page 5 and noted that, at the rear side of the roof, the zoning for this kind of pitched roof there is a 29 -foot maximum height at the peak. Commissioner Kiser asked, as for as the zoning, a variance is 34.5 feet, the proposed versus 29 -feet as zoned and they are talking about 5.5 feet variance on height. Ms. Temple responded, based on considering this as a pitched roof that is correct. However, staff analyzed the actual number of feet above height limit in that particular location. Commissioner Kiser asked regarding the 10 -feet shown in the staff report for the variance is due to the lot dropping off beyond the peak of the roof to the proposed addition? Ms. Temple referred to the depiction posted and noted that on the elevation, the actual peak of the roof is the southerly roof edge 26 • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 • and not the middle point of the roof. In response to inquiry, Ms. Temple defined peak in terms of the highest point above sea level. Commissioner Tucker asked what the length of the portion of the structure that goes above the height limit from the point in time where it starts crossing to the point it needs a variance to the end of the roof? Ms. Temple responded approximately 16 -feet. Commissioner Tucker noted that the roof is arched in shape but the plate line looks to be quite a bit below the arched area and asked if that is a design feature or is something underneath that area? Ms. Temple referred to page 2 of the plans, which would show the actual height of the roof above the existing residence roof of 12 feet. With normal construction and insulation the inside plate, if if were a clear story, would probably be approximately 11 feet. Commissioner Tucker commented that he wondered if it was necessary because of the issues presented and noted that typically the oblique angles are the ones that have the potential of affecting the views. Commissioner Tucker commented that, compared With other requests they have had for variances where the lots fall off steeply, this one seems to have a little more encroachment. Chairman Selich asked if Commissioner Tucker thought the encroachment could be avoided? Commissioner Tucker responded it is 16 -feel that starts becoming the problem. Chairman Selich asked for clarification, the 16 -feet of encroaching above the plane of the height limit? Commissioner Tucker responded yes. • Chairman Selich commented that he was looking at what percentage of the area the addition actually encroached into it. Chairman Selich noted that if there were a line on the roof plan, it would show what percentage of the roof was actually encroaching above the height limit. Chairman Selich commented that a variance gives the impression that the entire structure is encroaching when it is a very small part of it. The question is, If the variance is in the order of 5 or 10 percent, such as this is, what negative impact does it have on the adjacent property. Chairman Selich commented that he would weigh that against the fact that he would have to fight the topography of the property and the fact that it starts dropping off. If the way that they measure the height limit follows the contours of the land, he could develop the some space with a different roof configuration on the house, still have the same square footage, and the same visual impact with his neighbors. Chairman Selich asked, by allowing him to encroach beyond that what negative impact is he having on his neighbors and opined that he was having a difficult time seeing much of a negative impact on anybody. Chairman Selich commented that one of the primary reasons for a variance is to deal with topography because our zoning laws are developed for typical flat lots. Commissioner Tucker commented that it looked like there was room, a couple of feet, where the addition starts versus the setback line. By moving 27 • 111 t City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 • that addition forward, it could solve some of the concerns. Also by not having the arched roof that would also take care of some of the concerns. Commissioner Tucker suggested there might be a couple of designs that could be done that would get it to the point where it is a small impact. Chairman Selich agreed that the applicant could tilt the arch and there is room at the street frontage and he could go higher at the street frontage and he would be higher at the street, lower in the back and come closer to being in compliance with the height limits. Commissioner Ashley commented that by saying the applicant should build within what the code permits, under those circumstances, he could build the entire width of the front yard, except for the set backs of the side yards, to a height of 24 -feet and create a bigger blockage than what he is proposing to do. Chairman Selich commented if he reversed the entire roof, he would bring it into conformance with the zoning and have the height point out into the street, which would present more of a view blockage than the current design. Commission Kiser commented that he could not support this tonight without exploring alternatives or bringing it within code. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Navai if he would take a continuance and try to work the design out or would he want the Commission to take action on it this evening? Mr. Naval responded that he would like to table it and come back with a design that does not require a variance. • Chairman Selich commented that Mr. Naval is willing to design a roof that is completely within the code but will block the view more than the current design. Chairman Selich commented if he re- designs the roof to give him the maximum options, if the Commission denies it without prejudice, if he and his neighbors decide they want to go along with his variance as opposed to his plan that is within code, he could come back before the Commission. Ms. Temple commented if they deny it without prejudice, the applicant could submit the same plan if he chose to. Chairman Selich commented that he would not have a problem approving this variance because this is a situation where, although it is a variance, the project design's end result on the neighbors will be an improved situation over what the applicant could do if he stayed within the zoning code. Allowing the applicant to go back and design a building that is completely within the conformance of the zoning code will have a more detrimental effect on the neighbors than what he is proposing. Commissioner Gifford asked if this variance were granted, could the applicant then go ahead and build the remaining square footage entitlement using that portion of the lot going out to the minimum front set back and up to the 29 -feet and get the benefit of both things to the extent that the ratio is not exceeded? Ms. Temple responded that he could. W-1 • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 • Chairman Selich asked if the Commission were to grant the variance if the applicant could they add a condition that would prevent him from filling in the area (as shown on the drawing) in the future Ms. Temple commented that the consensus opinion is no. The only path is to the extent the maintenance of a one -story elevation on a portion of the frontage was part of the consideration for approval of the variance. Ms. Temple expressed that the difficulty that finding and because the maintenance of the one -story elevation is only valuable for the preservation of a private use so there is no public benefit associated with it. Ms. Temple commented that the question could not be answered without further research. Commissioner Tucker stated that there is a variance that he could support but suggested that he applicant could go back and attempt to re- design to lessen the amount of encroachment. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Navai if he would take a continuance and re- design the roof so that not as much encroached into the height area? Mr. Navai responded that he would like to do that and asked if the Commission could set some guideline for him to follow. Commission Kiser commented the maximum variance be closer to 5 -feet instead of 10 -feet at the back end and cut down to half at the mid -point area at the rear side of the roof on the second addition that was indicated at 34.5 -feet, zoned for 29 -feet. Commissioner Selich remarked cut the • encroachment in half. Commissioner Gifford commented that she could not give a guideline but the Chairman's suggestion of reversing the roof would bring the project into conformance. If that works they will not need the Commissioners. Commissioner Tucker commented that he hopes the applicant does try to do some re- design and bring the architect with him next time. Commissioner Tucker expressed that before voting to approve a variance he wants to be satisfied that the applicant has done the best that he can do and still has a functional space to cut back as much as he can on the encroachment. Commissioner Tucker moved to continue until May 4, 2000. Motion passes. Ayes: Kiser, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Abstain: None 29 • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 n U ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - Ms. Wood commented that the Study Session was canceled because of a lack of a quorum and there is nothing to report. The discussion of the General Plan update has been rescheduled for the regular evening meeting of April 25, 2000. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairman Sefich announced that the EDC Will have a presentation on the school bond issue at the meeting next week at 7:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers. C.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. d.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Chairman Selich commented that he would like to place the Resolution of Intention for Pacific Drive on the next agenda and asked staff to prepare a report on the comparisons of that to Broad Street. e.) Requests for excused absences - None. LARRY TUCKER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 30 INDEX