Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/20010 • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley- ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Larry Tucker - Chairman Steven Kiser - Vice Chairman Earl McDaniel - Secretary Chairman Tucker noted the tireless and capable leadership of Commissioner Selich for the past three years while serving as Planning Commission Chairman. Commissioner Selich was presented with a plaque commemorating his service and tenure. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of June 21 2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian, and voted on, to approve the amended minutes of June 21, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Kranzley Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 13, 2001. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 Glabman Residence (PA2001 -063) 2315 Pacific Drive (Continued from 06- 21 -01) • Variance No. 2001 -002 • Modification Permit No. 2001 -060 Request for a variance to permit an addition to an existing single family residence of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24 -foot height limit, ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a modification request to permit encroachments of a garage into the front and side yard setbacks (5 feet into the required 17.5 -foot front yard setback and 4 feet into the required 4 -foot side yard setback along the northerly property line). Chairperson Tucker noted that this item had been heard at a previous meeting and that only a couple of issues need to be addressed during this evening's presentation. He stated that during the last hearing, the project was found to be acceptable with the exception of the modification portion where there was a zero setback on one of the elements in the garage. During the course of that hearing, Commissioner Selich agreed to field questions from the architect and applicant. We now have a revised plan that has been submitted to us. Commissioner Selich noted that he had met with the applicant and architect the week following the Planning Commission meeting. The solution they come up with meets my expectations. They were able to pull the building back from the side yard and create a 2' 10" building separation and still maintain the integrity of the entryway and provide for two parking spaces. They did push the garage a little bit further out towards the street, which I felt was more than a fair tradeoff for getting the additional side yard area. I would note that the street angles at the front of the house so that not all of the garage actually encroaches into the front yard setback area. Commissioner Kiser asked what the term 'non - standard improvements' means in condition 4? Mr. Edmonston answered that non - standard improvements are typically pavers, or anything other than a normal concrete sidewalk. When those are done, the adjacent property owner agrees to maintain them at their expense should the need arise for maintenance in the future. Chairperson Tucker noted that the date in the first condition ought to be July 31d instead of July 19th. Public comment was opened. Tom Berger, Irvine Avenue, Santa Ana Heights as architect spoke for the applicants. They have met with Commissioner Selich and worked out a compromise that the Glabman's support and that bring the garage into substantial conformity with the desires of the City as far as the setbacks go. In the INDEX Item No. 1 V 2001 -002 M 2001 -060 Approved • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 process of studying the setbacks, although the elevations show rock veneer, the plans did not. The rock veneer does have an impact of a couple of inches. The new garage sideyard setback does address the rock veneer; the existing setback on the opposite side of the house that is 4 feet does not allow for any rock veneer and we would like to add a rock veneer around the comer so that it does not stop at the front comer of the house. That would probably be in the range of between 2 and 4 inches more. If we wrap that comer 10 feet back so that it can look like a solid part of the structure, that would involve a 2 to 4 inch encroachment on the left side as well. Other than that, we appreciate your comments and support. Chairperson Tucker asked staff what should be done about the additional encroachment? Ms. Temple answered that we have not given the public hearing notice on the encroachment on the other side property line. While we know that the adjoining property owner did receive notice of the variance, we have no way of knowing whether an encroachment into the setback would be a concern. The proper procedure would be to continue for re- noticing. If the applicant wanted to go ahead and have the variance approved, as is, and pursue the modification separately that would be an alternative and would be a new and separate application. . Chairperson Tucker asked the applicant what they would like to do. Mr. Berger answered that they prefer to have the variance approved now without any veneer and then they will process that piece of the side yard through the Modifications Committee with the associated costs that would be required. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Variance 2001 -002 and Modification Permit No. 2001 -060 with the findings and recommendations of staff attached. Commissioner Agajanian asked if there was any way that the front of the garage might be pulled back at all? He was answered that there is a possibility to move the garage back at the expense of the kitchen or the pantry. Commissioner Kiser suggested that on condition 1, in addition to the date changed to July 3rd that it also refers to the partial main level plan. The maker of the motion agreed. Ms. Temple further clarified plans dated July 3, 2001 except for the easterly sideyard encroachment (for the veneer). The architect had mentioned that the plan showed the rock facing on the easterly side yard that was encroaching 2 -4 inches into the sideyard setback that was not included in the public hearing notice. She clarified that this would be excluded from the partial main level • plan approval. s1.101 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX • Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Serich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Absent-. Kranzley Findings and Conditions of Approval for Variance No. 2001 -002 and Modification No. 2001 -060 Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single- family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single - Family Residential designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under Class I (Minor Alteration to 6risting Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50% of the floor area). 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development since no other public • easements exist on the site. 4. That the granting of the variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is warranted in that there are special circumstances applicable to the property; is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; is consistent with the purposes of this code; and will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: a) The unique topography of the site restricts the ability to comply with the height limitations, the applicant has designed an addition to the house that attempts to work within the constraints of the lot to the degree possible and the applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without exceeding the height limit. b) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. c) The shape and size of the lot constrains the ability to design a structure in that the lot is trapezoidal in shape resulting in a lot width at mid point of approximately 46 feet. d) The proposed addition is generally comparable to the size and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application • A City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 of height requirements could result in an addition that is either too small or confined to permit the additions to be of a size and to contain the amenities to be feasible or desirable for the owner. e) The proposed addition is generally in conformance with the surround neighborhood when viewed from Pacific Drive, and has a similar appearance of surrounding properties when viewed from Bayside Drive. f) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the City has granted other similar requests in the area to exceed the permitted height due to sloped conditions existing on lots with similar topography. g) Were the project to use the full height available for pitched roofs, the elevation could be four feet higher at the front elevation as viewed from Pacific Drive. h) Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed additions, the existing views from surrounding properties will not be significantly restricted. i) The building design and materials are an upgrade of the existing property and will blend with the style and materials used in other remodels and new construction in the area. 5. That the modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District; will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use; and is a reasonable design solution for the lot for the following reasons: a) The property is existing non - conforming and the proposed modification does not substantially increase the degree on non- conformity. b) The proposed modification results in a project that is consistent with the development within the vicinity. C) The modification results in a better design of the garage and adds an open porch to the front of the dwelling, which is consistent with the architectural style. d) The modification related to the front yard setback will not result in construction that will block views of the public or from surrounding properties in that they are located at the front of the structure and to the side behind an existing side yard encroachment. e) The proposed modification will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining properties because it is located at the front of the structure and to the side behind an existing side yard encroachment. f) The proposed modification actually improves the non - conformity •1.101 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 in that the north side yard has been increased to permit a public view corridor where no views currently exist. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations dated March 16, 2001 incorporating the modified partial main level garage floor /site plan dated July 4-9 3. 2001, except for the easterly side yard encroachment for the veneer. 2. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 3. That all public improvements are constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That an encroachment permit be processed through the Public Works Department for all work within the public right -of -way and that an encroachment agreement be executed for all non - standard and decorative improvements to be constructed within the Pacific Drive right - of -way and any easements. S. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 6. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 7. That this variance and modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SUBJECT: Subdivision Code Update (PA2001 -087) (Continued from 6- 21 -01) Code Amendment No. 2001 -002: City initiated amendment to revise Revised Subdivision Code for the City. A City initiated amendment to revise the City's Subdivision Code (Title 19 of the Municipal Code) and to make related changes to Title 20 (Zoning Code), Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Property), and other Titles, in order to overhaul and update provisions governing subdivisions throughout the City, including design, processing, improvements, condominium conversions, lot mergers, and other matters INDEX Item No. 2 PA2001 -087 Recommended for Approval 0 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 Ms. Temple noted that staff and the consultant were available to go through the presentation if the Commission desired. She stated that Chairman Tucker had presented staff with a list of questions. In regards to item 1, a letter from the Building Industry Association received today is at your chair. Additionally, in regards to the issue of map extensions, Ms. Clauson can address that. Commissioner Selich noted he would be interested on Ms. Clauson's position of imposition of new conditions. I think I understand the rest of the issues and I would like to hear what the representative of the BIA has to say. Chairperson Tucker stated that there was a section that noted it was to be reviewed by the City Attorney's office, has that been done? Ms. Clauson answered yes. Continuing, Chairperson Tucker asked about flag lots that are side by side and use one driveway coming in and another going out. Mr. Lawrence, consultant for the City answered that the flag lots might use ten feet of each lot to get access. Each one of these lots has a lot in front of it between it and the street. The reason the phrase,' serves no other properties', is in there to avoid where you have an alley access. It might be appropriate in places such as Big Canyon to say, instead, 'which serves no more than one other lot'. You can expand the definition slightly. Chairperson Tucker asked about the portion of the code that has to do with potential deviation from sub - division standards, I asked if we couldn't just in that paragraph, 10.24.130D1 end with the word 'chapter'. Mr. Lawrence answered it would serve the some purpose without that extra verbiage. Commissioner Selich asked about the imposition of new conditions. Ms. Clauson has reviewed this language and is prepared to respond. Ms. Clauson stated that the case law interpreting the provisions to allow for extensions is clear that you cannot impose new conditions on an approved tentative map in conjunction with an extension of time. Discretion is only as to whether nor not to extend. There are some discussions that I have read that talk about having some source of factors to determine whether or not to extend. I think that if the Commission was inclined, we could look at taking the language that discusses additional conditions and turn it into the factors to be considered on an extension. I don't think we can have the language as it is. I have tried to come up with some alternative suggested language if the Commission wants to do this such as, 'review of an application for extension under (a) above, the decision making body may consider the tentative tract or tentative parcel map as previously approved. It may consider whether the previous map would be injurious to the public health, safety or welfare and whether conditions are identified by the City or subdivider, which would alleviate the problems and that the subdivider agrees to such new conditions'. In other words, those factors could INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX be considered in determining whether or not to extend. The language in here says that you can approve conditions and you shall deny it unless they agree, and I don't think you can actually deny the extension based upon the failure to provide a condition. Continuing, she noted that it is her understanding that what would prompt this would be something has occurred between the time that the map was approved and when they are asking for on extension that makes that previous approval now injurious to health, safety and welfare. You can't just allow for conditions to be imposed or you don't get the extension. I do think that there is leeway for a Charter City to impose factors or determinations on whether or not to extend that map. Chairperson Tucker asked about the concept of lot mergers, which seems at this point in the City's history, more theory than anything that has been applied. What is the evil we are attempting to address here in this part of the revised code? Mr. Lawrence answered that the heading instead of 'undeveloped lots', should read 'development status' as it is clear in the passage that we are talking about undeveloped lots and lots that have been partially developed some with accessory buildings. To answer the other question, the evil that is trying to be addressed is the fact that in this City, as in other cities, there are lots that are now substandard that may or may not have been substandard back when they were created and don't have the necessary width or area for reasonable development as surrounding lots may have. That is why it is addressed to such a degree and extent and detail in the Subdivision Map Act, this provision for required mergers, which by the way is where the 5,000 square foot lot threshold comes from, directly from the Subdivision Map Act. Chairperson Tucker noted that if those circumstances exist, we have the findings provision to then be able not to have to do a merger. Continuing, he referred to 19.68.040 A, we have the 5,000 square foot lot as part of the Subdivision Map Act, but if lots in the area are generally less than 5,000 square feet, then we have a lot of potentially substandard lots. Mr. Lawrence noted that is one factor out of many that might be used to justify requiring a lot merger. That factor could be taken out as a finding to compel a merger and placed separately as a threshold. Continuing, Chairperson Tucker noted: • the term tenant or resident seemed redundant. Mr. Lawrence answered that the word tenant is there because they may be adjacent to non- residential development where you perhaps would have tenants of an office complex that are not residents; • A renumbering suggestion for 19.68.040 B 4 -6; • Modification Committee deciding if it wants to yield something over to the Planning Commission, there was no indication what the criteria might be. Mr. Lawrence answered that in some places like the County, that if the decision determines that the public interest would be better served by referring the item to the Planning Commission. The idea is of course if it is a 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 controversial item. Eight (8) or fewer parcels to be handled by way of Modifications Committee decision as opposed to going to the regular sub - division process for non - residential. Ms. Temple answered that the Subdivision Map Act may make the provision for non - residential and if that were the case, we certainly would not have a problem making that change. Mr. Lawrence added that it does, refer to 19.08.020, (When Tract Maps Required). Verbatim from the Map Act it specifically allows parcel maps be used for non - residential projects that have more than 4 units provided they have access to the public street. Commissioner Agajanian referred to 19.024 -2 Design Criteria regarding the minimum width for local streets at 56 feet. He stated he would like the Commission to consider moving that back up to 60 feet, the higher standard. He asked also for consideration at Subsection 4 for the street grades to not allow 10% grade on local streets. If there is ever a need for greater than that in terms of slope or desire to have lesser right of way, then the Planning Commission should consider it. He concluded stating he prefers to go with the higher standard than the lower standard. Mr. Edmonston answered that regarding the 60 foot total right of way width, the concept in the report is to narrow that to 56 feet so that you would retain 10 foot parkways on each side of the street. If we stick with a 36 -foot curb - to-curb street width for residential street and the 60 -foot right of way, it would translate into a 12- foot parkway, which is unusual. It could be done, but I don't believe that we would actually go in and widen the street beyond the 36 feet as it was originally constructed. If we needed to widen that additional 4 feet, with 10 feet on each side you would still have an 8 -foot parkway, which would be adequate for sidewalk and utility area. As for as the street grades, the grade of a street is largely dictated by the topography of the area that is being developed. There is not much left in the City that isn't developed anywhere, whether it is in a fiat area or in the more steeply graded areas. I am not sure there is a practical impact of whatever this number is, 7 or 10%. Commissioner Seliich stated that 56 feet is the standard all over California. It is the right of way that we are using and the one that makes sense. In terms of the street grades, that again is pretty much standard as to what is going on. I don't have a problem with either one. I agree that it is not problematic, given the land that is left to subdivide in the City. Chairperson Tucker asked about Banning Ranch. Mr. Edmonton answered that most of the area that is slated to be developed is fairly level. There are some bluff roads going up from Coast Highway that will have a grade but I don't know what the grade is at this point. Chairperson Tucker noted he would be inclined to leave it as suggested. I don't 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • July 19, 2001 INDEX sense a compelling reason to change. Public comment was opened. Phillip Bettencourt, spoke on behalf of BIA. He explained the letter that was distributed noting: • Appeals - we believe that aggrieved parties should file their appeals and be heard. We do not believe in a process that simply allows a single Councilmember without regard to the merits to appeal a decision. In our opinion, this trivializes the work of the Planning Commission. Those parties that are unhappy can file an appeal and go before the Council. Let the majority rule. • Extension - the notion to us of adding open -ended conditions on tract map extensions violates the intent of the legislature in the first place in setting language for extensions and leaves property owners or subdividers vulnerable to any theory of new conditions. Again, it trivializes the notion of an extension as an extension is usually taking place because there are changed economic conditions and we don't think conditions ought to apply to them. • Park fees - we recommend a process in which there was wider latitude to make a decision on park fee credits that a sub - divider might be entitled to if private facilities still serving a property but not maintained at taxpayer expense were provided. The standard in the staff report is zero to 20 %, which is really not much as you are allowed up to 50% under County standards if you propose it. • Recreational Trails - there is no recognition of trails being an eligible facility, so you could provide an extensive public trail network and not receive any credit or the opportunity to credit that against total park exactions. There are for more people in this City using the trails network than there are going to parks. It is a far more valuable facility. If you had a 50% standard, you are, in my opinion, assured of having enough funds for public formal sports facilities. Mr. Lawrence stated that the Map Act says that an approved or conditionally approved Tentative Map shall expire 24 months after its approval or conditional approval or after any additional period of time as may be prescribed by local ordinance not to exceed an additional twelve months. We reduced it from three to two years because that has been my experience elsewhere on the time -frame that works best and is the current limit. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the Subdivision Map Act allows for an approval up to three years. In most of our approvals we say 24 months or another period authorized by the Planning Commission. From staff's point of view we would have no problem stating 24 months or an additional 12 months if approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lawrence noted that the existing park dedication credit for other facilities is zero. The proposal is to raise it to potentially 20 %. It is true some other places go 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 up to 507o but it is your judgment how much credit should be given as the maximum. Commissioner Selich asked about the places that allow credit up to 50%, are they Counties, Cities? Do they have some difference in them versus the way the City of Newport Beach is organized? Mr. Lawrence answered that he is familiar with cities especially the more recently incorporated ones, which inherited the County standards. I believe the County allows up to 50% so these cities simply retain that number. Ms. Temple added that the City's Park Dedication Ordinance does not currently make any provision for credit for private recreation facilities. When we discussed whether to go to a credit and if so, how far made sense for Newport Beach. From staff's perspective in particularly in right of the work that we did with the PB & R Commission on the Recreation and Open Space Element is that the Park Dedication Ordinance really as covered in State Law by the Quimby Act, is a tool to achieve neighborhood parks /active recreational facilities. In Newport Beach that is one of our most highest needs by way of where our deficiencies are and staff felt that while in certain cases certainly some credit may be appropriate and should be considered, we felt that a more modest one because we really do 10 have a need and an interest in getting those active recreations facilities. A trail does provide some utility for a community, but not the soccer field, baseball diamonds and other things that we are so desperately short of. Chairperson Tucker noted that with a project that has this type of land involved, it probably in all likelihood would be involved in a Development Agreement. The applicant would have an opportunity at that point to try and negotiate further. Ms. Temple added that any of the standards related to the Subdivision Code, an exception can be requested and approved pursuant to those findings as well. Commissioner Selich noted that the comments on the active recreation needs of the City are well taken. He supports leaving this the way staff has written, as there are provisions for exceptions. Mr. Lawrence noted that a design manual could address a lot of design considerations. We have tried to give a framework of the major design factors like street grade and street width and through the language have said that the radii shall be per the City's Design Criteria. That is a specific reference to the design manual of the Public Works Department. We have tried to do what is suggested in the BIA letter. There is no need to change the language. Commissioner Selich stated he was in favor of removing the imposition of new conditions. The provisions of the Map Act can stand on that point. My preference is to take it out and let the Map Act provisions on extension stand. Ms. Clauson noted her agreement of deleting 19.06.020C. II INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX Public comment closed. Chairperson Tucker asked the Commission if there was any support for Commissioner Agajanian's proposed changes, he was answered no. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to adopt Resolution 1533 recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment 2001 -002 with the following changes: • 19.16.020C to be deleted; • 19.24.050 J1 - language instead of being 'serving only that lot', be changed to say, 'access way which serves no more than one other property'; • 19.24.130DI -end with the word, 'chapter'; • 19.68.040B - be retitled, 'Development Status'; • 19.68.04013 4 to 6 - be renumbered as 1, 2 and 3; Commissioner Kiser asked for a discussion on the recreational trails, adding them as recognized facilities eligible for credit. If the trails go outside the development, they would be something that is appropriate for credit as park space. Commissioner Selich noted his agreement if they were public trails, that they should be eligible for credit. Commissioner Agajanion noted his support. Commissioner Gifford asked if the intent was for credit only for that portion that is public? Commissioner Kiser noted that the trails should be eligible facilities, particularly if they go in and outside the development. I propose that the recreational trails be added because as they end up getting approved they will go in and out of the development and be available for public use. Ms. Temple stated that 'trails' is a very broad term. Trails often include facilities for bicycles as well. Would it be the intent of the Commission to allow credit for bicycle trail that is alongside an arterial roadway that wasn't within the right of way width? Chairperson Tucker noted that if it is in the public right of way, it is already given as the public right of way, so I am assuming we are talking about something that is beyond the public right of way. Ms. Temple noted that some clarity of intent to help write the language in a tight fashion so that the development community understands what credit is allowed. 12 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 Chairperson Tucker noted that the intent is a public trail outside the public right of way. Commissioner Selich stated that in the BIA letter reference to trails were public trails that would not be eligible for any credit at all. Mr. Bettencourt stated that the trails are not listed as the designated facilities. The city government may not for one reason or another be willing to accept the maintenance of the public trail and it may remain on private property and yet be fully opened to public use. All we are trying to do is get some validation of the recognition that if the public enjoys the benefit of such a facility, that the subdivider ought to be able to make application for some appropriate credit. It could still be privately maintained but the notion is, it is open to the public. Commission Kiser asked staff for a definition of recreational trails. Ms. Temple noted the City of Newport Beach does not define that type of facility as a distinct recreation type in the Recreation and Open Space Element. One other question on intent, assuming it would be a publicly accessible trail whether it be publicly owned or privately owned and maintained, would you want to set some percentage of limitation of that credit as well? In a project like Banning Ranch I could see 1007o of the park dedication credit being satisfied by the peripheral trails along the bluff tops leaving the City with no opportunity to get any active recreational facility. Chairperson Tucker clarified that the 2017o credit is for the recreational trails as well as private recreational facilities. Commissioner Gifford asked when it referred to private park facilities, are those for private use or are they on private land for public use? Mr. Bettencourt answered that using the County as an example, they could be private facilities but the notion is that they are reducing the burden on taxpayer owned facilities by being provided and being maintained by a large -scale community. This is not a right; staff is simply identifying criteria for making application to the Commission. It is still a discretionary act of the Planning Commission. The County usually allows for privately maintained facilities which displace private needs but they don't allow for things like exercycles for instance in an athletic club. Passive open space is not eligible. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None 0 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 SUBJECT: Heath Operating Company, Inc. (PA2001 -107) 1301 Dove Street Modification Permit No. 2001 -067 Request to permit additional business identification signs not specifically permitted by the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations. The request will increase the number of permitted signs with two secondary tenant identification signs measuring 2 -foot 6- inches high by 32 feet wide located above the second floor building fascia. The Planned Community District limits wall signs to 4 inch letters for each individual tenant identification on the parking lot side of the property. The proposed secondary signs will be located on the front of the building only. Senior Planner Jim Campbell noted that staff had received a letter from Manufacturers Bank, the originator of this tenant sign request. They are looking to modify this request to be one sign on the front of the building with channel letters at a height of 1' -8" with a total length of 30' -5 ". The photographic exhibit in the staff report would be only the one sign on page 19. The second sign would not be part of the request at this time. Commissioner Kiser noted he had brought this item up for review because it would have allowed, as originally modified, for letters 2 1/] feet high and 32 feet wide at both sides of the building to identify the tenants. It just seemed too overwhelming in that location. After talking to both the sign company and the applicant, I found out that the building owner did not want signs of that size or approval. With reference to the July 17th letter from Richard Reid who I spoke with several times, I don't believe there are any issues left. The Manufacturers Bank want only one identification sign. They had identification atop the building when they occupied the whole building, but that has been removed. They now only desire this one identification sign with 1' -8" high letters. Dave Peno, spoke as a representative of the owner for 1301 Dove. He stated that initially there was a 1983 Modification Permit for building top signage. They would like to retain that for another tenant that has recently signed a lease. When the deal was negotiated with Manufacturers Bank we agreed they would do a design for eyebrow signage and we would take it to the Commission for a Modification Permit. We approved the 1'-8" letters that we thought were appropriate as they were symmetrical with the building. We agreed that we wanted both eyebrow signs to balance out so that if we rented out the other space on the other side, we would be able to put an eyebrow sign that would be the same size and balance out the symmetrical look of the building. We were not aware of the Manufacturers Bank wanting to eliminate the other eyebrow sign. As the ownership, we originally went into this with a signage consultant saying that we wanted both eyebrow signs. Our consultant originally applied on behalf of the ownership and then we let Heath apply for the Modification with the idea that we would still get both spaces. 14 0 INDEX Item No. 3 M 2001 -067 Approved 10 Is City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 Chairperson Tucker noted that the original Modification Permit for the building top sign is still in effect. The sign is down now, but you have 60 days to reinstate it. Commissioner Kiser clarified that this is not in lieu of the building top signage but in addition to. Public comment closed. Commissioner Kiser stated his concern that the Newport Place sign regulations for that area just permit the one identification sign limited to a single entity. By approving a third sign, we would potentially have three entities identified on the same side of the building. We should consider a potential ripple effect on the rest of the buildings in the area and whether that would end up being an attractive thing to look at. My preference is to approve what we have in front of us, which is the need for the sign for Manufacturers Bank and if and when the other issue comes up it should be handled separately. At Commission inquiry, staff answered that there are not many buildings in that area that have multi identification modifications. There has been more interest in this type of signage as apparently the leasing of these tenant spaces is more attractive if they can get some more high profile identity on the buildings. The most recently constructed building by Lenar, a similar issue came up that was handled by the Modifications Committee. It is a growing interest. There are four tenants identified on the Lenar building, one on each side. Commissioner Gifford noted her concern of whether the Newport Place Planned Community District would be a place that is identified by the names of buildings, or whether a different type of signage that indicates all the major tenants. It seems perhaps without our awareness we are well down the path of a change based on modification permits that have been granted. I realize that underlying issue is before us tonight, I hope that when things like this come up where the modification is dealing with something it suspects will be a trend and is seeing evidence of increased applications, the Commission would have the opportunity to deal with the underlying issue before we would be in a position to have had four or five already approved. Chairperson Tucker noted his agreement stating that the Commission had just seen the Newport Technology Center project with many eyebrow signs that are actually fairly good size. In this particular case, it is a good sized building and I believe that two signs are appropriate, but I really think that we probably ought to have an underlying philosophy just as to how many of these eyebrow signs is the right number. Perhaps we should try to ask staff to put it on their list of things to come back to us with as a discussion item as to what is appropriate, such as scale. On this particular application I would support the two signs with the 1' -8" by 30' -5" size. 40 Commissioner Selich noted his concurrence with the previous statement. He 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX added that looking at the front elevation of the building you would almost question if you were going to have just the one sign down below whether you would have it off balance like that or how you would do it as the signs are scaled and balanced and have those elements working together. I wonder if in approving the one sign you are doing something that, if you were just going to approve it without leaving the option open for another sign in the future, whether you would really want the sign where it is located. Commissioner Kiser stated that we should approve the one sign tonight. We don't know how many of these types of multiple signage is in the area. Now, as it exists the sign standards for that area allow building identification to be limited to a single entity. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of approving one sign tonight. Commissioner Gifford stated her support of approving one sign. She added that we should not designate where the sign should be. Commissioner Kranzley stated his support of approving one sign now and then hearing from staff on some additional information. Commissioner Agajanian stated his support of approving one sign tonight. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve Modification Permit No. 2001 -067 with the following revisions: • Indicate approval of only one sign as requested per letter dated July 17, 2001 from Richard Reid. • Sign shall be designed as shown on the Manufacturers Bank sign on the Heath and Company's plan dated 01/17/2001. • Approval of this sign is in addition to the building identification signage that was across the top of the building for a single entity as allowed in the Newport Place Sign Regulations. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Ms. Temple stated that she can get a listing of applications for the lost six months to a year so we can at least get a handle on what the volume is and then staff and Commission can best decide how best to continue review this. 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 SUBJECT: Bluffs Retail Center (PA2001 -085) 1300 Bison Avenue • Site Plan Review No. 2001 -001 • Newport Beach Parcel Map No. 2001 -010 (TPM2001 -140) • Modification Permit No. 2001 -073 Request for site plan review to permit construction of a 51,890 square foot commercial center, on an 8.67 acre site located at the northeast corner of Bison Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. The project includes 32,150 square feet of restaurant uses. A tentative parcel map to merge three existing parcels into a single commercial parcel and one parcel for street dedication (Tentative Parcel Map 2001 -140). Modification Permit to authorize an architectural feature consisting of a 6.5 -foot high spire on the tower roof to exceed the maximum 70- foot building height. Mr. Campbell noted the staff report: • Last major piece of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community to be completed. • Site is designated for commercial uses for up to 55,000 square feet. • Proposed design is approximately 52,000 square feet. • Proposal meets the criteria of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community text that establishes standards for this particular property. • One modification request to construct a spire on the top of a tower element. • Site is constrained due to limited access and utility easements. Mr. Jerry Engen, Vice President of Development for The Irvine Company Retail Properties thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present the Bluffs project. Hanz Baldauf, Principal of Baldauf Cotton Von Eckertsberg Architects of 1527 Stockton Street, San Francisco identified Kirby and Company, landscape architect, Keith Company, Civil Engineer, Pete Prozada, Traffic Engineer and Konsortium One, Electrical Engineer and David Bab, Signage Consultant were present and available to respond to any specific questions. Continuing, he noted various aspects of the project through a slide presentation: • Site is an island surrounded by the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor, Bison Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard and occupies an important promontory view. • The buildings form a ring that enclose the landscaping element that softens the parking field and provides outdoor dining for two restaurants. • The Mediterranean theme includes both color palette and landscape theme. • Variety of architecture and tower element to be used to create a sense of place. • Two points of entry, one at the signalized intersection on Bison that aligns 17 INDEX Rem No. 4 SPR No. 2001 -001 PM No. 2001 -010 (TPM2001 -140) Mod 2001 -073 Approved City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX with the entrance to the Bluffs Apartment complex. This entrance provides both egress and ingress with left and right hand turns. A secondary access is further to the west on Bison, which provides right turn access only. • This project is visible from many places and has no 'back'. • Each of the storefronts will have a band of tiles to give a richness to the architecture. • The building along Bison will have two restaurants within the unified building mass with a courtyard cut out of the middle. The activities of the restaurants will be viewed through windows. • Building(s) drop down and merge with the landscape due to the topography. • Colors and materials board were presented. Commissioner Tucker asked: • If the public entrances to the various retail stores are on both sides of any of the buildings? • There appears to be a funneling of traffic into one intersection within the center north of the secondary entrance on Bison, how will traffic be handled? Mr. Engen answered that: • The public entrances are only on the fronts of the buildings; the back of the buildings is for employee access only, as well as service deliveries. Pete Prazada, of Prozado and Associates answered that: • There are two points of access for the project. They both converge into the intersection that goes into the restaurant building area or the retail building area. • Both entries have enough depth for stacking of vehicles exiting the site as well as coming into the site. • The main signalized access will be utilized by left fuming traffic from Bison. • The second entrance has over 100 feet of stacking to accommodate entry demands. • There is no adverse impact in terms of stacking and backing up for ingress and egress. • There is ample signage in the center to direct people to the various destinations. • There will also be stop control and regulations so that conflicts will be avoided. • The size of the site and the amount of traffic that is projected is not as great as it may seem. • There is a separation of delivery trucks and service vehicles to the back of the site. • The convergence point is basically for the users of the facility. • The left turn stacking lane off Bison is 100 feet with a 90 -foot transition. 0 is . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 Chairperson Tucker asked: • Restaurant uses? • Tower signs? • Potential for congestion in public area in the north /east corner of the project? • Width of aisles? • Parking spaces? • Visibility of equipment on roof? • Employee parking behind the buildings? Would this be an acceptable condition? • Deliveries during peak hours? Would this be an acceptable condition to restrict hours Mr. Engen answered: • Fast food definition would be a sandwich shop or smaller prepared foods that are served quickly that could be eaten in the restaurant or actually taken out, i.e., pizza shop. • We have no exceptions to the staff report as written regarding signage. • We believe that operationally it will work well; there is no parking along that perimeter area so it provides for free flow traffic. The traffic circulation is perpendicular and allows for cars to peel off and park in each one of the aisles. • All aisle widths that are proposed for customer parking are 26 feet. • Parking spaces are the standard 9 feet in width. A lot of shopping centers have 8'6 ". • Roof equipment will be behind the parapet and won't extend above the parapet and he agrees to this as a condition. • The parking for employees is designated behind the buildings. An employee parking program is a part of the lease with the tenants that provide where they must park and is an obligation that it must be enforced through tenant leases. He agreed that would be an acceptable condition. • Deliveries during restricted hours would be problematic given that these are smaller spaces and smaller types of food uses and restaurants that could require potentially a few more deliveries than just once a day, either during the day or at night. Given that we have a separate drive for the service deliveries not to intermix with the patrons, I prefer not to restrict delivery hours. Chairperson Tucker noted that it was great that the applicant had taken the effort to articulate the backs of these buildings. We appreciate that; I am not sure how much authority we have to review design anyway. It is always nice to have a developer come in and take care of those types of issues. Public comment was opened. Steve Sheldon, 26 Lyndhurst noted he lives directly over the site in Bonita Canyon. He stated his support of the project and appreciates that the rooftop 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX equipment will be screened; the height is not an issue. Ms. Temple noted that a screening wall for all three delivery areas is shown on the plans. Public comment was closed. Mr. Engen noted the following: • A couple of drive aisles on the site are 24 feet where it is not primary circulation. Condition 12 should be maintained as written. • The drive aisles in the front are all 26 feet wide. Commissioner Selich asked: • Parking - standards done when this project was part of The City of Irvine, how do they compare to what we would require under our Code? • Restaurants that require use permits would they still be coming to the Planning Commission? Mr. Campbell answered that he compared this project with the Newport Beach Code. We do restaurants differently based on the net public area ranging from 1 space for every 30 square feet to 1 space for every 50 square feet. The standards here are based on gross floor area. We normally see approximately 507o of a typical restaurant spate devoted to N.P.A.; I estimated that . approximately 400 parking spaces would be required. This particular plan shows 467 parking spaces. I think if this site was built out and given the mix of uses we see, the Planned Community text would require more parking than the Municipal Code would. I believe the parking for the project is sufficient. Ms. Temple answered that the Planned Community text indicates that the eating and drinking establishments are subject to Use Permit requirements. It doesn't make a separation as we do within our Municipal Code. It would be our intent to enforce whichever Use Permit decision maker (Commission or Director) was appropriate given the characteristics of each operation as set forth in the Code. I might add that in terns of the applicability of the City of Irvine parking standard as it relates to those various restaurants, we will go back to the definitions in the City of Irvine Zoning Code as specified in the Development Agreement and PC text. If the type and style of restaurant was such that there was a clear over burdening experienced in the center, then the Planning Commission could address the operational characteristics and conditions of approval methods to address those concerns. Chairperson Tucker clarified on condition 6 that each restaurant will be required to go through some type of Use Permit process. The word 'future' should be deleted. Mr. Engen noted that condition 11 seems to provide a redundant layer of review. I sent a letter to staff requesting a wording change to read that 'any material change to the approved site plan'. Or at least consider clarifying the 20 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 condition that would limit the review to ensure compliance with Development Standards. Mr. Edmonston answered that this is a standard condition. What typically happens is that at the time we review the plans we receive, they are not final plans. Often times as the applicant prepares final plans, they find dimensional issues or something else that requires them to make changes. It is not our intent to require sweeping changes and often times not all the details are shown at the early stage of plans that we receive. I don't anticipate there being significant changes. I would prefer to keep this condition the way it is; the suggested language of 'material change' is very subjective. To my knowledge, we have never had any issues with developers except for when they were making notable changes. We have had plans come in where developers think the lot is quite a bit bigger than it is and they have to change. It is just to give us that opportunity. Mr. Engen noted that during the hours of darkness, we allow employees who didn't feel comfortable parking in the rear to park out front. This would coincide with the lower demand of the overall parking because the retail component of the center would be a lot slower. We would do this as a part of the normal employee parking program. Commission noted the following proposed conditions: • 26 -foot minimum drive aisles on the primary or customer parking. • The east and north parking areas behind the buildings shall be reserved for employees and service vehicles and provisions that require tenants to enforce these requirements shall be required within all leases. Employees may be allowed to park in the customer parking areas after dark. • Roof equipment shall be located behind the parapets and will not extend above the parapets. • Condition 3 shall refer to Bison Avenue, not Pacific Drive. • Condition 13 shall be deleted as subsequent modifications to the plans render this condition unnecessary. • It was agreed that this approval does not include the wall signs on the tower in the proposed sign program as the applicant removed it from consideration. The applicant agreed to the amended and suggested added conditions. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Site Plan Review No. 2001- 001, Modification Permit No. 2001 -073 and Newport Parcel Map No. 2001 -010 (TPM2001 -140) subject to the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report with the following changes: • Condition 3 shall refer to Bison Avenue, not Pacific Drive. • Condition 6, the word 'future' is deleted from the first line. • Condition 12 is modified so that the last sentence reads, 'The minimum • width for two -way drive aisles in the primary area shall be 26 feet and 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes . July 19, 2001 INDEX does not include the specific area south /west portion of the property. • Condition 13 shall be deleted. • New condition is added that, 'Roof equipment shall be located behind the parapets and will not extend above the parapets.' • New condition is added for employee parking, 'The east and north parking areas behind the buildings shall be reserved for employees and service vehicles and provisions that require tenants to enforce these requirements shall be required within all leases. Employees may be allowed to park in the customer parking areas after dark.' This shall be added is item 13. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajonian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Findings and Conditions of Approval for Site Plan Review No. 2001 -001 Modification No. 2001 -073 Newport Parcel Map No 2001 -010 (TPM2001 -140) (PA 2001 -085) Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a commercial shopping center is a permitted use within the Retail & Service Commercial designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and a determination has been made that the project is consistent with the approval for the Bonita Canyon Planned Community (PC -50), and therefore, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 156 prepared and certified for that Planned Community will serve as the CEQA documentation for the proposed project. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of properly within the proposed development since the project has been designed in a manner so as not to interfere with the pipeline easements and facilities of the Consolidated Water District, the Metropolitan Water District and the Irvine Ranch Water District, which are located on the western -most portion of the project site. 4. That the Site Plan is consistent with the original approvals for the Bonita Canyon Planned Community for the following reasons: a) The approval of the Planned Community included entitlement for a 55,000 square foot shopping center, and the proposed project consists • 22 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 of 51,890. b) The site development standards of the Planned Community have been fully complied with. c) The site plan and design of the center has been completed in a manner so as to provide for on -site vehicular circulation, parking and building design which is in accordance with the stated purposes of the Planned Community in general, and the uses and standards of Commercial Sub -Area 5 in particular. d) The proposed project is generally in conformance with the. surrounding area in scale and intensity and is consistent with the architecture within the community. 5. That the Site Plan is consistent with the Annexation and Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, recorded on June 6, 1999, and that said Agreement provides for a 55,000 square -foot commercial shopping center on the site, and further, said Agreement provides that the project shall not be subject to the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, provided that the project is consistent with the Bonita Canyon Planned Community and the traffic analysis conducted for EIR No. 156. 6. That a traffic analysis has been undertaken for the project and a finding has been made that the project is substantially in conformance with the land uses proposed under the Bonita Canyon Planned Community and does not substantially deviate from the traffic analysis completed in EIR No. 156. That the modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District; will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use; and is a reasonable design solution for the property for the following reasons: a) Section 20.65.070A of the Newport Beach Zoning Code provides for architectural features such as weathervanes and other roof top features to exceed the building height limit subject to approval of a Modification Permit. b) The proposed modification is for a spire, which is 6.5 feet in height on the roof of the 70 -foot high tower. C) The proposed spire is consistent with and complementary to the architectural style of the shopping center and tower element. d) The modification will not result in construction that will block views of the public or from surrounding properties in that the spire is narrow diameter, is not located in the view sheds of surrounding properties and is located at a distance from surrounding • residential uses so as not to be noticeable. 23 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • July 19, 2001 INDEX 8. That the Tentative Parcel Map proposed to merge existing parcels for the purposes of construction of the commercial center and street dedication is consistent with the applicable City and State regulations pertaining to the subdivision and merger of property for the following reasons: a) The parcel merger results in parcels which are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and is consistent with the Bonita Canyon Planned Community and other provisions of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. b) The design and improvements proposed by the tentative parcel map are consistent with the General Plan, Bonita Canyon Planned Community and other provisions of the Newport Beach Zoning Code and Municipal Code. C) The site is suitable for the type of development, density and land use intensity. d) The proposed parcel merger and proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. e) The proposed parcel merger and proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. f) The proposed parcel merger and proposed improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the site. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, elevations, conceptual landscape plan, preliminary fuel modification plan, preliminary grading plan and lighting plan dated July 5, 2001, and the sign program dated June 21, 2001, except as noted below. 2. That all public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That an encroachment permit shall be processed through the Public Works Department for all work within the public right -of -way and that an encroachment agreement be executed for all non - standard and decorative improvements to be constructed within the Nzie-ifi,^e Dgve Bison Avenue right -of -way and any easements. 4. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 24 0 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 • 5. That all pertinent mitigation measures which are applicable to the site and project as outlined in the Final Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 156 shall be met. 6. That any fWtWe restaurant development within the shopping center shall be required to gain approval of a Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Bonita Canyon Planned Community and Chapter 20.91 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. That the precise locations for the two project identification signs on MacArthur Boulevard and the one project identification on Bison Avenue shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 8. That the parcel map shall be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. The parcel map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83) and that prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital- graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. 9. That prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monument (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot comer unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the construction project. 10. That arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 11. That the final design of the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer and the Newport Beach Fire Department. 12. That all drive aisles on the project site shall provide two-way circulation and meet the minimum requirements outlined in City Standard 805 -L -A and L -B. The minimum width for two -way drive aisles In the primary area shall be 24 26 feet and does not include the specific area south /west portion of the property. 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX 13. The east and north parking areas behind the buildings shall be reserved for employees and service vehicles and provisions that require tenants to entbrce these requirements shall be required within all leases. Employees may be allowed to park in the customer parking areas after dark. 14. That intersections of the streets and private drives shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 50 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls, signage and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -tour inches in height. 15. That the northerly half of Bison Avenue shall be dedicated for roadway purposes and that an easement be dedicated at the entry drive for traffic signal detection loops. 16. That all vehicular access right to MacArthur Boulevard shall be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 17. That in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 18. That the existing unused drive approach shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk on Bison Avenue; and that full width sidewalk be constructed along the Bison Avenue frontage. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issue by the Public Works Department. If it is determined that the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) will not relinquish the drive approach, documentation demonstrating the need for the drive approach shall be submitted by the applicant for approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 19. That directional signage shall be installed and maintained, to the approval of the City Engineer, in the vicinity of the entry drives to inform and direct vehicular traffic exiting the site to use the easterly access drive in order to make left turns onto Bison Avenue. 20. That a drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the parcel map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be 26 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 the responsibility of the developer. 21. That any Edison transformers serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 22. That the final lighting plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the Building Department. If determined to be too intensive, or if determined to present glare onto surrounding properties, the lighting plans shall be revised, lighting levels shall be diminished, or alternative lighting fixtures shall be provided to the approval of the Building Department. 23. That the service yard area to the rear of Building 303 shall be redesigned and /or the refuse containers relocated so as to provide vehicular access and maneuvering space to the approval of the Public Works Department. 24. Project approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. Roof equipment shall be located behind the parapets and wrll not extend above the parapets. Y i et SUBJECT., Buffer Residence 911 W. Bay Avenue Modification Permit No. 5080 Appeal of Director's determination that changes to an approved project were not in substantial conformance with the previously approved plans (Modification Permit No. 5080) Mr. Campbell stated that this Modification was originally approved last year in May for a 25 -foot wide patio cover over the front of the residence on West Bay to encroach into the required front yard setback. What has transpired since then is the Building Permit was issued and the area of this particular overhang was extended 3 feet 4 inches further to the east, which was not part of the plans that were reviewed and approved by the Modifications Committee. Since that Building Permit was approved, there were certain modifications reviewed and approved by staff; construction commenced May l +r of this year. Staff was contacted by a neighbor who felt it was not being built in compliance with what the Modifications Committee had approved. He brought this to our attention, and staff agreed that it was not what had been approved. However, the applicant was building it in compliance with what the Building Permit authorized by staff in error. At that point in time, the City issued a stop work order and we suggested that the applicant apply for a modification for that 3 foot 4 inch extension further east. He did so and he also appealed the decision 27 INDEX Item No. 5 Mod. No. 5080 Decision upheld City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • July 19, 2001 INDEX of substantial conformity, which is the subject of this particular hearing. The subsequent modification to permit this particular patio cover extension was later denied. There is no appeal filed for that later denial. Therefore, you do not have the Modification before you tonight; you have a fairly narrow issue to focus on. It is the decision that the Director made comparing the two sets of plans whether the ones approved with the Building Permit were in conformance with the ones the Modification Committee reviewed and approved. The Director's determination was that they were not in conformance. That determination is the subject of the appeal this evening. Some background on the approval process with the Building Permit, we interviewed the staff members involved in the approval of this particular item and we found that the issuance was done in error. Commissioner Selich referred to page 16 of the staff report with the photograph noted that looks like a patio cover added on to a deck. I went out there today and did not see the patio cover. Has it been removed? The deck is not subject to the modification; just the thing that is shown in the photo simulation and the only part that has been constructed is those little appendages that have been added on to the building. This confuses me, as there is reference to the thing being 85% complete in the applicant's documents. Mr. Campbell noted that this photograph was a photo simulation that was • submitted with the original modification to show what it would look like. It really extends outward towards the front yard but it lines up with the first post of the patio railing on the second floor. The photo simulation is what the Modifications Committee was looking at when they approved the project. I am not sure if it is 85% complete but it is partially complete. The difference between the two does have an impact on the neighbor as he was against the original modification that had been approved as it blocks some of his view. Ms. Temple referred to handwritten page 15 noting the plan view explained that the issue from staff's point of view is that the footprint of the encroachment was only to the edge of what was then the existing deck. The deck itself has been further extended to the side yard setback line but that is permitted without a modification. The construction you see out there today is an extension of the old deck plus a new extension to that existing deck. Therefore, it is to the side property line, which is three feet. Chairperson Tucker stated that the plan on page 15 doesn't show the deck extending over the area where the stairs are. Commissioner Selich stated that when he visited the site today, there were 4 x 6 vertical elements bolted on; that is what is being portrayed as 85% built by the applicant. There have been two subsequent appearances to the Modifications Committee since the original approval; one was to determine whether the extension towards the side yard was in substantial conformance with the original 28 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 approval and then a second one to actually have another modification to approve that. Mr. Campbell clarified that it was reviewed by staff for later subsequent minor modifications, but once we discovered the construction not being in compliance, the applicant did apply for one modification, which would have permitted what he is trying to do. That single modification permit was denied and that is not what he is appealing. The appeal period has expired on that action and it is now just the Planning Director's determination. Commissioner Kiser clarified that the decision the Planning Commission needs to make tonight is whether we believe the plans as approved by the Building Department are in substantial conformance with the project that was approved in the Modifications Committee. Do we have any legal standard for substantial conformance or is it strictly a 'gut feel' sort of thing? Ms. Temple answered that the Municipal Code does not have any percentage, dimension or proportion of change that would be considered substantial or not substantial; it is left to the discretion of the Director. Commissioner Agajanian stated that there are two things; one is the actual appeal to the determination of the Planning Director and the other one is that 40 we have stopped work on the project. If it is substantially complete, what are our obligations in so far as we have given a permit? Ms. Clauson answered that there is no vested right in an invalidly issued permit. The permit was issued in error. The basis for that determination is that the plans that were submitted did not substantially comply with the approval. Staff's determination was that it was an error, and they do not substantially comply. If the Planning Commission makes a determination that they do substantially comply, then it is a validly issued permit and the applicant can proceed. If the Planning Commission makes a determination and agrees and upholds the Planning Director's decision that the plans do not and that there wasn't that determination made when the permit was issued, then the applicant does not have a vested right in relying on that permit. Commissioner Selich asked if there was a reference that an eave projection could encroach 2 ft 6 inches into the setback area? If this was 2 feet 6 inches would it fall under the definition of an eave and not a patio cover? Ms. Temple answered that was not in the report, but yes, an eave that is an extension of a roof could project 2 feet 6 inches into a setback so long as it maintained a 2 feet 6 inch setback from the property line. This is not an extension of a roof, so it falls under the definition of a patio cover. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the extension across the width of the property. 0 29 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX Ms. Temple referred to page 15, which is the plan, it is a 2 foot 10 inch encroachment into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The width was the width of the existing structure and did not go all the way to the side property line. It probably would have been better stated as the complete buildable width of the property. The adjoining neighbor is the one to the east of the project site. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Tucker stated that jurisdictionally before the Planning Commission tonight is a discussion as to whether or not the plans that were submitted were in substantial conformance with the Modification Permit 5080 of May 10, 2000. We are not deciding upon the wisdom of the Modification or the extra 3 feet 4 inches. Mr. Robert Butler, appellant stated that he originally had applied for a Modification Permit and was advised to describe this as a deck extension /patio cover. The reason this came about was that my adjacent neighbor to the west has a deck that comes out 3 feet and underneath it has lights for his patio. The Modification hearing came about May 3rd. I appeared, there was a brief discussion at the meeting and it was unanimously approved. The Chairman advised at some later date that there would be an actual permit that would be submitted to me, which was about a week later. When I received that it mentioned that the application was approved, but later on it says that there • were certain conditions connected with that approval. Those conditions and findings were that it was not to be used as a deck and later says that it couldn't be used as a deck unless there was an amendment to the Modification Permit, which is totally inconsistent when I put up the money. Chairperson Tucker stated that has to do with conditions that were in the Modifications Permit that was issued and is not really the question tonight. I would like you to use your time to tell us why. We don't need to hear a lot of other things, we only need to know why you think that the 3 foot 4 inch further encroachment that was beyond the modification permit that was set forth in your building plans, why that substantially conforms with the modification permit. I have read all your information and you have a lot of other interesting points that you brought up, jurisdictionalty those aren't before us tonight. They're all good questions, but they are not anything we can decide on tonight. The only thing we can decide is were the plans that you submitted in substantial conformance with the Modification Permit. Please confine yourself to only that information and we can make an informed decision. Mr. Butler stated when he got this information about a problem with this he was flabbergasted. He had hired an engineer to design the deck. We discussed the question of extending the patio cover, the difference was about 3 ft 4 in. The question was that the joists that were supporting the existing deck were parallel to the street, not vertical. They did not come out like a normal deck would and the easterly edge of the deck where the photograph shown in the exhibit was a 30 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 sketch that I put together to show the Modifications Committee how this thing was going to look. The only thing I had to fasten that thing on to was the existing deck to show what it was going to look like. When I talked to the engineer, he said that putting the structural beam where the end of the deck was could be done, but would cause a problem because at that corner is a fireplace. On the westerly end there is a beam that extends out, but we could not do it because of the fireplace, additional costs, and disruption to the tenant below who would have to go into the structure of the living room, which would detract from that. There is a beam that comes into the middle of the deck that goes back in and we had to open up the deck to put the beam in there which affected the ceiling in the tenant space. The engineer decided that he would check it out and was told there was no problem with that. They then went ahead and issued the permit. The permit had to be changed again because of the lighting; the engineer had forgotten to show the lighting underneath on the patio. They had to issue a new permit for the electrical so the plans again were examined by Building and Planning. Later on there was a change in the pitch of the cover to the roof, instead of being real steep as shown in the photograph in the staff report, it was narrowed down where it was not quite so steep. Those plans were submitted and checked by staff. Chairperson Tucker asked that the plans that were originally submitted did you prepare the sketch that went along with the Modification application? Mr. Butler answered yes and somebody else actually prepared the plans that went to the City? Mr. Butler answered yes. Chairperson Tucker stated that in between those two plans there was some miscommunication or no communication between you and your engineer, or between your engineer and the City. Is that right? Mr. Butler answered that he had talked to the engineer who said he would check with the Building Department to see if it is okay to do that. He had a copy of the sketch and permit that was presented at the Modifications Committee meeting. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Butler stated that when he gave the sketch to the engineer to look at, the information that was needed was not there. The joists went parallel instead of vertical. I did not know that, and I made the sketch with a photograph and put the facade on it. I then took it to the engineer with the modification permit. Commissioner Gifford clarified with Mr. Butler that the sketch that was submitted to the Modification Committee is the item that was attached in the staff report as handwritten page 15. Additionally, the photograph on page 16 was also a copy of the one that was originally submitted. Mr. Butler added that when he found out about this, he talked to the Planning Director who told him it was not in substantial conformance. He later went and talked to Ms. Wood. • Chairperson Tucker stated that if a plan had not been submitted that was 31 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX different than what the Modification application showed, staff would not have been in a position to make an error. It appears that an error was made. The question comes is the burden going to fall on the person who submitted a plan that was not consistent with the Modification permit or is it going to fall upon the City and the public. That is what the Commission will weigh and decide tonight. We appreciate your testimony. Commissioner Selich stated that in the material submitted, you state it is 85% completed. All I saw was 4' x 6' vertical attached to the building; do you have something that is pre- fabricated that is stored off sites' Mr. Butler answered that the project was stopped before the patio roof was put on. The only thing that is there now is plywood over the top of the electrical. Commissioner Agajanian stated to the applicant that you went to the Modifications Committee for a roof /patio cover. You got approval for a patio cover. In addition to building that patio cover, you also decided to extend your deck without approval. Mr. Butler answered no. The covering will be the same from a waterproof standpoint. Commissioner Agajanian asked if the deck is not being extended? • Mr. Butler stated that it is shown in a sketch on page 22 in the staff report that shows the thing going 16 inches high. Michael Clary, 909 West Bay Avenue is the neighbor to the east. The deck was extended 3'- 4" to the east. The view corridors to the beach and the bay are jealously guarded in Newport Beach. The view corridor for our house is directed to the northwest and conflicts with the new structure that was built by Mr. Butler. Mr. Butler built both an eastward extension of his pre- existing deck (3' -4" to the east) as well as the patio cover (3' -4" to the east as well as the outward extension). Neither of these were approved by the Planning Department. In its present form, there is some impact of our view with the corner of the patio cover extension that we are discussing tonight. Once the roof covering is on that, the impact will be essentially doubled if you use the plans that Mr. Butler submitted to the Building Department as exhibits. We have no objection whatsoever to the patio cover extension that was approved by the Planning Department. However, we do object to the 3' -4' extension to the east of the patio cover that was not approved by the Planning Department. Both the extension of the deck and the patio cover do impact our view corridor. We agree with the Modification Committee who unanimously disapproved the northeast comer of the patio cover and ask that it be removed. The circumstances of the Building Department approval of the plans in error is unfortunate, but this would not have been a problem had the applicant submitted the same set of plans to the Building Department as he did to the Planning Department. • 32 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel stated he spent about 40 minutes with the applicant today listening to all his concerns. I lean towards whatever we can do to get the applicant back to what he was allowed to do originally. I am suggesting denial of the appeal and upholding the Planning Director's determination. Commissioner Kiser noted his agreement and that he too had met with Mr. Butler today. When it comes to the question if the applicant or the public who will have to suffer if there is an error, I think there is a great duty on the part of the applicant and the applicant's consultants to assure that any plans submitted to the Building Department are in strict compliance with the approvals for the project. While this is unfortunate that there was an error made and some progress made on the project, the issue before us is just whether the existing plans are in substantial conformance with the Modifications Committee approval. I personally couldn't justify saying that a 3' -4" extension eastward of this would be in substantial conformance, particularly when it does impact a neighbor to the extent that the neighbor has come forward and objected. It would possibly be a different situation if this were an appeal of the second denial of the Modifications Committee when they denied the 3' -4" extension to the east. But that is not what we are dealing with. The present plan is not in substantial conformance. Commissioner Agajanion stated he also spoke with Mr. Butler today. Continuing, he emphasized with the applicant, what is going on is a misunderstanding. It started out with an approval of the Modifications Committee for a patio cover and then the slip happened when you extended the deck. You didn't need approvals for that, as none were required. So you went ahead and did that and the engineer looked at the deck extension along with the patio cover and said well there is a better solution here, prepared the plans came and got them approved. This I think is an error on the part of your engineer and not a fault of the City. I would find that this is not substantial conformance with what was approved and I would go back to the original Modifications approval. Commissioner Gifford stated she would vote to uphold the Planning Director's determination based on everything heard including the extension of the deck. I believe that the City has a reasonable expectation that the plans submitted to the Building Department should be the some as the plans submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Commissioner Kranzley stated this is a simple question. Does what you built comply with what was approved on May 10+^8 It is clear to me it does not comply with what was approved. I uphold the decision of the Planning Director. Commissioner Selich agreed with all the previous comments. This is clearly not in conformance with what was approved. Chairperson Tucker noted he felt the some way. We are here to make 49 33 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 judgments based on the facts that we have. I noticed a reference to the Avco community case and it does not really applicable here as this is not what that case was about. I too will be in favor of upholding the Planning Director's decision. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to uphold the determination of the Planning Director and deny the appeal. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzfey, Selich Noes: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Mrs. Wood noted that at the City Council meeting of June 26th, Council approved on second reading the Amendment for Senior Housing in the GEIF District; approved General Plan Amendment for the Koll Office addition and had first reading approval on the Planned Community District Amendment and Development Agreement; on July loth changes were made to the Koll Ordinance so that it would not take effect until after the election due to the Greenlight provisions, so they were approved on first reading and need to go back to Council one more time. Also, at the July 1 oth meeting Commissioners Kranzley and Selich were re- appointed. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich stated that they had a presentation on the Marina Park hotel project. The proponent has an exclusive arrangement with the City to negotiate development of the property and was instructed to deal with the American Legion and has asked the EDC to help out. We felt that was going beyond our scope of authority. C) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Newport Place signage report will be forthcoming. A brief discussion on the use and /or requirements of story poles for variance requests. Staff noted that if certain applications are identified during the period of time we are determining the completeness of application, we could bring a simple discussion to determine if the Commission feels the installation of story poles would be an important part of the application. A brief discussion ensued. d) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Kiser brought up the Prudential Building on Pacific Coast Highway /Marguerite. There is a sign above the building that is not allowed to my recollection. I ask that Code Enforcement look at this. Commissioner Gifford also asked that the clock 34 INDEX • Additional Business L is City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 be looked at as well. Ms. Temple answered that we will review it for substantial compliance, plans and conditions and check whether they have a sign permit and then proceed from there. e) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that they looked at the qualifications of the consultant and deferred everything to the next meeting. Chairperson Tucker noted he would like to resign from this committ ee and recommend Commissioner Agajanian to replace him. Commissioner Agajanian accepted. Status report on Planning Commission requests - none. g) Project status - none. h) Requests for excused absences - Chairperson Tucker noted he will be gone for both the 9th and 23rd of August. Following a brief discussion on the draft agendas for the month, it was decided to cancel the meeting of August 9th and hold only one meeting on August 23rd. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m. • EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 35 INDEX Adjournment