The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/02/2006Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 35 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /nml 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Planning Director aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney ony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner Marina Marrelli, Assistant Planner Gaylene Olson, Department Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Temple spoke on the Award of Merit the City's local PUBLIC coastal program, Coastal Land Use Plan, received. It is State wide award from the COMMENTS Califomia chapter of the American Planning Association and it was for the small urisdiction comprehensive planning. We were one of two agencies to receive this ward. It is the first time the City has been invited to submit a project for a State vide award. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 27, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 19, 2006. Approved Commissioner Toerge made corrections. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, and Toerge Noes: None Abstain: Henn * * ITEM NO.2 SUBJECT: Newport Bay Marina (PA2001 -210) 2300 Newport Boulevard Continued to November 16, Site Plan Review, Use Permit, Modification Permit and Vesting Tentative Traci 2006 Map to allow the construction of a mixed -use development on a 2.4 acre site located north of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. The project consists of the demolition of all structures on site and the construction of approximately 36,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27 dwelling units (condominiums). Eleven three -story buildings are planned to be built over a subterranean parking garage. The reconstruction /reconfiguration of the existing Page 1 of 35 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /nml 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 bulkhead, boatways and docks is also planned. The Site Plan Review application would authorize the entire project and the Vesting Tentative Tract map would permit a subdivision map to allow for the residential units to be individually sold. The Use Permit would establish a building height limit of up to 35 feet and the Modification Permit would allow portions of the proposed buildings to encroach within the 5 -foot front yard setback. Finally, consideration of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2003071144) including mitigation measures. Staff requests to continue this item to November 16, 2006. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter to approve the consent calendar as modified. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, and Toerge Noes: None Abstain: Henn HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 SUBJECT: Holiday Inn Express (PA2006 -182) 2300 West Coast Highway Approved The applicant requests the approval of a 19 room expansion of a 64 room existing motel. The two -story addition is fully compliant with applicable standards and will be located at the rear of the existing two -story motel building. Commissioner Henn stated he had not had time to adequately study the record from the last meeting and therefore would be abstaining from discussion an voting on this item. Marina Marrelli, Assistant Planner, gave an overview on the updated staff repo noting the following: • The addition to the last staff report is a more thorough examination of ho this project could comply with the Design Framework. • Additional language regarding the cut between the subject property and the parking lot. • A proposal for additional screening of the roof equipment. Ms. Temple expanded on the item relating to the condition regarding the easements and the possible future connection through the parking lot. Staff had proposed the following language they felt was consistent with the Planning Commission's direction from the last meeting: . Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall execute and record an irrevocable offer of dedication, approved by the Office of the City Attorney, granting the City an easement for ingress, egress and access, over, upon and across the portion of the propert6y as general) depicted in Site Plan Exhibit 1 dated November 2, 2006 and attached herein. Upon refinement of the attached Site Plan Exhibit 1 any parking required to be removed shall be allowed to be replaced by the removal o on -site landscaping. Staff still had questions, as a result, the City Attorney's office has prepared some stricter language for the Planning Commission's consideration: Page 2 of 35 http: / /www. city. newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 3 of 35 . Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall exei and record an irrevocable offer of dedication, approved by the Office of City Attorney, granting the City an easement for ingress, egress and aco over, upon and across the portion of the property described in Exhibit A depicted on Exhibit B. (Exhibits to be provided separately) Temple said that it was the choice of the Planning Commission, Staff ifortable with either of them. A copy of the above language was handed out meeting. ice White, from Government Solutions and on behalf of the applicant, gave rerPoint presentation noting some revisions and modifications to the plat A on the comments and suggestions from the last meeting on the followir (5) key points: Landscaping - UP No. 2006 -019 Conditions: o Condition 24 - Prior to obtaining final occupancy, there shall be a total of palm trees within the planting area adjacent to the sidewalk West Coast Highway.... o Condition 25- ■ Prior to obtaining final occupancy, there shall be a conl 30 -inch tall hedge adjacent to the sidewalk on West Highway o Condition 27- ■ Prior to obtaining final occupancy, the two utility fixtures abut West Coast Highway shall be screened from view landscaping. o Prior approval - UP 2001 -044 had two conditions that covered three of these items. ■ Condition 6- • Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy ... o additional Mexican Fan palm shall be planted... • Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, continuous hedge.... shall be installed along the along t front of the property.... Condition 8- ■ Prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy screening plants shall be installed... to achieve ful screening of the electrical cabinet... o Ms. White said they felt by upholding conditions 6 and 8 this woulc allow for portions of landscaping improvements. along West .Coas Highway frontage to be completed sooner. If we upheld conditions 24, 25 and 27 there would be a delay. 5 -sided architecture - roof plan and screening o Roof Conditions - requested the following changes- * 35. - The roof shall be painted a neutral, non - reflective color . approved by the Planning _.Director prior to the issuance of a certificate of #PR4_a certificate of occupancy. ■ 36. - A sereen wall shall be installed ..m...0.h of the a :stmF.. fugal eeerspawW. AIL exisfina HVAC_equipment on the roof shall be screened with a louvered horizontal screen and louvered vertical screen north, of the ... equipment and not exceed the height limit. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2006 /mnl l - 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 ■ 37.- parapet. All rooftop equipment shall be painted to match roof prior to the issuance of a certificate of #Pe4 occupancy. • Parking - o Ms. White went over the occupancy rates from the last meeting. • Project meets City code. • Typical Guest- Weekday ■ Business /corporate stay 2.5 nights . Arrive via rental car or airport shuttle (no car) Weekend ■ Leisure travelers (primarily couples) stay 2 nights ■ Arrive in 1 car ■ In the evening, when typically everyone is in their rooms, is one staff person on duty. Consistency_-with .Mariner's Mile ._ Specific Plan and Visioi Design Framework - signage o Language from Strategic Vision and Design Framework - ■ Single- business monument signs- ■ 4.21: Signs should be limited to those iden businesses ■ 4.6: Ground - mounted single- tenant monument signs s be allowed. o They went out and measured the existing sign and compared measurements to Newport Zoning code 20.67.030 - Pemanent Sic Commercial and Industrial Districts • Site frontage minimum 50 feet; they have 132 feet. • Number of signs permitted - one; they have one. • Area of sign not to exceed 200 square feet; their sign is square feet. • Height not to exceed 25 feet; their sign is 7 feet. Cole if the existing sign was permitted. White answered no, and there is a condition that a permit be applied for Staff feels that the sign does comply. Ms. White continued with They feel the project complies with requirements of the Specific Plan. • Architecture- Existing rooftop equipment will be screened and entire painted. • Landscape- ■ Complies with requirements and standards. o Lighting- ■ Zero light spill from site. • Offer of dedication for easement - o Rough calculation shows that three spaces will be lost if the occurs. o These spaces can be made up with the loss of landscaping. • It would represent about a 485 square foot loss of landscap and still park the property to code. • This would not absolve them needing to meet the number Page 4 of 35 http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/2006 /mnl 1- 02- 061tm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 trees, etc. required. )ner Eaton asked if the applicant was acceptable with both of the proposals on the offer of dedication by Staff and the City Attorr White answered that the first one was the applicant's language and :rence between the two proposals is they have one last sentence, which I er, that is an acknowledgement that parking will be replaced by the loss of landscaping. So, they would prefer the first one. nmissioner Eaton then asked Assistant City Attorney Aaron Harp if the ad luage was acceptable to the City. Harp said they would prefer to go with the language recommended by the may's office, with maybe the acknowledgement that the parking would aced with landscaping. Harp then asked Ms. White how wide the proposed easement would be. White said they weren't sure what the Public Works Department re, but what will fit, given the drive aisle, is 26 feet. a. Temple added that there hadn't been a final determination by the Pu arks Department, but in preliminary discussions the Public Works Director s indicated 32 feet would be required in order to provide a regular private sh andard. That is not a final determination. Also on the added langu, Guested by the applicant on the easement language, that technically mplying with the landscaping standard would require the Planning Commis: consider an approval of variance and we have not noticed a variance. Harp then said the important issue is this is an irrevocable offer of dedicai unless there is more analysis done in the future, nothing is going to hapr it and they will be in conformance until the City Council decides to accept of dedication. At that time it would put the applicant into a non - conform ation. Perhaps dealing with the landscaping issue could be put off to a IE asioner McDaniel spoke on a letter, in the staff report, that had I J from a Mrs. Bauer MD which indicates she is against this project some clarification on the following: . Big rigs parking in the motel's parking lot. White responded that big rigs are not permitted in the lot. They are fed by the motel. irman Cole asked if there was a condition prohibiting big rigs from parking lot. White answered no condition. This motel does not get trucker business. :r Hawkins asked what the time frame would be on the improvements and the parking lot landscaping. Page 5 of 35 http: / /www. city. newport- beach.mus/PlnAgendas /2006 /=l 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 s. White said they are proposing to do the conditions, regarding the landscapi e frontage of West Coast Highway, that are tied to the existing approval that is an check. Visibly this would be the most important component in terms of t �eet frontage. So when that starts they would not get the certificate :cupancy until the new tree, the hedge and the screening of the utility equipme as completed. As far as the parking lot and due to the amount of constructi id moving of equipment, they couldn't find a way to get that landscaping done. condition was proposed where they could come up with a portion of the parki i trees being placed in the forward portion, that is something the applicant cot Hawkins said he thought the improvements to the front portion which is tied tc certificate for current approval in plan check was fine. His concern was witt erring the parking lot landscaping improvements until after the current proposal would like to see a condition requiring some trees. Temple added that the conditions in the 2002 Use Permit are the conditio need to be complied with. She has some concerns on how you could absol pliance with those conditions to a later date. If this approval is granted >n't mean it will be implemented. mmissioner Hawkins questioned if the Staffs position is that the landsc )rovements, pursuant to the 2002 approval, would be installed and if there 1 problems they would be taken care with the plan check review and apr the current application. . Temple answered yes. Hawkins asked if the applicant was okay with this. White answered yes. sioner Peotter asked about the purpose of the hedge and why it in 2002. Temple said the hedge was a requirement of the Strategic Vision and De nework, adopted in 2000. The hedge and the trees in the front were the that were adopted as code in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. sioner Peotter said this would cause their monument sign to be it will be behind the hedge. im Campbell, Senior Planner, commented on this issue stating the ]an( amework was adopted in 2000 and it had specific landscape standards Pere codified. The following meet those standards: • The hedge and palm row across the front of the property provides a element of continuity across the entire district. • The landscaping in the parking lot which was required and codified. Campbell did say the hedge would necessitate a larger sign for visibil oses and would cut done on the open space, but it is a mandatory item Hawkins asked: Page 6 of 35 http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /Mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 7 of 35 If the applicant was happy with the proposed language of the offer dedication that they had proposed and that this was their offer. If they had proposed, at one time, some connection with the municipal but currently it is not in their current proposal. White answered yes to the first question. She said the second question wa: :ct, but it was as if they proposed a good deed and now are being punished. / are happy with the language and would like to have an acknowledgemer if the parking is to be replaced on -site that it will be at the loss of landscaping. . Harp stated the real issue is if the irrevocable offer of dedication is require( J it is approved, then the applicant would be in a non - conforming use. The) uld basically have less parking than the code currently requires. If things di( we forward, he felt some type of arrangement could be made with the municipa for adequate parking. Hawkins asked if, with the City's Attorney's approval, that one of the items condition would have language that the applicant would not be prejudiced offer. Harp said yes they would take care of that. missioner McDaniel said he wouldn't need this requirement to move an approval. His concern would be the parking now and in the future. imissioner Toerge asked Ms. White about the three conditions for ct ned in her presentation and these conditions were not in the staff report. White said they are in the last page of the resolution. Marrelli said she had emailed the revised resolution on Tuesday, October 31 comment was opened. comment was closed. n Cole asked if the three proposed suggested changes were the to the conditions that they now have in their packets. White answered yes. mer Hawkins clarified they were speaking of the emailed version of changes. nmissioner Toerge asked if the cut sheet in the plans that were presented slides tonight are going to part of the record and wanted to make sure this w of the condition. Temple said all materials presented at this meeting are part of the pu ! rd and copies of the presentation are also received from the applicant. I ple suggested making the changes presented tonight as part of the motion. nan Cole clarified that the slide depicting condition number 36 also ref! ly, the graphic they are talking about. He wanted clarification that there http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 8 of 35 existing well that the equipment was being moved to. White said yes, it is hard to see in the graphic. irman Cole said the landscaping issues have been addressed adequat Iht, the roof plan presented will be part of the record, and the parking t i shown to be in compliance. He asked the Staff if the signage was pliance with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Plan, even if it wasn't permanent Marrelli answered yes. ere was some general discussion on the sign and it's increased size with dge blocking it. It was also discussed if there could be a condition made ton keep the sign from being 200 square feet and 25 feet tall. Temple said if it is consistent with the code they will get a permit. If it's in it shouldn't be conditioned with a use permit. The specifics in the Marin Design Framework have been taken out and are now the City's code irman Cole continued with the offer of dedication and the language appears been accepted, with the City Attorney agreeing to add the language from t icant. mmissioner Peotter wanted clarification that we did not currently have a anything codified requiring this. Temple answered that was correct. Peotter then asked that there was no nexus requiring this. r. Harp said it could be argued that there is a nexus requiring it. They are Iditional units to this motel, which will increase traffic and put a burden on qhwav which could be a nexus. sioner Peotter continued that they are just building out their site, not their site, which should not require additional circulation. Temple said they are exercising one provision of the code to allow them tc greater than the base floor area ratio limit of .5 up to their proposal of .7 h is in the use permit request to allow a higher amount of square feet. . Harp pointed out the nexus analysis is irrelevant because they are volunt; reeing to this offer of dedication. It is in their interest also to have access in imissioner Peotter said that it didn't matter and condition number 19, as fine with him. issioner Hawkins does not support condition number 19 and thinks be something stronger and something fixed. issioner Eaton just wanted to reiterate what he stated last week, in tl lanning for the circulation on Coast Highway, and this area in particular. ng access through the back is critical. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 irman Cole agreed that we should keep the language that the City proposed with the amendment. r. Harp said he may need to change some of the language if the Commis: rection is to obtain the easement, but to insure that the applicant is not prej f granting the easement. Instead of an irrevocable offer of dedication, he ive them execute an easement and not have us record it subject to a vari ter on. This would all be based upon the City Council approval. general discussion there was a consensus to record an irrevocable offer ation as long as the applicant is not prejudiced. �n was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve Development Plan 001 (PA2006 -182) with all of the changes and directions that we have I: this evening. and Commission clarified the motion as follows: • The suggested roof condition changes on numbers 35,36, and 37. • Include the exhibits from tonight's presentation by the applicant. • Delete condition number 19 and replaced with the City Attorney's propos language on the offer of dedication, received by email, and modified not prejudice the applicant. None Henn ITEM NO.4 Planning Director's Use Permit No. 2006 -021 (PA2006 -193) Denied :al of the Planning Director's approval of a Use Permit for a medical/di a use. The request is to allow the utilization of an approximately 2,625 sq office area for medical /dental office use within an existing 10,500 square building complex. linh Ung, Associate Planner, gave an overview on the staff report noting • To allow the operation of a medical office use within an existing of building complex. • The subject property is zoned as Professional and Administrative Of District of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. • The subject property has an existing legal non - conforming dental of approved by the County of Orange prior to the City's annexation in 2001. • An appeal was filed by the Santa Ana Heights Project Advisory Commil with issues focus on whether medical /dental uses are allowed in the District and the on -site parking requirement for the medical /dental uses. • The Director's interpretation is that medical or dental office uses permitted in the PA Zone. • Medical /dental office uses are traditionally considered as professic business office uses, however there are different parking requirements medical /dental uses since the parking demand for the medical use is slig higher than the general office use. • The proposed project requires a net increase of 3 additional parking spa Page 9 of 35 http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.usiP1nAgendas/2006 /Mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 10 of 35 and the applicant is providing the required number of parking spaces by re- stripping the parking lot. • The project meets the criteria set forth in the Non - Conforming Parkinc Section of the Code. • Staff recommends denial of the appeal and to uphold and affirm the decisior of the Planning Director and approve the Use Permit application. However, during the review of the application the Planning Commission could deny the application if findings could not be made for the Use Permit application. comments opened. Carol, resident of Santa Ana Heights and vice -chair of the Project nittee, and they are objecting to the Use Permit application with the • More trips generated. • Increased traffic problem for the residential area. n Cole asked Mr. Carol if he had any estimate on the increased trips. Carol said it was based on the number of chairs and type of dental procedures and didn't have a number. Stokes, PAC member of Santa Ana Heights, had concerns with the rds coming from medical /dental offices. Saunders, project architect, introduced himself and Dr. David Wilhel ant. Dr. Wilhelm answered the question regarding the number ntments as follows: • Presently has an office in Huntington Beach. • Runs a fee - for - service private practice. • Averages 6 patients per day • Procedures vary; full mouth reconstruction and cosmetic cases. • 2 hygienists that see an average of 5.5 patients per day. The hygienists scheduled for 8 hours a day but because of the age of the patients, appointments tend to be longer. • Number of chairs - 2 for the hygienist and 3 that Dr. Wilhelm works out of. Wilhelm felt the amount of traffic generated from his practice would rman Cole asked about the number of patients seen in an 8 hours day that 5 patients per hygienists. Wilhelm answered approximately 5.5 patients per hygienists and that is b; his patients being older and being treated for periodontal disease and care. iirman Cole asked so that would make 10 to 12 hygienists patients per the patients seen by Dr. Wilhelm, which is on a average of 6 or less pati day, making an average total per day of 15 to 17. Wilhelm said that was correct. Cole then asked there would be 2 hygienists, 1 receptionist plus Dr http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl l - 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 11 of 35 also on the premises. Wilhelm answered yes. missioner McDaniel asked if there would be any other doctors in the practice. Wilhelm answered there would be no other doctors. mmissioner McDaniel asked the Staff, since we annexed this area from nty, if this was a new application and not from the County, and we acoe because it was already established. Ung answered that was correct. comment closed. Hawkins expressed his following concerns: Medical /Dental Uses in the PA Zone - o The Staff believes medical /dental uses are permitted uses in the Zone under Professional and Administrative Offices- according section 20.44.055 of the Zoning Code. He understood the bo interpretation from Staff. • Referring to the Zoning Code, Business Park District, Seca 20.44.050 B.1 - specifically refers to medical and dental offices : that is the district under which these uses are allowed. • PA Zone - Prohibited uses are all uses not listed in this section permitted. • One section discusses medical /dental as a permitted use and it is delineated in the current zoning district, Section 20.44.055, theref doesn't think the use is permitted. On -site Parking Requirement- • The Staff recognizes that parking could become a concern, but dil recommend denial of the use permit do to the fact that there would 45 total parking spaces and the site accommodates a sufficient van of uses such that there would not be a likely overlap in park demand. • He didn't think there is a variety of uses; 50 percent is professic office and 50 percent is dental. There is a commonality and comn demand. • The permitted use in this area is 100 percent professional /administrative offices. o' There will be some parking problems. Peotter asked the Staff: • What is the parking requirement for medical; 1 per 150 or 1 per 200 • Are the 8.5 stalls for long -term staff stalls or general purpose stalls. • The existing medical was approved at 1 per 250, so it is non - conforming i as it stands and do we have the latitude to require them to fix this before extend a new use. • If this is a discretionary approval, why can't we require them to bring existing non - conforming use into conformance before granting a new use. Ung answered the parking requirement is 1 per 200 and is City wide. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 12 of 35 answered yes that it is a existing non - conforming use as it stands today rding to the non - conforming section of the parking requirement we do the latitude to require them to fix it. This is a discretionary approval. r. Brine answered that the 8.5 is the standard size parking stall. r. Harp answered the questioned on bringing the existing non - conforming to conformance stating the code section provides how much parking is regi r the applicant to provide and there is no discretion in that regard, however e seeking a use permit which is discretionary. Dmmissioner Henn asked if the existing non - conforming parking situation is different owner and if so, how can we apply a restriction to that in conjun th this application. Temple said that these buildings have had four separate condominit erships. It is difficult to impose conditions on other owners that are not part application. Henn asked if they share parking in common. Temple answered yes. mmissioner Henn then asked do we have a mechanism to impose restrictic parking that is available to the other condominium owners. Harp said no we cannot impose parking restrictions on the other owners sip y are not part of this application. mmissioner Henn then asked if the parking requirement consideration :lusively on this application. . Temple answered yes. mmissioner Henn asked: • What is the traffic generation associated with general office compared medical office. • That comparison would set the traffic differential to be considered. Brine answered: • General office daily trip rate is 14 trips per 1000 square foot • Medical office daily trip rate is 50 trips per 1000 square foot. issioner Henn then asked if that traffic model indicates that the med trip rate is significantly higher. Temple responded that the trips rate used for modeling and other tr Isis purposes are based on averages that are tested in the field via drive F ts. That number takes into account all the broad range of medical offi i are varied in type and generate traffic at different rates, i.e. the pediatri may have an enormous amount of visitation is evaluated the same as ologist who may have less visitation than a regular doctor. http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 13 of 35 mmissioner Peotter asked what has the applicant shown that he has the hts to the additional parking spaces he is proposing. Ung asked for time to check the file for recorded or reciprocal in Cole asked if the Traffic Engineer had an answer to this and out the following: • The City parking code for general office versa medical office has difference of 4 per 1000 or 1 for 250 versa 5 per 1000 or 1 for 200, which a 25 percent increase. • The trips generated by a medical office are almost 4 times that of a gene office. my Brine said that is accurate, there is more turn over with the higher level ps generated. Ung said there is no copy of a reciprocal access agreement, however as par the County building permit, each of the buildings were built with the lerstanding that they have to provide a fair share of parking and that is spli sally per each building. Each building has two separate condominiun Peotter asked if: • That means we are going from 41 spaces to 45. • Does each of the condo units get one of the extra 4 spaces being created. • Dr. Wilhelm will not be getting 3. Ung was not aware of the arrangement and perhaps we should question cant. missioner Peotter then asked if the City should be concerned if the appli legally provide the spaces and ownership of those spaces as part of Ung answered yes. Cole wanted clarification on the following: . The Staff believes, per the code, that the applicant can re- stripe the exi: parking lot, increasing the over all parking spaces from 41 to 45 and would allow them to meet the code requirement for this use, which regi an additional 3 spaces. Ung answered that is correct. missioner Hawkins said that he thought the actual code requirement as i now is 42 and they are encroaching with the trash enclosure on one space. applicant is proposing to add another 3 spaces. Ung said that was correct. Harp added that the important issue is it this is a shared parking http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 14 of 35 does the applicant have the legal right to re -stripe the lot to provide ional 3 spaces. He then asked the applicant to respond to this. Wilhelm said there is a condo association, which he is part of, and they ha a meeting regarding re- striping and restructuring the parking lot ommodate the necessary parking spaces to meet code and everyone was :ement. Regarding the traffic, his normal office hours are Tuesday throu rsday, 7am to 4pm and half -a -day on Friday, which is approximately three a -half days a week. i Cole asked the Staff if the re- striping issue needs to be of the condominium situation. Harp didn't think it needed to be conditioned but just wanted to verify they right to comply with this. imissioner Peotter said he thought it should be conditioned that the app to verify they have the association's approval on their ownership of the 3 Harp said it wasn't an ownership but a right to use the overall spaces. imissioner Peotter said he had been involved in condo associations recent ownership of parking is an important issue. Usually modem methods actue gn the number of spaces per unit. Their CC &R's may have some flexibility an them. said these are valid points and since we do not know how they maybe we should condition it. irman Cole asked Staff if it should be conditioned before issuing a permit be conditioned as part of the use permit. Temple said some written verification of the right to change the parking lot of it would be appropriate which would need an added condition. ssioner Hawkins said Commissioner Peotter raised a good point the following: • He was not concerned with Dr. Wilhelm, his patients or his staff encroachir on other's parking. • That we are requiring Dr. Wilhelm to create 3 additional parking spaces ar there is no guarantee that parking spaces won't be used by others. • Doesn't believe this is a permitted use. • Doesn't believe the parking issue is adequately addressed and there is not diversity of uses as the Staff indicates. rman Cole addressed the following in the staff report regarding the code irement: Assuming the applicant can re- stripe the additional 3 spaces for a total of spaces, this would meet the current parking requirement that the C requires. Temple answered yes. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /Mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 1 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 15 of 35 hairman Cole then asked what is the discretionary reason why we wouldn't allo hat and if Commissioner Hawkins was concerned that the spaces wouldn't be used as permitted. s. Temple said typically, especially commercial parking lots, we would a it spaces not be posted for specific users so all the parking would be a everyone. We normally do not get involved in arrangements regarding mmissioner McDaniel if we approve this medical use could this office be used anything other than dental, i.e. a regular doctor could move in if sold. . Temple said yes, any type of doctor could move in. mmissioner Toerge had the following concerns: • The use permit runs with the land. • If the property is sold in the future the new owner may use it differently. I could be opened 7 days a week and/or there could be shorter term appointments. • Land use decision needs to be made on this. • More discussion from the Staff on this use being permitted. • PA zoning is not medical. • Parking ratio is some what significant, but the trip generation is ve significant. • Are we suggesting that our traffic models and street designs would adequately allow medical use in all PA Zones when medical traffic is thre times as much as office. Temple responded as follows: • The Newport Beach Zoning Code, while it does have a sub - category o medical office in the use classification of professional and business offices has always allowed medical offices in every district where professional anc business offices are used. • In fact, there is only one zone district in the whole City where we actually call -out medical offices as a separate use with special requirements and tha is the M-1 -A District or Industrial District. • To follow that line of reasoning would mean medical offices are prohibited it every commercial district in the City, other than perhaps some planner communities where they may be called -out separately. • Mostly they are lumped together under the broad category of professiona and business offices and that was one of the rationales used to determine whether is was considered a permitted use or not. • The BP District in the Specific Plan does call -out medical offices as a distinc category. • Under the County Specific Plan, it was done because they had a desire it placing a specific limitation beyond the normal for medical offices in tha particular district. It was based on the size of the medical office, limitinc them to no more than 4000 square feet. • When the City adopted the Specific Plan we did try to emulate the Count Specific Plan as closely as possible, but it was not emulated 100 percent. One of the provisions that was deleted was the limitation of the 4000 square feet in the BP District. • We felt there was good justification to support the argument that medica offices are allowed in the PA District. http: / /www. city . newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 16 of 35 • In speaking with the County, if that decision where applied county wide medical offices would virtually not be allowed in any commercial zone in the County. We didn't think that was a practical intent of those provisions of the Specific Plan. • Like in our M -1 -A District, the reason why we call it out separately is we asl for a use permit in that district only. Otherwise they are considerec expressed permitted uses and that would be in retail commercial administrative /professional commercial, and recreational and marin( commercial. • We were being consistent in applying our standard application practices an( standards to the Specific Plan and believe they are permitted use pursuan to the Specific Plan. ) mmissioner Henn said the staff report says this application is subject to ecific plan. Each zone district indicates that uses not listed are prohibited. TI a specific plan and not a general zoning situation. He then asked the Staff irify how this use is permitted. Temple stated she didn't have anything to add. She didn't think this sped r had any use classifications. In the PA Zone in the County Zoning Co( lical office were not prohibited. The is no use classification in the Coui ing Code for medical offices. Therefore the code is being applied in sistent and equitable manner. If the Commission disagrees, that's what th here for. nmissioner Toerge said it was hard for him to make a judgment that this use ropriate in a PA Zone, given our codes list the professional /administrative us medical uses as two distinctive and separate uses. Medical /dental offices in the PA Zone. rman Cole wanted to know if medical /dental uses were permitted in other PP )s in the City. Temple said this is the only place where that terminology is used. As Mr had pointed out, there are medical offices in the professional /administrative that were approved by the County and we also used that as an indicator the the reading of the code and the intent of the County. missioner Hawkins asked if it was the City's intent, when it adopted the Sant: Heights into the Zoning Code, that the regulations as they relate to medical intended to be administered as City wide. Temple answered yes. on was made by Commissioner McDaniel to uphold the appeal and deny Permit. Hawkins encouraged Dr. Wilhelm to appeal this to the City Council. Eaton said this was a close call for him and wanted to point out The purpose and intent of the BP District - o Specifically allows medical and dental offices. • Allow the maintenance of professional /administrative commercial uses, etc. http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /null 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 The purpose and intent of the PA District - o The maintenance of an optimal environment for moderate intens professional /administrative office uses. • This possibly suggests that they may have intended to be different environment in terms of level of intensity. • The traffic model indicates that medical offices are a high intensity. • Conceivably the County was deliberate in not allowing medic offices in the PA Zone, because the zone was intended accommodate moderate intensity. The parking was a concern in that we didn't use this opportunity to rect the existing non - conformity on the parking and we didn't have any discreti on parking. Wilhelm asked for a continuation. Temple said a continuation would only be helpful if the applicant ional information that might further support his position. Wilhelm was then told to get with Ms. Ung for directions on how to file eal with the Citv Council. None None Thirty First Street, LLC (PA2006 -031) 407, 409, 411 & 413 31 st Street Permit to establish a height limit of 31 -feet, exceeding the base height limit yet, for the construction of four mixed -use buildings and approval of mercial floor area ratio (FAR) less than the minimum 0.25 FAR required d use development projects. In addition, the applicant is requesting 1 oval of a modification permit to allow parking spaces to encroach within 1 and rear setbacks and a lot line adjustment to adjust the interior prope of four lots into four equally sized parcels. ime Murillo, Associate Planner, gave an overview on the staff report noting lowing: • The Commission would not be able to take action on this item tonigh because of the inadequately prepared Public Notice, but the Staff would like to have a discussion and receive the Commission's comments. • The proposed project involves the demolition an existing retail building anc automobile repair facility, and redeveloping the site with 4 new mixed -use buildings. With the exception of the architectural treatments, each buildinc will be similarly designed and will consist of 750 square feet of commercia space on the ground floor and a two -level residential unit above. • Although mixed -use developments are consistent with General Plan an( permitted uses with the Cannery Village Specific Plan, projec implementation requires the approval of four discretionary applications which include a use permit for increased height and reduced commercia floor area, a modification permit for parking space encroachments into the front and rear setbacks, and a lot line adjustment. • A detailed review and analysis of each of the requests has been included it the staff report. In summary, Staff believes sufficient facts to support the findings for the requested increase in height and reduction in commercia Continued to November 16, 2006 Page 17 of 35 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 18 of 35 area are evident given the size and location of the lot, and design of project. The applicant has presented an attractive design that meets Cannery Village theme using a variety of architectural elements complements the surrounding properties by providing attractive details visual relief on all sides of the building. Staff believes 2 of the 3 required findings for approval of the modifica permit request can be made related to compatibility with the neighborh and ensuring that the encroachments will not prove detrimental. Howe Staff questions whether or not there are sufficient facts to support one of required findings and would like to engage the Commission into a discus; to determine whether the justifications for the parking space encroachm( are adequate. Staff believes there is a fair argument to say that the lots are small in s and therefore creates a practical difficulty in accommodating a via commercial and residential development permitted by code while provic the necessary parking. However, Staff also recognizes that there are o1 design alternatives that could accommodate complying parking spaces, is unsure whether or not that would result in a less successful commer space, and therefore inconsistency with the purpose of the Cannery Vi1L Specific Plan. Depending on the outcome and direction we receive, Staff will re- notice project and return with a draft resolution on November 16th. irman Cole wanted clarification on what are the issues to be focused Murillo said they would like to focus most on the modification request, Id also appreciate any comments from the Commission on any of the c mmendations from the Staff. Temple said in the last part of the staff report was a discussion on land u flicts and this is another location where one of the units will overlook imercial parking lot for a restaurant. There may be some design solutions tt ht assist in minimizing that possibility for conflict. Therefore, the Staff was a if the Commission would want to discuss this tonight. nmissioner Hawkins questioned opening the hearing on this item since it properly noticed and the possibility the public did not receive the notice. s. Temple responded the Public Hearing was noticed on this item, it just left ie aspect of the application, that related to the encroachment of the parl )ace into the front yard setback. There isn't a problem with opening the hea nce we are not going to take an action tonight. issioner Eaton had a couple of design related issues, first of which is: • What does the Specific Plan allow? • In the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan we have specific design criteria. • This project is in the specialty retail part of the Specific Plan, which described as the retail core. However, these units appear to have bel designed with the retail as an after thought. • In contrast to the Cannery Lofts; the entrance to the residential takes up significant portion of the commercial frontage. There is no access to tl commercial occupancy from the street. • Can we address this issue in the Specific Plan, since the Specific Plan do4 not currently allow us to say this project is not designed to meet the intent. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 19 of 35 Temple answered: • The City's Zoning Code, in some areas, have intent and purposes. • One of the weakness of the code, in Staffs opinion, is it never follow through enacting regulations that would address that intent and purpose. • The actual regulations do not require things that were suggested, but a include all of the same provisions that allow less commercial FAR throu certain permit approval processes. • There is no criteria for what design feature might assist a core pedestri retail area. In fact the permitted land uses, compared to the other parts the Specific Plan, have little, if any, differences. It would be difficult to st asking for project modifications that are consistent or consistent with 1 procedures to allow exception in the Zoning Code, even if it is thought ti the project does not meet some of the intent and purpose. • This is something that the Commission can take into consideration. • These are residential units with enough commercial to satisfy the Cit requirement. Eaton then addressed the second part of his issue: • The most westerly unit has it's balconies overlooking Rudy's parking which will end up with the same situation as the Newport Beach Brev Company. • Do we have the ability to suggest to the applicant that we can not make findings as to compatibility unless perhaps those units were reversed so more blank wall was facing the alley, which would not have the balcoi overlooking the parking lot. Temple said that if the Commission could not make the findings related to the patibility to the neighborhood, they could ask for that change. imissioner Hawkins had some concerns: The compatibility issue was a concern. The project abuts the AkAnon facility, which may have compatibility issues. Regarding the land use incompatibilities, he handed out a letter, in connection with another project, from a firm of Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus, and Peckenpaugh. This letter had items that could be considered, including deed restrictions, conditions for release and covenant not to sue, and other CC &R restrictions. He pointed out that Mr. Jackson stated the likelihood that an owner of a unit in the residential project will make a claim against the operator is significantly reduced. It doesn't eliminate it, but it may affect it. i Cole suggested starting with the land use conflict and get for Staff and asked the following • This is a mixed -use project which is permitted under the General Plan, proposed General Plan and the Cannery Village Specific Plan. • Was the Staff looking for direction on the perceived conflicts of land use the adjacency to restaurants and bars and other uses that might allow tl to redesign their project. • Was the 8 -foot high wall that would be a buffer a proposal or sugges from the applicant? • Has the real estate disclosure condition been suggested? http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /P]nAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 20 of 35 . Is the reversal of the floor plan of the buildings to face inward not somethin the applicant is willing to consider because it s not achievable due to desig or cost reasons? r. Murillo answered as follows: • The 8 -foot high wall is a feature that the applicant has proposed. • The real estate disclosure condition has been suggested as well as the of double -paned windows to help insulate noise. • The applicant's preference is to maintain the design as proposed. Wilson, the applicant, introduced himself along with Bill Guidero A. Mr. Wilson made the following comments: • He was aware of the issue pertaining to the Newport Beach Brewinc Company and that it was a hot button, but thought there were some distinc differences between the way the project faces towards Rudy's parking lot.. • They had reviewed the direction that the project faces and felt it was in the best interest to face with the light and ventilation. That is why it is faced du( West. • They have looked at the Newport Beach Brewing Company situation an( have been involved with this situation. • Felt there was a distinct difference between the Newport Beach Brewinc Company which is a pub, and Rudy's which is more of a grill and a pub. • They have talked to Rudy's, and Sober Living (the Newport Club) regardinc different things and feel that everyone is following their intending uses an( can all co- exist. • Feel they have a great design. The elevation is key from Newpor Boulevard. It could be changed but you would be looking at a blank wal and pointed out what it would look like in the handouts. • They have had a lot of practice since they have tenants and managc properties in Cannery Village. They have 13 tenants in Cannery Village which include lawyers, commercial artists, equipment companies, florist, an( hair stylists. • They are knowledgeable on what type of spaces people are looking for in Cannery Village and what are commercial viable and successful. • A big component of the other facilities was looking at what is the commercia entrance and what is the residential entrance and felt that was important t( encourage both the residential and the commercial aspect to co-mingle. airman Cole thought the concern of the Commission is the noise and rowdy uptive behavior from adjacent uses like this have been issues in the past. re is a genuine concern that this will happen again with the approval of WE lication. He then asked what the was the different number of the bedrooms it units. Wilson said 3 bedroom and 2 bath units. rman Cole asked if the buyers would probably be young professionals, Wilson said in the Cannery Loft most live and work in their units, so that woc )ably be the same for this project. They will be holding the units and renti n out. He believes the difference between this project and Cannery Lofts those lofts are looking down on the Brewery's parking lot and the entrance http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl l - 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 21 of 35 ie restaurant, which they are saying is a bar. Where as with this project they % e looking at the backside of a 2 -story brick building and the parking lot would t xposed to the outside decks, which should be a buffer. They are not expecting be quiet. Behind the project is the Newport Club and there will be son ongregation issue there also. He believes the type of clientele that will ren iese units will understand what they will be looking at while standing on the alconies. He didn't see any change of renting out these units within the next 5 0 years. imissioner Hawkins asked if Mr. Wilson had received a copy of the Jacksc larco letter and encouraged him to read it over. Commissioner then asks they are not seeking any subdivision and that these units are simply for rent. Wilson answered correct. The only thing they are seeking is a lot stment. They purchased the lot -in -a -half next to the 3 original lots they will be spreading the half lot equally among the 4 lots. oner Hawkins asked Mr. Wilson, in speaking with the Cannery if they had complained about noise from Rudy's. Wilson got the impression from the them that their expectations after me were different from when they bought the units as residential. The issues Brewery are a concern but didn't feel the issues will be the same at RI ;ause there is not a front door that will be viewed from any of units. They d to address this with some open areas in the 8 -foot wall going down the ommissioner Hawkins said that the Cannery Lofts residents had mentioned m that they are concerned with the Rudy's operation as well. He felt the client this project will be similar to that of the Cannery Lofts and wasn't sure there w way out of the compatibility issue. Eaton asked the following question: The staff report says you cannot connect the commercial and the resident to make them real live /work. Do the Cannery Lofts also not have connection between their downstairs commercial element and t residential. Wilson believed they were separate units. Temple said the building code wouldn't permit it because of use Eaton asked the following question: Asked if the reason for keeping the units on single lots was for the of being able to sell them in the future. Wilson said yes, but initial intention is to hold them as rentals for an od as far as there vision at the moment. missioner McDaniel said the Commission is very concerned with sound and seen a lot of complaints with the activities in the area. He cautioned the cant to pay a lot of attention to how they buffer the sound and they wil ably see some deed restrictions. http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.usiP1nAgendas /2006 /nml 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 22 of 35 airman Cole wanted to know if there was a consensus on the land i gestion by Commissioner Eaton on redesigning the project to face inward can give the applicant some direction for the next meeting. nmissioner Toerge said anything that can be done to minimize the compatibilii ie will be favorable. He addressed his concern that the lot nearest Rudy's a small lot, and the lot line adjustment request is to make all the lots the sam They then use the small lot argument as a reason for justifying th roachments in the setback. Commissioner Toerge said he was not inclined 1 hardship for small lots or any physical hardship to justify the encroachment i setback. )mmissioner Hawkins referred to the purpose of the Cannery Village Specif an, code section 20.43.020 -D - "The Cannery Village area is intended to sere c active pedestrian -oriented specialty retail area with a wide range of visito .ruing, neighborhood commercial, and marine - related uses permitted" and then Iks about the core area that Commissioner Eaton referred to. He was concerne th the design of the project and it's retail access issues and didn't think it cou considered retail. He would like to see the retail be more prominent. nmissioner Eaton said he was in agreement with this and would also try ;e the pedestrian entrance more subtle. nmissioner Henn pointed out that this was just 750 square feet and wo er be significant specialty retail. Therefore, he would have more flexibility H project. Wilson wanted to address that the commercial was a side load and irim ause of the handicap access. The front parking space was a handicapp ce and the ramp had to access that space. airman Cole asked Mr. Wilson to speak about the encroachment issue and i sing design. . Wilson said the Cannery Lofts had asked for the same encroachment and tl re he got it and it helps that commercial space. Any openings on the side ne be 10 feet clear from the property line, which make it a very long and narr ilding. When you encroach these 10 -foot from the rear on the parking and �t from the front, there is a minimal of commercial left. Cole said so the encroachment is for the parking requirement more size. Wilson said the other thing was to avoid tandem on commercial. issioner Hawkins said he could be flexible on the request if some of were addressed. Toerge asked what were the width of the current lots. . Wilson said the first lot, number 407, is 45 feet and lots 409, 411 and 413 a 30 feet. Orman Cole said he didn't have a major problem with the encroachments reasons given, but feels there should be some stronger real estate disclosu http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 ner Hawkins referred to the Jackson, DeMarco letter and the mentioned in the letter and they should be considered or included rman Cole said he agreed that if these were addressed it would help in use issue. Henn would like to see a better case for the hardship on Peotter said he would not like to see a blank wall facing comment was opened. comment was closed. Cole asked if this item needed to be formally continued. Temple said we would continue this item and also re- notice it. Ms. T ted to be clear on what the Commission would like to see on this project: • A strong desire for the applicant to study the retail entrance from the front. • The Commission is split on the modification, but might be convinced if t applicant writes up a more complete case to support the finding for appro- on the setbacks. • Requirements other than require reversal of the units. iissioner Toerge asked if there is anything that restricts these units from residential on the ground floor. s. Temple said the current General Plan and Zoning require that commercial component of these projects and that is to be on the ground floor and resider only allowed on the second floor and above. The new General Plan mal odifications to this. It will continue to be a mixed -use area but it would allow id -block portions of this area to go exclusive residential, only requir immercial at street intersections. This particular project has no str tersections because the alleys are not counted as streets, so this project cc > exclusive residential once the zoning mechanism to implement the r sneral Plan is established. Toerge addressed the following: • The suitability of the these small lots for the intended purpose of puttinc commercial on the ground floor. • He wasn't inclined to compromise fundamental planning requirements in ar effort to make this project happen. • Felt there was another way to develop the property that is commercially reasonable and is suitable that wouldn't require modifications. • There seems to be a perceived entitlement to some of these properties. They have entitlement subject to the requirements in the codes and the development standards. • Perhaps they should make this into a 3 lot subdivision instead of a 4 to subdivision and be within the code. issioner Hawkins asked Ms. Temple if it was the intent of the New Page 23 of 35 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 to obliterate the requirement in the Specific Plan on the core specialty retai >, or is there some accommodation, or are the core areas would move to the ars in the New General Plan. Temple said there was a recognition that Cannery Village does supl lest amount of viable commercial, it isn't a main commercial district beta area is off the beaten path. Not requiring commercial on every property m to to make that more viable. The requirement in the mid -block area is not residential, it allows exclusive residential but also allows mixed -use lusive commercial. nissioner Hawkins then asked if any requirements of this project would take seat to the requirements of the General Plan. s. Temple said should the General Plan be approved there may be great inten certain areas to make use of the new provisions of the Land Use Plan. As p: the implementation program, we could see an interim zoning that would apply areas of change in Newport Beach. That would provide some sped cretionary path to exercise those General Plan provisions. It may take >nths or longer to enact all the code changes. We would have to work with t :y Attorney's office to make sure any interim provisions are appropriate. Cole asked for a motion to continue this item to a later date. was made by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item to None None Isla Vista Homes (PA2004 -123) 2920 Newport Boulevard . ;ral Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment, Tract Map and Modificati iit to develop 44 detached residential condominium units on a 3.25 acre si general plan designation would be changed from General Industry to Mu ly Residential and the zoning district would be changed from M -1 trolled Manufacturing) to MFR (Multi - Family Residential). A Modificati iit has been requested to allow setback encroachments, decreased distan een structures and increased wall height in required setbacks. Planner Brandon Nichols gave an overview of the staff report noting: • Development consists of 44 detached condominiums. • Staff is requesting input from the Commission on the design modifications necessary to facilitate it. • The applicant will present a formal presentation. McDermott of Government Solutions, representing the property owner, the following: • Both the architect and property owners are available. • Referencing the exhibit, she noted the location of the project bounded Monrovia Avenue, Banning Ranch and the termination of 15th Street. • A vicinity map was then displayed and explained. • A current lease on the southern portion of the property runs for an additic ITEM No. 6 Continued to 12/07/2006 Page 24 of 35 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 25 of 35 5 years. Temple noted that the mobile home park located on 15th Street will be and the paperwork is in process. Ms. McDermott noted: • Offers to meet with nearby residents have been attempted but n accomplished; however, she is hopeful that one will take place in the ne future. • Their entitlement request consists of a General Plan Amendment to charn the land use designation from General Industrial to Multi - Family Residentie This is consistent with the proposed General Plan. A Zone Coi Amendment to change the current zoning designation from Light Industr to Multi - Family Residential; a Tract Map for condominium purposes; and Modification Permit and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which has bei circulated. • The project consists of 44 detached town homes and will be built in tv phases. The first is 34 units and upon completion of the five year lease i the office building, the second phase will be 10 units. • They are all three stories. There are four floor plans that range from 1,800 1,900 square feet. • Referencing the site plan, she noted the right of way required by Pub Works for 15th Street is 104 feet. • The first phase will have access off Monrovia with special textured paving Referencing the plan, she noted the walkways and open space and ti location of the units. • Phase two will have the front setback on 15th Street with the side yards r Monrovia. There will be two driveways coming into the project. • She then noted a typical lot layout with entries into the garages from tl alleys and driveways. She then noted the patio areas, living area landscape, bicycles and trash areas. • The north phase will be developed first. She then discussed in detail ti procedures and processes. • The proposed project exceeds code requirements for open space. Comm( recreation areas are provided in the plan and the open space concept is private patio for each unit to include this mixture of landscape ai hardscape. • Patios are allowed in the open space and allowed in the setbacks. • Walkways are allowed in the open space. • A comparison of the patios and paseos of this project and the Sailhou: project was shown. missioner Eaton wanted to know if this project was going to have the first behind the paseo fence be landscape as does the Sailhouse project. ;. McDermott answered that their landscaping plan had not been developed but they would be willing to work with the Commission on that. McDermott continued: Referring to a slide of the Monrovia Avenue street scene she pointed out the landscaping in the front, the retaining wall and picketed fence, which wouk be the open space in the front yard. Because of the standards of wal heights, they are asking for a modification. They feel they meet the intent o front yards, landscape front yards and front open space, but the code doe: http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11 /02/2006 not permit it without a modification. She then went onto the elevations of the different plans, explaining tt raised areas, the architectural articulation of the buildings, and the varior architectural details. Slides were then shown on the different floor plan models, noting tt different levels. Ms. McDermott then addressed the following modifications requested. • Distance Between Buildings - o The code currently requires 10 feet between buildings, which is tt standard required for an apartment building consisting of numeror units. This project has single - family units and they are requesting tt 7 foot standard to be applied. At this point she referenced a slic showing single - family units, with multi - family characteristics, and feet between each unit. They had considered attached building which would not have required the setback, but for marketing ar other considerations it made more sense to be detached units with tt reduced side yards. She also noted that the plans on Sailhou: showed they also had 7 feet between the buildings. • Side Yard Setbacks - o The side yard setbacks on the north parcel were based on tt irregular configuration of the lot and 104 -foot right -of -way dedication. • The right yard setback is required to bel8.12 -feet and they a proposing 10 -feet. • The left yard setback is required to be18.12 -feet and they a proposing 17.9 -feet. issioner Hawkins questioned the environmental document and the land s of the project, which indicates there are no impacts or less than signifi s in connection with the project and that it is consistent with the land ments. However there are modifications being proposed. McDermott responded the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) m 3red on the basis of a PRD Zone. After working through those standards, apparent that the MFR Zone was more appropriate. Either would have Scant parking requirement or some modifications. The modifications, from In standpoint, were appropriate request and from an environmental standpoi weren't any real impacts. It was their understanding the environment ultant felt, from a CEQA standpoint, there were no impacts of the change. Nichols responded as follows: The original design that was analyzed by the they changed the zoning designation. Under the MFR regulations there is a certain allow regarding setbacks and distance between When you remove the PRD you create the n MFR standards. MND did not change amount of flexibility that buildings. 3ed for modifications unc sioner Hawkins said his concern was we now have a s on with modifications and how does that fit in with the in the MND. Temple addressed that question: . CEQA assess and analyze the environmental impacts of projects, includ in a land use sense. Page 26 of 35 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 27 of 35 The approval of the modifications is a needed planning application an( those are evaluated on different basis than environmental affects. She concurs with the environmental consultant that, in this particular case no additional affects nor mitigation measures would have been identified had the original project description include this component of the application nmissioner Hawkins then asked now that the project includes the requirem modifications, does the Staff believe those requirements do not enhance ate additional adverse impacts. Temple answered yes, because the assessment in CEQA pursuant to advi ronmental affects is directly in relationship to adverse affects on the phy: ronment. Whether or not the City has or approves a planning applicatio result in the field is the same, what we are assessing is the impact of 3lopment and not the compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Code. McDermott continued with the modifications requested: Walls - Design - Use - o Request over - height walls in the front, rear, and side yard setbacks. • Referring to a slide, she pointed out a typical wall condition. ■ 4 foot 6 inch to 5 foot retaining wall. ■ 3 foot 6 inch picket fence. ■ Total wall height of 8 feet to 8 feet 6 inches. • The wall, landscaping, and patio are all part of yards. • Typically walls are restricted in front yards, due to driveways and I restricted view the wall may create, but in this project all of the parki is from the rear of the unit. Cole asked if this would occur where there is a garage. McDermott said no because the garage faces the alley or the driveway. irement does not preclude it in that location. McDermott continued: Walls - Design - Use - • Wall height along the north property line varies. • If the wall is shielding the at -grade patios it would be a 6 -foot wal which no modification is requested. • The retaining wall with the above fencing would be an 11 -foot wal and was designed to be higher where the property is adjacent to th adjoining industrial property and where there are paseos. • Ms. McDermott then recapped where the over - height walls wer located by pointing them out on the slide. • A comparison of Sailhouse's 7 -foot distance between buildings an over - height walls in the front yard setback was shown. • Total retaining wall height was 7 feet 8 inches. • Picket fence height was 3 feet 6 inches. • Total wall height was 11 feet 2 inches. Light Wells in the Front Yards - Ms. McDermott referred to the slide pointing out where the light H was located. There is no visible encroachment into the setback, but from technical standpoint it does require a modification. http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl l - 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 28 of 35 . Ms. McDermott then addressed the parking requirements. • Some local residents have had parking issues regarding One Nautical Mile and the abuse of an adjoining driveway. These residents would like to know about the parking requirements for this project. • The zone requirements vary considerably. • MFR requires 2 covered spaces per unit and .5 guest spaces. • PRD requires 2 covered spaces per unit and 2 guest spaces, including street parking. • R -1 requires 2 covered spaces. • This project is between the MFR requirement, the R -1 requirement, and PRD is sometime used but seldom used because the standard is very difficult to meet. • We have provide the following for this project- • On -site covered parking at 2 per unit which equals 88 total spaces. • On -site guest parking at .5 per unit which equals 22 total. • Street parking on Monrovia Avenue, only for their side of the street, equaled 20 street parking spaces. • Along the future of 15th Street there would be an additional 1 spaces. • Ultimate on and off -site guest parking would total 56 gues spaces. • This meets the parking requirements. ;sioner McDaniel requested Ms. McDermott to point out where the is located. )ner Hawkins asked that the Staff address the on- street 15th Street. Brine, Public Works Principal Civil Engineer, responded to Commissio (ins question stating once 15th Street is improved there will be no parking Street. McDermott responded that this was the first time they had been told that. r. Brine said they typically do not allow parking on arterial roadways. It McDermott said the David Keely, from the Public Works Department, said ing would be allowed. Ms. McDermott said they would need to work is Works on this issue. r. Brine said they would have to review this situation, but felt parking would Hawkins suggested the applicant and Staff readdress this issue. McDermott said depending on the outcome of land use in Banning Ranch, th tional right -of -way may or may not be ultimately needed. So there could be ction in the roadway width and that would allow parking even under tt ;nt standards. They will work on that before the next meeting. issioner Hawkins had concerns on: . The 104 -foot width of the right -of -way. Traffic accessing Coast Highway http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11 /02/2006 Page 29 of 35 and crowded conditions on Superior and Newport Boulevard. . Encouraged Staff to retain that requirement for as long as possible. McDermott continued: . Referring to the site plan, she pointed out all the different areas for parking. McDaniel asked how wide the parking was at the entrance. McDermott answered it is 36 feet, wide enough to allow two lanes of parking. Temple stated that 36 feet is our private road standard and would nq on both sides of the street. nissioner Eaton asked Staff if they would look at the Sailhouse pro, ding the side -to -side separations from building face to building face, and to- front. He thinks the front -to -front across the paseo from building ng is greater than on this project and would like that verified. missioner McDaniel expressed his concern on using the roadway for parking cluttered it would make the project and would like to see more guest parking. issioner Eaton asked Ms. McDermott to point out the common how large they are, and what they may be used for. McDermott did not have the square footage at this time but could provide the next meeting. She then pointed out where they were located, and that >uld be landscaped and have benches. Peotter asked`. • If they had considered having a pool or common recreation facility. • Will they be contributing towards Williamson Act, park land, etc.? • Where is the closest park that would serve this project? McDermott answered: • Looking at the Sailhouse project, which does not have these facilities, tt didn't seemed to be a lot of demand for on -site recreational areas so 1 left it in a passive state on this project. • They will pay their annual park fees to the City for the enhancement of existing public recreation space. • She said there will be a new park down the hill. The parcel was purchased from CalTrans and is to have ball fields and other ac recreational spaces. imissioner Hawkins asked about the One Nautical Mile project, how large and if it had a pool and recreational facilities. Nichols answered he didn't know the size of the development, but it did s a pool. comment opened. http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Christian, homeowner at Newport Knolls which is across the street from sed development, expressed the following: • He was not opposed to developing this area but did not want to see it ove developed. • Concerned about the parking. Since One Nautical Mile project finishec 15th Street at night has no parking left. The parking that the applicant is expecting on the west side of Monrovia will be non - existent. It is a higl density area. • The speed limit is still 40MPH on 15th Street, which now has a lot c residential, and should be lowered. • They would like to see on -site parking for any new development in the area. • As the area becomes more developed, more and more people are parking ii their development, which is not gated. They now have parking permits any towing of unauthorized vehicles. • The residents at One Nautical Mile actual come over the fence and use thi pool facilities in their development. They are very concerned that anothe facility without a pool will just create more people using their pool. They an dealing with the HOA at One Nautical Mile to remedy these problems. mnifer Irani, homeowner at Newport Knolls and serves on the HOA, al; ;pressed her concerns on the parking and recreational area. She wanted cus on the speed limit and all the new traffic, and could the speed limit I wered to make it safer. She also wanted to know about the fence that went frc feet to 11 feet and how that effected the property owner adjacent to that. She partner of the adjacent property. mmissioner Toerge suggested the Ms. Irani and any other owner of tt acent property make their concerns known to the Commission. mmissioner McDaniel wanted to get her input on the parking and who is parkir the street and why. . Irani said she wasn't sure but with One Nautical Mile becoming occupied ar re is an apartment complex in the area, there just seems to be a influx of cars. McDaniel asked Staff, for the next hearing on this item, to find out what tt king requirements are for some of the adjacent properties and if that impact ising everyone to park on the street and how we should address that for th Temple responded that the current zoning requirement is 2.5 parking sp; unit for all properties zoned MFR. If the Commission thinks that is inadeq need to change the code. ;y Malone, HOA president of Newport Knolls, feels the lack of parking at O tical Mile is that they have a lot of renters, which tends to be college studei 5 people living in one unit and they all have cars. They seem to be the or are parking on the streets, parking on Newport Knolls property and coming pool. comment closed. Toerge addressed the following: • We say this has been re -zoned MFR, but the General Plan just talks Page 30 of 35 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 31 of 35 density and it has not been re -zoned MFR. • There are different ways of approaching this project, the PRD District, F District, and MFR District. The PRD District has an enormous parkir requirement, so an applicant would rather process an application under MFR which would reduce the parking requirement. The MFR has oth issues that the applicant is requesting modifications for. • The MFR Zone may be applicable for an attached - housing project. o Deep setback requirements that might be more suitable for a proje consolidated with subterranean parking, and multiple condos in tt middle. • It seems the applicant has chosen single - family homes and the MFR zonir to minimize the parking requirement. • When is it appropriate to use PRD, PC or MFR zoning for project like tt that are really single - family? Nichols responded: Staff wanted input from the Commission because of the issues in our curr code dealing with projects like this. There were similar questions with the Sailhouse project, which is M zoned. MFR zoning regulations do not map well onto a small -lot detact sub - divisions, but does allow detached units within it as a permitted use. Regarding the different entitlement options for this project - o PRD - ■ PRD was added to the MFR and imposed 2 guest park space requirement, which is four times the MFR requirement. ■ The PRD standard seems to apply to a small -lot conventio sub - division that would have a driveway in front and that wo satisfy the 2 guest parking spaces There are not a lot of the in the City. PRD was considered for this project but not chos due to the projects inability to satisfy the parking requirement. o PC - • Was never on the table. • PC is intended for large parcels as reflected in the actual regulations that require a minimum of 10 developed acres. MFR - The MFR designation allows this type of development. The project would require modifications to MFR deg standards.. ■ MFR development standards are intended to apply to I attached projects, as evidenced by the large 18 -foot side requirement and the 10 foot required building separation. . These issues were dealt with at the Sailhouse project and they were all 6 feet between the buildings. Toerge responded as follows: • The PC requirement on the 10 acres could be changed with the Planning Commission's approval. It may a good idea to reduce this PC requiremen because of less and less larger areas to be developed, as residential, in ou City. • A more conventional MFR design may be more suitable for this project. • The right -of -way being used as the front yard, when it is not currentl, dedicated or built, should be taken into consideration and discussed. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl l - 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 • PRD does allow street parking to be calculated for parking purposes. • Using MFR zoning and then counting street parking is disingenuous. • The guest parking is not suitable and is inadequate. • The open spaces could be more centrally located. • Would like the Staff to address the suitability of approving Phase II that not be developed within the time frame of the permit. • The Sailhouse project has some distinct differences. • It incorporates some combined attached housing along with single - family detached housing. • When comparing the heights of walls and retaining walls, Sailhouse project is on a slope where as this project is on a flat lot. • The wall that goes from 6 feet to 11 feet is a concern and the adjai property owners should opine on that. • The parking issue needs to be completely revisited because of inadequacies. man Cole asked Commissioner Toerge what zoning was more than MFR. >sioner Toerge said the PRD seems to be more suitable zoning for th y, especially the parking requirement. The MFR is more oriented towards Jetted detached project. The problem he has, is asking for one type that benefits the parking ratio and then asking for modifications to make r other issues. irman Cole said they are asking for a General Plan amendment, which I s the right to do under the current and proposed General Plan. He then as f to clarify that the applicant is not asking for a parking modification, but parking requirement has is met on -site and the street parking is ancillary to airement. The only modification requested is for the encroachment issue. Nichols answered that was correct and that when Staff was evaluatin :ct they would not consider the on- street parking and it does meet .ing requirement for on -site parking. iissioner McDaniel said this is an Industrial Zone and doesn't currently requirements. As proposed, the parking doesn't work for the project. Eaton addressed the following: . The MFR Zone was intended for conventional attached units with suitable for those units. When designing a single - family sub - division in a MFR zone, there may be disconnect for the parking. The Sailhouse project was more lineal, had a public street on one side at had a private street on the back side of the project which could be used f parking, and thinks that project had more than the .5 parking space per w and would like Staff to possibly check into that. immissioner Henn said he likes the detached single - family design and would see some way to stay with that approach. Page 32 of 35 Motion made by Commissioner Hawkins to continue this item to December 7, 12006. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Henn http: / /www. city. newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas/2006 /Mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 None Planning Commission Rules of Procedures Commission agreed taking this item up after 10:30. Temple presented a draft report that includes input from both Commissiom staff. This item has resulted from past circumstances and at Commissi ;tion regarding the rules of procedures. This draft report includes a drafts s that have been revised. issioner Hawkins then distributed his copy of the rules with his He then noted his comments: • Study Sessions - No specific times or day; expand subject matter; remov reference to what can be done and remove redundant reference to officio action. • Agendas - add verbiage 'as provided herein' in paragraph A; and addition c verbiage related to maximum public participation. • Voting - add reference to another form of voting in the event the light syster becomes inoperable; add verbiage requiring Commissioner to state reason he or she is disqualified from voting on an item; • Order of Business - verbiage referencing noticing of hearings as proscribe by City Clerk's office. • Conduct of Meetings - add identification of speakers; a second motion i now required; the Chairman may not make motions. City Attorney Harp noted: . Order of Business - Hearings shall be noticed as required by law. ioner Hawkins opined a difference between noticing by City Clerk Commission and is suggested keeping the same reference. Temple noted this is a procedure for staff, not for Planning Commissioner. ever, she will look into the matter. continued on the appointment of Commissioners to and how the appointments are made. Toerge noted: • He does not support a second motion rule other than for a s motion. • The Chairman should be able to make motions. • The minutes should not be on the Consent Calendar. • Remove the Consent Calendar altogether as it has not served the for which it was originally intended. • Committee assignment issue is not necessary. !re was a consensus by the Commission to remove the consent calendar agenda. Temple affirmed that there would be no problem with removing the Approved Page 33 of 35 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 from the agenda. tirperson Cole then went through the drafts and the following was agreed to Commission: . Section VI: Time of Meetings - B - Add, "When this schedule conflicts with holidays or the mand of priority projects, the Commission may alter this schedule as forth in sections E and F below." • C - Agreed to proposed language regarding "any other matter witl the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission." • C - Remove reference of specific time or days of study sessioi remove reference to type of materials received at study session a remove final sentence regarding official action as it is redundant. • Section VII: Agendas - o A - Add verbiage 'as provided herein' in paragraph A; • B - add verbiage related to maximum public participation. • Section VIII Voting Procedure - o B - Add, "In case of emergency or problems with the vote registeri lighting system, the Chairman may determine any other reasonal manner to vote and register votes on any matters on any agenda. • C - the first sentence to read, "Any Commissioner who is disqualifi from voting on a particular matter by reason of a conflict of inten shall publicly state or have the Chairman state this determination a the nature of such disqualification in open meeting. • D and E - shall be re- worked for clarification. • Section IX Order of Business - o Remove consent calendar. o Remove 4a that references proscribed noticing, as it is not necessary. . Section X Conduct of Meetings - o C - Remove residence request; • Add use of sign in sheet at podium; E - second to a motion is required; F - remove the last sentence in F motion treated as an amendment. . Section XI Committee - o No change. . Section XV Amendment of Rules - Chairman not able to make motion. relating to voting on the substitute A - These rules may be proposed to be amended or added to by fou affirmative votes of the Planning Commission at a regular meetini pursuant to the procedures in Section XV. made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Eaton the chanaes to the rules of Drocedures. Eaton, Peotter, None None a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted the City Council heard 1 second reading and adoption of ordinances to Koll Center and Aeronutro Ford Planned Community; approved a professional services agreement hire Hogle Ireland for the services of David Lepo to serve as inter Planning Director. Page 34 of 35 http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 35 of 35 b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Ecor Development Committee - Commissioner Henn said the draft of Stra Plan hasn't been completed. It will be considered again by subcommittee and should be approved by the EDC at the next meetir November 22, 2006, at which point it will go to the City Council for our session. c. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Local Committee - no meeting d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none f. Project status - none g. Requests for excused absences - none ADJOURNMENT: 11:25 p.m. ADJOURNMENT ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 06/23/2008