Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/03/2005Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet\PhiAgendas \2005\nml 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - Commissioner Tucker was recused and appeared on the dais at 9:00 P.M. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director aron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary . Larry Lawrence, contract planning consultant David Lepo, contract planning consultant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 28, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 20, 2005. ITEM NO. 1 Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve the minutes as Approved mended. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS UBJECT: Bayside Residential Planned Community (PA2004 ITEM NO. 2 72) 1 PA2004 -072 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet\PhiAgendas \2005\nml 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 919 Bayside Drive project involves the redevelopment of the Newport Marina Apartme plex located at 919 Bayside Drive. The existing 64 -unit apartme plex, located on approximately 3.92 acres, will be demolished a aced with a 17 -unit, gated residential community. The tentative to proposes to establish 17 individual residential lots for custom hor ,truction, 1 common recreational lot with possibly a pool and sha ;ture, 2 landscape /open space lots. Private streets are proposed. lest to re -zone the site from MFR (Multi - Family Residential) to F nned Community) is sought, which is accompanied with Plann imunity Development Plan text that will establish development a standards for the proposed project. Coastal Residential Development Permit is required to em npliance with the Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) and using Element of the General Plan. The project includes the demoli existing structures, grading, installation of utilities, private stre dscaping, site lighting, site walls, storm water improvements, PL *ss easements and upgrades to the public right of way adjacent to iect site. vid Lepo of Hogle Ireland, contract planner, gave an overview of 1 ff report noting that this item was first heard in August. During tl firing, the Planning Commission raised several issues and asked sl a review. One of the issues concerned the subdivision of we face in the bay. The City Attorney advised staff that those propert t were on the surface of the water included originally in the Subdivis p could not be included in the Map and could not be subdivided, a re to be taken out of the area that was ultimately included in I itative Tract Map. As a result of that determination, the land area a water area were reduced to the point that the Development Over t had been proposed for this particular property reduced the lot ai the development to comply with the maximum 40% lot area covert t applies in the Planned Residential Development Overlay Zone. l lerlying land use designation is multi - family residential and the over s going to be applied to the zoning to allow for the development ale family homes. With that determination, and absent the Planr sidential Development Overlay, staff concluded the best procedi s to prepare a Planned Community Text and change the zoning on tl ticular site to Planned Community, leaving the underlying land i ;ignation in the General Plan as multi - family residential. Therefore, here tonight with a proposed Planned Community Text and posed Zoning Amendment to change the land use designation nned Community. With that the Planned Residential Developm arlay goes away as does the Use Permit that was required Felopment pursuant to the Planned Residential District. he noted: Page 2 of 42 Recommended for Approval file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet\P1nAgendas \2005\mnI 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 The Planned Community text includes development standards conditions of approval that address the issues raised at the meeting. Those issues are: Land Use designation and zoning of multiple family - the con was that there might be an attempt to develop more than one on each of the residential lots being created by the Tentative 1 Map. Concern with the MFR zoning - somebody might try to devel three stories and up to 35 feet in height. Staff has included development code section in the PC text and conditions of approl in the PC text that clearly state one unit for each of the resident lots not to exceed 28 feet in height. Concern that setback between the new property line wall at Baysii Drive was not adequate. Staff has included conditions ai standards in the PC text that require a minimum of four foot setba between the right -of -way at Bayside Drive and the new property Iii wall that would allow for a minimum of 4 feet for landscape ar then the wall and then 10 feet of yard on the private property side the Bayside wall. The right -of -way beyond the sidewalk on tl private property side of Bayside Drive varies from 1 -2 feet to 6 fe so the affect will be that there will be between 5 1/2 and 10 feet actual landscape setback between the back of the sidewalk Bayside and the new property line wall. Concern with the setback of the private driveway serving all residences. Staff has proposed that where there is a single st element adjacent to the driveway, a minimum setback of 5 feet provided; where there is a two -story element, a 10 foot setback provided. That is included in the development standards of the Text. Concern with sidewalks adjacent to the private street within tract. Staff has determined that since this is a private, gi community, the sidewalks would not be necessary. Conditions included in the PC text. Other conditions of approval deal with access to the water easements across the floating dockway. Landscaping was a consideration, particularly the piece of prope that adjoins this site on the n/w corner of Bayside that does i belong to the property owner, it belongs to the City. The decisi was the Planning Director shall have the right to approve landscape plan for this property including having the Homeowrn Association maintain that property. This is included in 1 conditions of approval in the PC text. Page 3 of 42 file: //F:1 Apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet\P1nAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 . Concern of noise and noxious effects from the boat yard across channel have been addressed in the provision that requires applicant to submit a form to be provided to the lessee of the informing them of those concerns. . There will be no dedication of lots F and G on the surface of water to the City. . Design amenities that the applicant has asked be included indicated in the staff report and deal with fences, hedges, v arbors, trellises, fire places and barbecues. . The action asked for tonight is for approval of the Neg< Declaration with revised copies of the first two pages (distribL resulting in reference to the Planned Residential Developr rather than the PC text; the Tentative Tract Map, the C Amendment changing the zoning of the site to PC Plar Community and adopting a Planned Community Text; a Co< Residential Development; no traffic analysis will be required as resulting project will have less traffic impact to this site. nmissioner Cole asked why should the Planning Commission waiver for this site. Lepo answered that the Planned Community text allows for a mix ;s within one site. It allows the City to make certain that those differe ?s are compatible with one another in this development. This site is re- developed with single family homes to replace an apartme Iding and the use of the PC text is to make sure it is integrated w at is there now including the condos to the east, single family homes west, and the commercial across the street. You have the opportun use the PC text to make sure that the access to the waterfront intained and enhanced with some of the conditions of approval. I n noted other areas where a similar process has occurred. imissioner Hawkins asked what the smallest parcel is that the PC been applied to? Campbell noted the smallest size was 4 acres and this is 3.92 acres. mmissioner Hawkins asked about the analyses of the land use imr the project within the Mitigated Negative Declaration and are pnges reflected in the revision handouts? The project as prop( v will have impacts due to the change in the zoning going from n Ay to Planned Community, is there an analysis of that? Lepo answered the physical changes associated with opment were analyzed as well as consistency with plans. We that the underlying General Plan Land Use designation of F does included single family uses as are proposed here. Then Page 4 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet\P1nAgendas\2005\mnI 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 plan is consistent with the General Plan and the PC text does ;lopment of single family homes. As far as policy document and iments, it is consistent with that change in the front. Physical iml >ciated with physical changes are no different than what imissioner Hawkins asked about the change in the Project concen PC district and how those changes were or were not reflected in Sated Negative Declaration for the Project. Lepo noted this can be adjusted for technical accuracy. Campbell noted: . The land use section mentions the PRD Overlay in the initial studi, and we can make the change to agree with the project description. Referencing a handout, he continued. . The marina was permitted in 1973 as a commercial marina parking. . Subsequent addition to the apartments in the early 70's elimina that parking and the City conditioned the Parcel Map that crea those additional units such that the marina would only be used the Upland properties (project site, Cove Condominiums and Shark Island yacht club). . If this was to be continued as a commercial marina, parking have to be provided. . The original draft conditions maintained that this marina would operated only by those Upland properties. . Staff has changed their position on this matter and with applicant's approval, we are requiring that the slips in front of project site be used only for the residents of this project discontinue the policy of sharing with the other two propel Change to the condition has been made to specifically require as reflected in amended condition 22. This restriction is to be n on the map and in the CC and R's and in the Planned Comm Text. Public access - The PC text in condition 34 requires the applicant execute an agreement that ensures public access as identified t maintained permanently as well as an irrevocable offer to dedicate public access easement. This dedication will be on the proper that they actually control as the existing walkway is on proper owned by the Irvine Company. If the access is eliminated in tt future because it is now on somebody else's property, we wou Page 5 of 42 file: //F:1 Apps1 WEBDATA\Intemet\PlnAgendas\2005 1mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 then have this offer to dedicate and the easement that could moved landward of the Irvine Company property onto the applica property. Should the access across the Irvine Company submer land be eliminated, then we could require it to be relocated six closer to the bulkhead creating a new floating walkway at location and then ensure that access across the docks is maintained. This offer of dedication will be required prior to issuance of a building permit and prior to recordation of the map. The applicant is required to obtain a new Harbor Permit. T historic transfers of this particular permit has been discontinuar or 'murky'. So, we want to clean this up with a new permit in i applicant's name which then would be transferred to i Homeowner's Association upon its creation so that i Homeowner's Association controls the Harbor Permit and then I rights to use the docks would be transferred with the sale of I individual leaseholds. The residents will be the only ones able use those slips and therefore it will be a private marina. . He then noted condition 10 has a changed reference to improvements on the docks. Condition 12 has a reference as to who owns those as requested by the applicant. Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted the term 'landward' sh motion. There are 18 feet between the bulkhead line and the ac (sical bulkhead that is water and the submerged land is owned by terlying owner and is under the control of the applicant. What ms is repositions that walkway onto the land that the applicant and 1perty owner control. If The Irvine Company decides that in the fu docks can not be tied into the submerged land, which we don't exl happen, then the applicant would be required to move the floa Ikway six feet closer to the bulkhead to be used for public access. airperson Toerge noted that the map shows an existing bulkhead property line. If the floating walkway was moved 'landward', it wo on the land. Campbell explained the tract boundary runs along the bulkh ruse staff did not want to subdivide those submerged lands and rr i part of leasehold of some of these lots. He then discussed Aaron Harp noted that on the map it is referred to in two ways. It (erred to as the US Bulkhead line and next to that a notation referencii isting bulkhead line, which runs along side where the floating walkw now. Campbell noted a change will be made to clarify as the intent refers Page 6 of 42 file:// F: 1Apps\ WEBDATA \Internet\PlnAgendas \2005\mnl 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 US Bulkhead line. Discussion continued. r. Harp noted the reason for this condition is to resolve the issue of the ct that the walkway is currently not on the proponent's property, it is or third party's who has the rights. This offer is done in case of the loss o e right to have it on the third party property, then they could shift it over. :)ner Eaton asked about the enhancements to the and if those are covered; precedence for free- Lepo noted if those are the improvements that are required, then i i would have to be reviewed and any changes to conditions will Campbell noted the free - standing fireplaces issue would require e ification Permit in most cases because a fireplace would be highe three and a half feet. The Zoning Administrator could not come ul any current permitted free standing fireplaces in bulkhead locations. ;- standing barbecues have been done, but not 8 foot high chimneys. mmissioner Hawkins noted the slip provision and the walk vision is problematic and presented a scenario. He suggested ire is a better way to do this in the conditions such as requiring plicant to go ahead and get that easement over the existing walk that you don't have this potential problem. r. Harp answered that if the Irvine Company revoked the right to have e walkway, they would probably also revoke the right to have the slips. ie main intent of the condition is to ensure that the public has access t( slk along, not so much as to access the slips. Typically, we don't make condition where a third party approval is necessary. A condition coulc edited that the offer to dedicate, or obtain, easements thereby giving e option of one or the other, that way you are not conditioning it on ird party. cuing, Commissioner Hawkins asked what sort of agreement now for the shared use of the slips. Is there a written agreement? Campbell answered that there is not necessarily an agreement k City in the 70's as a condition of the Parcel Map that is underlying tl �e of property arranged that be done. So, we are requiring it to be tt 1. Staff does not know if there is a private agreement between t ties. The adjacent Cove Condominium has a very similar provisi i its Tract Map that the Coves and the Yacht Club get to use what t of them as a shared arrangement. That was required of tt elopment in 1972. When they added on to this project, they to iy the parking that was planned for the commercial marina so th )gnized there was not parking. They again extended the same kind red relationship that was started with the first two properties (Cov Page 7 of 42 file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PhiAgendas\2005\mnl l - 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Shark Island Yacht Club) to encompass all three properties be is one Harbor Permittee which is The Irvine Company at the was the arrangement of the City. Harp noted he concurs with the analysis. McDermott of Government Solutions, representing the the following contained within a PowerPoint presentation: An aerial of the project site depicting the property line as mapp the land ownership; however, the area controlled goes out 18 1 seaward of the existing bulkhead. The US bulkhead is seaward feet of the existing bulkhead. This control was granted to applicant through a Grant Deed from The Irvine Company. 1 submerged land portion is not subdivided and that is why property line is shown on the land portion of the site and not out feet. The project consists of replacing the existing apartments custom home lots and the bayfront public walkway. We ensuring that public access is provided and enhanced. In the event that this were to be removed and the walkway w moved, then it would allow for some additional water area tt would allow for slips of a slightly different configuration. That wot have to go through the City and the Coastal Commission in order occur. We understand that. If has been confirmed that the triangular piece of land at the end the walkway is owned by the applicant. The walkway will straightened out allowing for landscaping and a sign that enhanc the availability of the public walkway. It will also provide for Al access. The existing walkway will be enhanced by the remounting of li, along the existing handrails and the removal of the cleats that for the side ties. We will construct an additional hand rail so will be handrails on both sides with a clear access of 6 feet with the handicap access ramps. She noted a submitted letter indicating the dock we the intent and requirements of the Coastal Act, the S Act, the California Constitution as well as the City's Plan. Two exhibits showing grade elevations of the the Promontory Bay Front and the North Bay Island were discussed. Page 8 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mn1 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 . An exhibit showing the vehicular turning areas on lots 9 and 15 discussed. A Harbor Permit requires the boat slips to be operated as residential marina and restricted to these lots. We accept tl condition and understand it. The Permit will be transferred to 1 Homeowners' Association with the provision of maintenance a permanent public access. . The site plan depicting the gating at the entrance with public along the entire site was discussed. imissioner Eaton noted the concern of more open space betweei We Drive and the homes to be outside of the walls as opposed ti nd the walls. If the Commission agrees to have 10 feet outside the and allow a 5 foot setback behind the wall, would that be agreeable? McDermott answered that they had agree to a 10 foot setback behii wall, as the Commission had determined at the last meeting, and al: would have a minimum of 4 feet along the street. We have found c isequently that where we had assumed the property line w, nediately behind the existing sidewalk on Bayside we found that tl ('s property line varied and we had between 2 and 6 feet behind tl ;walk before the property line. What we discussed with staff is that v .ild have an agreement that would allow us to landscape the Citl perty in conjunction with our property and add 4 feet to that. It wog ult in between 2 and 6 feet of existing area that can be landscape ling 4 feet to that so it would be between 6 and 10 feet of landscal a along that frontage. Allowing the 10 foot setback for the propel ier would set the homes further away from Bayside Drive and that at we would prefer. in Toerge asked about the heights of the pads and if are consistent with those. McDermott answered the text in the PC refers to these conditions. noted that the language describes the existing conditions so that the) d be replicated with the new development. She offered to clarify the uage if it would be helpful. Campbell noted the Tentative Maps show pad elevations and they yin tenths of the existing elevations. The interior pad elevations included. Referring to item 9 on handwritten page 30, it was deci this language will be re- worked to include the existing conditions interior lot pad elevations. Cole asked about the landscape on the parkway Drive. Campbell noted that we will add a provision about the landscape Page 9 of 42 file:// F:1 Apps1WEBDATA\Intemet lPlnAgendas\20051mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 conditions. imissioner Henn asked about the floating walkway and the docks. homeowner's association responsible for the maintenance of wav and the docks? McDermott answered that is correct. imissioner Henn noted that if The Irvine Company decides there c be a walkway over their property I clearly understand the concept ring the walkway in 6 feet, but, doesn't that raise perhaps enable burden on the homeowners association to have to move t sway and the docks because they are responsible for t ntenance of the docks and the walkway? It seems the solution )osed does not make sense and I would propose to add an 'or' to tF applicant would seek to get an easement from The Irvine Company ntain the current positioning of the walkway and the docks. McDermott noted this could be a burden on the homeowner: >ociation. The issue is we have various documents that have given u: right to this. We think the chance of losing that right from The Irvin( mpany because of the way they have granted those rights, is minimal. wever, the City wanted a fail safe and as a result of that we felt w( Ad live with the condition as it was written. To the extent we are going re -do the Harbor Permit and possible relocation of docks would b( ne as separate action. Harp noted they have a significant argument that they have the maintain the walkway as is. What we were looking for was a con( it basically the City does not have to be involved with rights issues. ommissioner Henn noted that if their rights do seem to be substantially it perhaps not absolutely defined, it seems reasonably like it wouldn't be big leap for the easement to be granted. Harp answered that it may have been the intent for The IN ipany to give up the rights to it so it may not be difficult for them in the easement but there is that restriction as far as posi rations where a third party needs to consent to it and that is why 't leave it as just an easement alone. iissioner Hawkins, referring to condition 12, asked who will improvements? McDermott noted their request was to add language, 'leased ed' because of the ownership condition and lessee condition. Campbell noted we can use the language that is suggested. Page 10 of 42 file:// F: \Apps1WEBDATA1Intemet\PlnAgendas12005 1mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 imissioner Hawkins noted he was in favor of that as some of es can be owned by separate companies. He wants it to be c the ownership is not the City as the lease is held by the HOA will be no liability to the City. airperson Toerge noted his notes from the last meeting (with a ie) show the floating access was to be widened concurrent with an dedication of land as a means of compromise. He asked why sn't a dedication of land and the proposal is for 6 feet widening. . McDermott noted that the width of the dock was based on astal Commission preference that structures not be added to incre shadow that goes over the water which would effect the life of nt material and /or the setting of the wildlife that lives in the water. ught was that if we could effectively increase it by removing Aructions that perhaps that met the intent of what the Commission king for. So, we added to the safety and to the width without ach ening the dock, which would then necessitate a separate Coe ✓elopment Permit for both the Harbor Resources and the Coe mmission. It was our proposal in the hopes that would meet with v i were asking for, but ,it clearly did not increase the physical real those reasons. iinuing, she noted that she did not understand that the straw � ated a strong support for a dedication of land. When we worked and the City Attorney's office there was a sense that provided igthen the access, that maybe that met the intent of what emission was saying. Perhaps you need to seek that clarification, is the way I read it. ommissioner McDaniel noted the condition referring to minimal lighting. is recollection about the discussion on the widening would be to hav( )me lighting so that it would be useable as opposed to just security. McDermott answered that the intent was to make it so minimal as to both safe and attractive at night time. It is such the people alone boa Island facing our property, or people who live in proximity on ow e, don't want a lot of lights down there. The intent was to place therr the dock railing in such a way that they would be out of the way from e Iking standpoint but provide the appropriate amount of light. It i; arly the intent to make it safe and appropriate for those purposes. We i work with staff to make sure that happens. comment was opened. comment was closed. iirperson Toerge then identified key topics for purposes of discussion: Page 11 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\2005\mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 1. lateral access -land or floating 2. setbacks 3. landscape plan and architectural guidelines 4. turn- around designs for lots 9, 15 and 3 5. include in the PC Development Regulations the disposition of Lot A 6. pad elevations 7. FAR and how to calculate 8. improvements allowed in the setback areas 9. condition 4 regarding drainage on the property Hawkins noted: 1. Lighting study that is approved by the City. 2. Ownership or lease verbiage in condition 12. Toerge addressed the first issue, lateral access: The issue of lateral access is whether it is provided on land or on the floating access and whether the floating access is adequate anc meets the requirements of the Coastal Act. He then cited from the Coastal Commission summary of staff report Chapter 3, 43.3.1.1• 11. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate an easemen for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causinc or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication o easement shall extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mear high tide line) landward to a fixed point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection of sand with toe or top o. revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of deck, or toe of bluff). This tells me the access has to be on land, regardless of what other people have suggested. He then discussed the possibility o' redevelopment of the subject and adjacent properties. He disagreec with the applicant's assertion that there is a remote chance that the Cove condominium development would ever be redeveloped. He countered that the Cove Condominium development will certainly be redeveloped at some point in the future because 'ever is a lone time. He pointed out that just 10 short years ago the thought tha the subject project, which contemplates the demolition of 65 higt end rental units to be replaced with 17 custom home sites, was a that time considered infeasible. Who is to say when the Coves anc the Newport beach Yacht Club will be redeveloped, enabling a Page 12 of 42 file:// F: \Apps1WEBDATA\Intemet lPlnAgendas12005\mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 continuous land based bay front walkway from Bayside Drive to tt Marine Avenue bridge? He then referenced an exhibit depicting tt lateral coastal access easements throughout the City, sever which currently end in dead ends, but one day will connect to or another. This body is responsible for planning and this chairman attempting to do that with this by requiring this easement across tt land enabling it to connect with other land based bay fro easements that will be developed in the future. Staff then show( the exhibit that was explained and discussed. In conclusion, t noted it is the Commission's responsibility for the benefit of tt community to follow the Code and to maintain this lateral access ( the land despite for it's potential in the short term, to look somewh disjointed. There are some people who don't want to walk down ramp to use the access. (he gave examples). His objection to ti floating access is that it is not consistent with our charge to uphc the requirements of the Coastal Act as they apply to ne development. As I recall the straw vote taken last time, ti Commission voted for 10 feet in width and an offer of dedication ( the land so that some point in time when future land access w,, available it could be built on the land. sioner Henn noted his recollection of the straw vote did a requirement for a conditional dedication on the land for but perhaps staff can verify that one way or the other. Harp noted it may be best to take another straw vote on this issue. itinuing, Commissioner Henn noted that the floating walkway is erior solution to the location of a walkway on the land. If the walkw< sated on the land with a dead end at the far end, there will still be p. The language in the Local Coastal Plan may or may not be tt ie language. I am sure there will be a sentiment for a long time th preserve and enhance public access to the shoreline and I agree . As to the specific language that interprets that thought, that m< nge over time. For all of those reasons I am less concerned that tt (way be located or provided for a dedication on land. nmissioner McDaniel noted as a member of the Local Coas nmittee he is quite aware of how much they have gone through e access available to water for everyone here in Newport Beach. I py that we have the access so long as it is well lit, the fact that it is ler 10 feet wide, I can accept that. I just want it wide enough so tl ryone can use it and enjoy that aspect. Whether it floats, landward ward, I don't care, it is access and adequate to me. I am happy ,#% way it is. ssioner Cole noted his concurrence with comments ssioner McDaniel. This project provides significant access bi and lateral. The enhancements proposed are good ones and i an attractive walkway for the community. It is a large burden Page 13 of 42 file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005\mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 the applicant in effect to what would basically be a redesign of e plan when the alternative seems to be relatively reasonable nissioner Hawkins noted the previous comments. He stated that tl Draft Local Coastal Plan Section 3.1.1 -11 requires an offer ate an easement for public lateral access for all new shorefrc opment causing or contributing to adverse public access. What v here is existing adequate public access that they are enhancing. believe we can make those findings. I would be concerned abc ing the access on land due to the proximity of the public acce diately adjacent to a residential community. He affirmed he is of the floating walkway with the enhancements. nmissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the other Commissioners. ed that the this project will have to go in front of the Co: nmission and if their interpretation of their language is different interpretation, then the applicants will have to deal with that. and slips. imissioner Cole affirmed with staff that the residents of the dominium complex can not rent the slips associated with this I to the limited availability of parking and that anyone who is cu ng slips will have to move. issioner Hawkins noted his concern of the irrevocable offer to (IOD) a public access easement for a floating walkw ird. He suggested the following language to comply with tl ated changes by the City Attorney: 'The applicant shall recc an irrevocable offer to dedicate a public access easement for t walkway landward of the bulkhead line (to be identified) or, ; ent over the existing floating walkway." The alternative ant to have. Harp noted the language will be re- worked if the Commission all the option of an easement in the existing condition as opposed to vocable offer to dedicate. on Toerge noted the two bulkhead lines need to be and delineated to prevent further confusion. agreed. from Bayside. Eaton noted the following: . Referring to the exhibit he stated that at one point the setback Page 14 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet \PhiAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 zero at the west end and along the entirety of lot 1 on the east end is actually 1 1/4 feet; whereas most of the project setback is 5 -6 fe total. Frontage along Bayside is important and he wants to have at 10 feet total between the City right -of -way and the property in of the wall without having to require the houses to be moved ft back. He suggested language, "Without requiring additional setbacks that requiring at least 10 feet of landscaping be F between the back of the sidewalk in front of the wall" Toerge asked about the disposition of the current City site now. Campbell answered those trees will be removed to put in the Henn asked who is correct? The applicant stated that there reen 2 and 6 feet of distance between the sidewalk and the pro or, is Commissioner Eaton correct? at Temple noted Commissioner Eaton is correct in the sense that one point the sidewalk and the property line are co- terminus and far western part of the property. For the greater portion of tt / it is a minimum of 2 feet. Lot 1 easterly of the entrance appea 25 feet for that stretch. be 1 irol McDermott noted that 1.25 is accurate and that at the westerly way in which their landscaping and the property line connect with hancement of the landscaping where the sign will go, that point wt reaches zero is expanded into what we are going to be provi( yway. So, it is not zero at that point in effect. Our proposal is 4 is the 1.25 at the easterly end and then it gets larger as it goes v sulting in a total width of 9 -10 feet at some points. ovisions of the landscape et setback for the homes. approve as proposed. being 10 feet from the sidewalk with Following the discussion a straw vote w. the landscape plans and the architectural design scheme. a discussion, the straw vote was to designate the review. review of the turn - around plans for lots 9 and 15. McDermott, referring to the exhibit, explained lot 9 Page 15 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas \2005\mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 corner of the site configuration. ollowing a discussion on the driveway lengths, turning radii, istances it was noted that a condition is included whereby the F forks Department will review an internal circulation and parking scl iat will be conducted by the applicant. Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted the reason the condition :re is to assure that the standards the City require are to be met. WY shown for the first lot, may be suitable, but the one shown for tl -ond lot is rather contorted as it is offset from the garage door ai the backing maneuver like an 's' curve. rperson asked if the lot configuration had to change to ac would that then come back to the Planning Commission? Campbell answered it would depend on the nature of the change. is lot could be made wider to accommodate and it could be determine( be in substantial conformance and would not need to be brought back. >wever, if there was a larger change to the plan, staff would make tha figment after review of the plan. McDermott added that they will be happy to work with the neer in order to resolve the issue. Commission agreed. airperson Toerge noted in the PC Development regulations for the lot A on handwritten page 29 does not include lot A. Should it luded in this table and designated for the use that is planned for? Campbell answered this can be done. It is referenced on handwr e 29 in the Statistical Analysis that refers to lot A as a coma eation area and it is described in the project description that all gyred lots are common and are intended to accommodate coma ;pities and other improvements and are not developable dences. We could do something if you want. It was determined pad elevations to be within 112 foot of existing grade. Commission was satisfied. floor area ratio issue. Campbell affirmed that the floor area is calculated by deducting from gross lot areas, the setbacks and then multiplying it times the FAR. proposed FAR for the project is 1.75. Page 16 of 42 file: //F:1 Apps1 WEBDATA1Intemet \PlnAgendasl2005\mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 oner Eaton noted the language was not in the PC text, the operating document. Lepo noted it was on handwritten page 29 in footnote 2. 2 -foot walls. Campbell answered the provision is the exception to the height �es and walls where the front wall of the house could exte )endicular to the side property line from the front wall of the house side property line a maximum of 12 feet. It is an architectural feats applicant wants to provide. Temple added that this type of feature has become very popular i yard entrances. The material used for these features would be and barbecues 4 feet in setbacks from side yards sioner Henn clarified that this also includes the ability to build high chimney. Staff clarified. He noted that would not I ate due to safety concerns. McDaniel noted he could not support this. son Toerge stated this should be subject to a To create the blanket approval here is not the Campbell noted that built -in barbecues are typically taller than imum height and are fairly common with the outdoor living spar )le are providing. It is a common modification request and pitted more often. The fireplaces are a different matter. Staff is fortable with those either and feel that modification permits should aired. However, adding the low built in gas barbecues that are fc mon, staff asks that this be included as they generally do not pres problems. on Toerge noted there is a mechanism for the fireplaces to on their merits. nmissioner Henn suggested that any structure above five foot uire a modification. Campbell noted this can be established with the PC text regulation. ay's standard could accommodate that and the typical barbecue: t that height. The fireplaces would be regulated. Page 17 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\Internet \PhiAgendas \2005 \mnl 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 s. Temple noted this has come up during discussion with t ouncilmembers. No direction has been given to staff, but mu >mmentary has been given to allowing barbecues up to a limit height feet. wing a discussion on permanently installed barbecues, it 'mined that fireplaces will be dealt with separately through fications process and up to a five foot height with a four foot set the property line would not. The Commission agreed. 4 - on site drainage. e drain pipe apparent at low tide water source is undetermined. Bred it may be a storm drain and following a brief discussion noted requirements and Water Quality Control Board and NPDES regulal I be met so that no drainage will go into the bay. access completion. noted, and the applicant agreed, that there will be a con( ing language with time and prior to the certificate of occupancy. 12 suggested language change. on -site common area improvements such as parks, docks, entry g J entry, all on -site drainage sanitary sewer, water, and elect tems shall be leased or owned, operated and maintained by nissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the lighting on the and of the individual residents that may create spill /glare p s the bay. He asked that staff come up with a condition. Temple noted there is a condition of approval in the City's star irements requiring a Photometric Study to make sure that age and glare are addressed. sioner Hawkins noted his concern of the environmi it. He asked if the Planning Commission agreed that land will include the change for the PC text? The Commission agr . Temple noted staff will prepare an addendum and have it Council consideration. Lepo noted the following changes during the ion to be included in the motion: . Environmental document language will be edited on pages 26 27. Page 18 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 03- 05.htm 6126/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 . Changes on the handout materials: Conditions 10, 12, 22 and changes will be made. . U.S. Bulkhead line determination. . Add /change /delete provisions where previously called for appli to landscape and maintain the weed lot that is now part of applicant's lot. . Add condition requiring applicant to landscape area at Drive on lots C and D as maintained by the HOA. . Planning Director will review landscaping and architectural guidelines. . Quantify condition requiring Public Works to approve the arounds for lots 3, 9 and 15. . Pad elevation - language in PC text as in Tentative Tract Map • Provision in PC text relative to barbecues within 4 feet of propE line and up to 5 feet in height. No fireplaces. • Added condition requiring enhancements on dock in reference the exhibit regarding timing. • An irrevocable offer of dedication will be provided regarding 1 frontage area. was made by Commissioner McDaniel, using the recommen e by staff with changes proposed by the Commission, end approval of Code Amendment No. 2005 -007, Use Permit m Tract Map No. 2004 -001 (TTM No. 15323) and Coa itial development No. 2005 -001 to the City Council. iairperson Toerge noted that this is a quality project; however, the C s an obligation to follow the Coastal Act and given my interpretation I won't be supporting the motion. mmissioner Henn asked if we are violating the terms of the Coastal going forward as proposed. Harp answered the language is added to the plan. The focus is Cher or not the new shorefront development is contributing or causinc :rse public access impacts. The determination could go either way. will go to the Coastal Commission for approval /denial and they wil ire what access they deem appropriate if different than City'; Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Hawkins and Henn Page 19 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Internet\P1nAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 20 of 42 Toerge Tucker Following a brief intermission the Commission resumed with Commissioner Tucker taking his place. UBJECT: John Walter Velardo (PA2004 -274) ITEM NO. 3 3809 Channel Place PA2004 -274 equest a Variance to the maximum allowable floor area and minimum required Approved Den space for the construction of a 988 sq. ft. residence on a 1,034 sq. ft. lot. he application also requests a Modification Permit to allow the proposed �sidence to encroach within the front, side and rear setbacks. Ir. Campbell gave an overview of the staff report noting that the property presently developed with a two -car garage and the applicant wishes to Dnstruct a 2 -story residence with a 2 -car garage on the ground floor and will be approximately 988 square feet in total area. The variance is squired due to the application of setbacks to the subject property ,suiting in no buildable area. A modification for setbacks is also required ue to the fact that the lot has physical difficulties in facilitating Dnstruction of any kind. There are reasonable arguments to both pprove and deny the applications. A Certificate of Compliance had been ranted to this property as required by the Subdivision Map Act; however, does not grant any particular development rights and it does simply dicate that the lot can be financed and sold. What needs to be atermined, at this time, is the design and amount of square footage, and ie location of the building that is appropriate for this lot, or is something naller for this lot or leaving the lot as is with the existing two -car garage s developed. Toerge asked about the Certificate of Compliance. r. Harp answered that a Certificate of Compliance is a remedy for operties that are conveyed in violation of the Map Act and in essence is means to bring a property into compliance with the Map Act. However, is not an optional item for the City to issue. Just because a Certificate ' Compliance has been issued does not give them the right to develop a operty, or have a right to a building permit, it simply brings them into )mpliance with the Map Act so that they can sell or lease the parcel. No welopment rights are given. iissioner McDaniel asked about a letter received regarding water under this property connecting to another property. Campbell answered there is a water line under the garage itself that ies the adjacent property that is the portion of the larger lot that was divided off in 1960. A private easement had been created with this file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PhiAgendas \2005\mnl 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 saction for the southerly three feet of the lot. The project, as )osed to be redeveloped, would create the three foot setback and ntain that water line free of obstructions. The project does adhere to private easements of 1960. mmissioner Tucker asked about the lot and what can be done with it. have a lot that has effectively been created out of something that was legal to begin with, now someone has come forward asking for a iance to build on this legal lot. Isn't that our question that something i be built on it before we worry about what it is? How did it become al, assuming it is zoned? Are you saying you wouldn't be able to build it all? r. Campbell answered that if there was a project that could be built on is lot without a variance, or a setback modification, we would be issuing permit for that structure. You can build on it, but in this case, a variance id modification permit are required. s. Temple noted that there currently is a two -car garage on the )perty. That development, while it doesn't comply with the setback luirements or the floor area limits just as the proposed home and new rage does not, it does exist and doesn't meet a building permit in order stay in existence. In and of itself it does represent a viable economic e of the property and can be rented to anyone in the neighborhood to wide supplemental parking, and /or sold to one of the bayfront property mers and used to support that bayfront development through an off -site rking agreement and allow the actual bayfront structure to be expanded floor area. There are other ways to use the property economically thout building a house on it. nissioner Toerge noted that if we didn't need a variance then :body could come in and apply for a building permit. The lot is a lot that we would have to issue a permit for it. Temple answered yes, but because of the absence of any buildable i today, if they tore the existing garage down, they would need a ance for anything. ) mmissioner Tucker noted there are other lots in the City where the stricting Map goes one way and at the end of the block and the house oriented another way you end up with zero building area as well. It is a Sal lot and to me this is why you do variances because you can end up th no building area on a legal lot and the question is, what is John Velardo, applicant, noted he has owned the property for 23 rs. It has been his dream to build a beach house on it for his family to . They have hired an architect and will be complying with the City's iirements and will be maintaining the same footprint as the existing ages. There will be no larger dwelling than is there now. At Page 21 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Internet\PhiAgendas\2005\mnI 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 )mmission inquiry, he noted he has read and understand the conditions approval. )mmissioner Tucker noted an email from James Hazelton who ntended that the building of this house would somehow deny access to > garage. Would staff confirm the answer to the email. Campbell noted that the location of the structure is not within the ate easement area that is for the benefit of the adjacent property. v, does the proposal create some other impediment that the owner ht feel, I don't know, but the building itself is not in the easement a. The two garages (referring to the one proposed and the one on the tting property) come at 90 degrees to each other, so the only time (would conflict is if they were to be used at the same time. Campbell added a condition relative to the interior dimension of the rage needs to be rectified as it is off by 6 inches. The plans will need be revised to assure a minimum interior depth as required by the micipal Code. Hawkins asked what the current use of the garage is. Velardo answered the current use is storage, no vehicles are comment was opened. argie Kirstein, property owner of 505 and 505 1/2 38th Street, referring the vicinity map, stated her properties are the ones most affected by s project. She noted her opposition to this project: • The setbacks are extreme and do not allow for any kind of air space. • The density, which originally was one lot, will now have three units on the original R2. • This lot does not meet the 1,200 square foot minimum, and, at one point this development comes within 12 inches of the property line and sidewalk. • There is a right to develop the property, but not to just any standard the owner wants. • The garage space is currently rented. Prince, resident and homeowner, noted the following: • Both he and his brother support this application. • The island as a whole will benefit from this upgrade. comment was closed. Page 22 of 42 file: //F:\, Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 imissioner Cole asked about the third finding for a variance, if this is sting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other ,erties in the vicinity. The gross area of approximately 988 square that is below the floor to land area ratio allowed in the vicinity, is that Campbell noted staff looked at other properties in the area and :ulated the floor area to lot area ratio of those houses as a way to spare the amount of floor area being requested. What is proposed is 3ortionally lower and would support the finding that the approval is not granting of a special privilege to the property owner. nmissioner Cole asked if this was necessary for the preservation and )yment of substantial property rights of the applicant. This has been rating for 20 some odd years as a garage with the same basic use, is correct? I am trying to make the findings that are important to grant variance. Campbell noted this garage has been there since 1960 with the same is use that has never changed. rperson Toerge referring to condition 7 says that, ....... the garage remain available for parking of vehicles at all times....' There is of storage in the house itself, and I think that condition should be cooed to, '....shall only remain available for the parking of operable legally registered vehicles at all times...' Velardo agreed that would be acceptable. Tucker noted: • Variance requests are usually received to re -do a structure. • It is necessary for a substantial property right. • How this came into existence, they are all over town, but compared to other variances, this one certainly falls within that category. • The question is, is it too much house for the space involved? • It passes the test that we typically apply. Lion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the variance jest and the modification permit for PA2004 -274 with the conditions ched with the changes of the minimum interior depth of the garage is the Municipal Code and to have condition 7 stipulate that it is rable, registered vehicles being parked in that garage. mmissioner Eaton noted we have had a number of applications where back ends of lots have been quartered off. This lot is different from se as they have been done before the Map Act took affect so they re grandfathered and therefore, not illegal at the time of 'cutting'. This is one of the tiniest lots the Commission has seen and is a triangular i therefore less useable. It is further encumbered by two different Page 23 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mnl l - 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 sments. My concern is that if we validate what has occurred here, someone goes out and cuts of illegally their lot, then someone (a :equent) buyer applies for a Certificate of Compliance, which makes I to transfer or at least finance or lease. Why wouldn't this be a edent to someone else looking to do a similar transaction? I would to encourage that scenario and therefore I do not support this nmissioner McDaniel note he agrees with the previous comments. He ed that other variances have been granted on properties that had a se already on it and they were applying for some type of parity to ce it something useable. This one is different where it has always n a garage and I think they have viable economic use and this does take away anything that they had before. I think this would set a rodent and therefore am not in support of this application. It is a gested area and it is my opinion that the garage will be a living space, i a ping pong table, then a bed, etc. I don't think it will be used for cing in this congested area. immissioner Tucker asked if somebody decided to pare off their lot and II and convey it to somebody else, would we have to issue a Certificate Compliance under today's version of the Subdivision Map Act? Harp answered was answered yes. Campbell added that if there was a project to develop with that iario, then staff would condition that Certificate of Compliance with all ent standards of the Subdivision Code. Harp added that if there was a violation of the Subdivision Map Act d the owner asked for a Certificate of Compliance, the City would have give it to them. Whether or not you have to let them develop, you in't. Basically you do not have to give them a variance or a building �rmit. However, you condition the project to comply with the Subdivision ap Act. There are other penalties with doing it that are not tied to the ;rtificate of Compliance. Because this is an undersized lot, they need a riance because right now they can not build anything on it. Whether u give them that, it is your discretion. It is not a 'takings' issue because �y are already using the lot for a garage that has a viable economic followed. iairperson Toerge noted that there are some extraordinary and ceptional circumstances here. In terms of the substantial property hts, it is zoned residential, it is not zoned for "garage ". In order to enjc it substantial property right, allowing the applicant to build a house for >idential purposes seems to be consistent with that. I t is consistent h the Code and does not damage anybody or creates any safety ues. He is support of the motion. Page 24 of 42 file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 25 of 42 Cole noted he agrees with the Chairman and is in support the application. Commissioner Henn noted we do not have the perpetrator before us, I am sympathetic to the current owner's situation. I visited the site and I don't believe the proposed plan is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Tucker asked what year the Map Act was adopted. Mr. Harp answered that it was 1971 when it was actually codified, but it goes back to the 1800's. Mr. Campbell added that the City established subdivision standards and in 1959 the Code was changed to require parcel maps reviewed by the Commission if the lots that were suggested didn't meet the minimum parcel size, which this lot does not. This division would have required a map in 1959 if the division happened in 1960. Commissioner Hawkins noted that the finding on the certificate of ompliance say that you issue the certificate but the Planning Director tates that the above described real property does not comply with the pplicable provisions, nevertheless, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act hat we are creating is an identifiable parcel that we can track. The rguments presented tonight are very important, but this parcel is too mall and Newport Island has a host of problems that this project would xacerbate and so he can not support the motion. Ayes: Cole, Toerge, Tucker and Henn Noes: Eaton, McDaniel and Hawkins Absent: None Abstain: None Brookfield Homes (PA2004 -251) ITEM NO.4 1301 Quail I PA2006 -251 3okfield Homes plans to construct 86 multi - family residential Continued to idominium units within 7 buildings that will be 45 feet in height with December 8, ar plans ranging from 900 -1,950 square feet on a 3.7 -acre site located 2005 the southeast corner of the intersection of Spruce street and Quail eet in the Airport Area. A General Plan Amendment is proposed that uld change the land use designation of the property from Retail rice Commercial to Multi - Family Residential. An amendment of th wport Place Planned Community is sought to change the use of the s from a 304 unit extended stay hotel to multi - family housing. The anges to the Planned Community district regulations will establish use d development regulations for the proposed condominium project. itative tract Map is also sought that would subdivide the lot to establish condominium units. file: //F:1Apps1WEBDATA\ Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Lawrence, City's consultant case planner for this project, gave ew of the staff report, noting: . Project consists of 7 buildings up to 45 high within a 'U' shape garage level located partially below grade. . The applicant is asking for Commission comments and questioi and then a continuance to November 17 for further review and forwarding of a recommendation to the City Council. . The project will be changed from a retail and service commercial a multi - family residential designation. . The zoning amendment would add provisions for reside development to the Newport Place PC regulations. TI residential standards were derived by staff from the submitted plan as shown on the wall. . The changes would include from a hotel to a mufti- family residential reducing the building height from 60 to 45 feet, and establishinc development standards to accommodate the project as submitted. Reduction in building height and overall use will have positivf benefits in terms of building mass and traffic generation. . The setbacks from Quail Street and Spruce Street average about feet. These setbacks may not be enough to provide visual re and adequate landscape buffering. The interior of the projecl taken up by paving and building coverage which does not le< ample room for landscaping. The 217 space garage and other parking spaces provided on s meet the Zoning Code numerical standards. Those spaces inch 72 tandem garage spaces. If the spaces provided do not sat that demand in actual usage, there is no permitted on- street park on surrounding streets to absorb the overflow. Therefore, if then overflow, parking facilities for adjacent office development may impacted. To address these concerns, In August of 2005, the applica commissioned a parking study for the project by the IBI Groul That study concluded that based on the requirements set forth I the City of Newport Beach, this project will supply sufficient parkir to meet the estimated demand generated by residents and guests. He noted that in addition to the benefits of the project listed in report, the applicant has submitted arguments in favor of the pr( and are attached to the report as exhibit 3. . The central issue of this project is the land use. Is it Page 26 of 42 file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 and desirable to establish residential land use at the location? That issued is addressed by the pros and cons c within the staff report. . Project design is secondary to the land use issue. If ap the architectural design and setbacks if acceptable, approval. . The opportunity to provide in -fill housing opportunities near a m employment center and to improve the job housing balance in area is a powerful argument in favor of the project. . Because of the concentration of office and commercial uses, area is heavily impacted by peak hour traffic at present. change in land use would result in less peak hour traffic genes than the existing hotel designation on the property. *Potential problems are inherent in establishing a designation on one parcel surrounded by office and development without a coordinate plan for a development in the airport area. . Staff asks the Commission for public input and deliberate on analysis and continue this item to November 17th to allow fur consideration of the project and the forwarding of recommendation to the City Council. Campbell added: Staff prepared and placed a memo about the traffic study. discovered that we used the wrong trip generation rates for study prepared for the project. It over predicted a.m. traffic < under predicted p.m. traffic (less than a dozen trips). We prepa an analysis and arrived at the same conclusion that there would no impact to traffic. There is a set of CC and R's for Newport Place, which pre: prohibit this land use in this area. The applicant would need to and obtain an amendment to those CC and R's, which is the c owners would all have to agree to (70 %). Staff believes the central focus for tonight is the land use appropriate then move on to the design and other technical points. Henn asked: Is it premature to be discussing this project as we are in the i and in the advanced stage of considering a General Plan up which includes this area as one of the critical study areas for Page 27 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mnI 1- 03- 051tm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 use? iirperson Toerge answered that we have had a project such as is 'outside of the box'. For instance we had a prelimi >entation with the Lexus Dealership project and other relati iplicated projects in an effort to give the applicant and staff s ction as to how we are leaning so they do not pursue a path nd staff and applicant time pursuing a path that the Commission < agree with. They are appropriate for that reason. missioner McDaniel noted that if this did not happen then the continued anyway. Tucker asked: One of the things to be covered at the next General Plan UI land use session will be the airport area. Why shouldn't we until the policy decision on housing in the airport is made? . He asked for a color /materials board, a marking of elevations and copy of the roof plan. . He then asked why Spruce Street is a four land street. Lawrence said he would provide the exhibits requested at the Edmonston answered that Spruce Street was planned to go over way and join the Spruce Street that is now blocked off. tinuing, Commissioner Tucker noted the prohibition against ing, you could have one lane there to accommodate street I be quite comfortable? Edmonston answered the concept at that time of development was street parking and that was the standard in terms of actual demand. Id be explored and is one of the issues being looked at in the Gene i update as a residential use that could accommodate changes to t etscapes, whether parking or wide parkways, etc. Temple added that if an abandonment or lane reduction might opriate, then staff could look at the Circulation Element with ght of an amendment to accommodate this process. Tucker noted: Tandem parking has always been an issue for the Commission. Page 28 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \P1nAgendas\2005\mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 The applicant needs to explain why this item should be dete prior to the General Plan update; would this be the develc plan the applicant would set forth if there was no Green Light. . Has the Fire Department looked at the internal street circulation? He was answered yes. The wall along Quail Street looks to be very close to the units well. What will the wall look like? missioner Eaton asked if the TPO traffic study needs to be a if so, the Commission needs to see the study. What would Dr the CC and R's require if this parcel was developed in acc its current designation as hotel? Lawrence answered that the current designation of hotel using setback is a minimum of 17 1/2 feet average 30 feet, the corner is a minimum of 14 1/2 feet average 27 feet, and the interior s Id be a minimum 10 feet. The average would be 30 feet for the frc :h would be Quail, possibly Spruce, and for the Quail outside, e at almost 30 feet. Phillip Bettencourt, speaking for the applicant, noted the following • This application includes a General Plan Amendment and 2 change to convert the vacant, industrial site. • The site covers approximately 3.7 acres and includes afford housing. • There will be easy access to recreation, businesses, shopping freeways. . Traffic impacts are less than significant with modes mitigation. . Airport noise contours - we are beyond the 65 CNEL Contour although air conditioning for all buildings is recommended accepted by the applicant. . We are consistent with the John Wayne air loop and we are for receipt of our final FAA clearance. Bartlett of Brookfield Homes, noted the following: . This project is an opportunity for the City to see a transformation residential land use into the airport area. He gave a bi description of his company. . The Quail and Spruce Streets elevations are an important factor Page 29 of 42 file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas \2005 \mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 siting these buildings close to the street and will contribute to street scene that will be maturing over the years. • Referring to an exhibit, he noted the importance of the build orienting towards the streets. • Setbacks and vertical and horizontal separation from the righ way appear to fit into the context of the site. • We have a materials board that include stucco, wood siding, t and metal roofing. . He noted the garage and tandem parking that provide for spaces, of which 72 are tandem garage spaces within the unit, and 167 covered spaces and additional flex space on ge level to be used for storage, home office or work areas. . He then explained the building unit diagrams on the various levels. . Referring to the site plan he noted the gate access/autocot access /emergency access /pedestrian access. . He then referred to the common park area. . 17 of the 86 units are proposed for affordable housing to modera income units and is a critical element in the consideration. . This site is designated as suitable for residential development. . He then enumerated residential uses within commercial uses in City. . He then noted the proximity to commercial and freeway systems. . Benefits of the project are smart growth and new urban str-, reduction of traffic, this is a first step in mixed use for the area as well as the affordable housing aspect. . Our next steps are to respond to your concerns. We have sc items with the Airport Land Commission and the FAA that will dealt with as well as any concerns needing to be mitigate from Negative Declaration as well as concerns from the Cou considerations. . There are pros and cons to this project, but this project allows for high density project at 23 units per acre that is consistent with tt threshold of the Green Light Initiative, has no traffic impacts, r noise impacts, close to infrastructure and services. This is modest step in the right direction for mixed use in the airport area. Page 30 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 . Would we propose a bigger project if there was no Green Light? don't think you could get a quality, bigger project here on this site 1 sale without increasing the density and sacrificing what you want do in a 'for sale' project. Foley, President of Brookfield Homes, noted: • Market demand for housing - lower maintenance housing closer places of interest and travel are high in demand. • The growing sector of young professionals who want to live clo: to their work. • Population growths along with job creation creates demand housing. • This project presents an opportunity for high quality conveni housing close to places of work and benefit the community. Comment was opened. )riel Klanian, resident, noted his support of the project as it is will ;t at night when the airport shuts down and the street is not hig eled. If the buildings are constructed with sound proofing, the ditioning will be suitable to keep the noise. People such as myself want the maintenance of a yard and this would be quite suitable. Owen, noted his support of this project due to the proximity of t and local amenities. le Minter of Los Angeles and speaking for Brookfield noted received letters in support of the home ownership prospect. uted the letters noting highlights such as proximity of home to % ship possibilities, and creation of homes without using expel Light, one of the owners at the property at 1401 Quail Street, noted opposition to the property: • The only exit from this project is directly across from his property. • No on- street parking so overflow parking will be onto his parking lot. • Impact of trash - we have commercial trash containers on site an( there will be illegal dumping. . We have single story building and if we chose to develop tt property into a multi -story project, which is allowed, this sets up situation where there will be 86 homeowners complaining that tl Page 31 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \P1nAgendas \20051mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 32 of 42 project doesn't fit in the area. Now, we will be precluded i developing it within the original guidelines due to these homeowners coming up with problems of shadow, parking, etc. . He referred to a letter sent to the Commission and asked that issues be addressed. comment was closed. ssioner Eaton asked if all the garage spaces were part of sale to the units and do some of the units only have one s, etc.? Bartlett answered: . 5 units have a single car garage with approximately 250 square of flex space on the same floor. There is an assigned second sE that is uncovered adjacent or as close to that unit as possible. . In the twelve unit building there are 9 of the same type of units tl have two garage spaces, although they are separate but covered. 36 interior spaces are tandem. . There will be a homeowner's association that will enforce the use the garage spaces due to the high density of this project. ?rson Toerge then read the rules for extension of hours lenda items being introduced after 10:30. A vote was the time for the last item on the agenda. ssioner Eaton asked if the City is facing any deadlines under Streamlining Act? Temple answered no, this is a legislative act and is not subject to nit Streamlining Act. Eaton noted his concerns: This application needs to be viewed in the context of at least recommended policies in the airport area land use General F update element. We may want to wait for the full Roma study which deals with residential will fit in to the airport area. Setbacks - parking- allocation of open space - noise on on the Bristol Street North, may be problematic.' file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA Untemet \PlnAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 03- 05.1tm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Hawkins stated he agrees with the previous ing: . Planning where this fits with the existing plan and the Roma study; . CC and R's for the PC text; . This application may be premature; . If this project is approved, what happens with the Green issues. Temple noted the complete charter section 423 analysis is on page 8. Cole noted: . Providing in -fill housing is a positive thing. . Land use issue needs to be discussed. . Parking is a concern. . The design looks good. �r Hawkins asked how many trips are available for under the Charter Section 423 analysis. Temple answered that is on page 8 in the second chart that cumulative development that has been approved. 1. Campbell noted the project would take 86 units out of the 100 ti eshold. We would then track 80% of those 86 for the next ten yea ainst any other general plan amendments requesting residential un the airport area. The existing land use of a 304 room hotel and tf )jest generates less traffic than that therefore the net increase is zero. Toerge noted: . Need to look at the affect of the no- street parking and the of visitor parking. . Noise contours from all sources and potential allowable uses adjacent commercial properties should be considered in the de: of the project on all locations. *Traffic saving amenities may be offset from its distance fr schools, parks and readily available grocer shopping and the like. Page 33 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet\PhiAgendas \2005\mnl 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 . Setbacks are a concern and he would like to see the ratio betw the current setbacks and allowable building heights compared to setbacks and heights of the proposed structure. . The process for the General Plan update is important. . The Traffic Phasing Ordinance is important and needs to reviewed. imissioner Tucker noted his concurrence with all previc imissioners' statements noting that the land use is a threshold is: it may not be just the change of the use but the intensity of the use He would like more information on what the project will look like N srials board, colors, elevations, wall detail and trees already on McDaniel, noted: . He is please with the affordable housing aspect of the project. . Concerned with the tandem parking issue. . Concern of the neighbors need to be addressed, hopefully prior the next meeting. Henn noted: . We need to have a substantially better understanding of where City is heading with the General Plan in this study area. �mmissioner Tucker asked that the City Attorney's office have the review and approve the CC and R's on the property. The CC a cuments should grant to the City the right of enforcement of the pa g a brief discussion on timing of this project along w tions on the land use in the airport area, circulation and mobil of the General Plan update, it was agreed that the first meeting er would be the better time to hear this project. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item t December 8, 2005. Page 34 of 42 yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDaniel Noes: Henn bsent: None bstain: None BJECT: Lennar Homes (PA2004 -169) 900 Newport Center Drive file: //F:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn11- 03- 05.htm ITEM NO. 5 PA2004 -169 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 35 of 42 iar Homes proposes to construct 79 residential condominiums on a 4.25 Recommended site presently developed with tennis courts operated by the adjacent for approval port Beach Marriott Hotel. The applicant proposes to construct three ings that are approximately 65 feet in height. The requested application d change the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan land use )nations from commercial to Multiple Family Residential. The existing AP ig is also proposed to be changed to PC (Planned Community) and a ned Community Development Plan text that would establish use and .lopment regulations is proposed. Implementation of the project also ires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Tentative el and Tract Maps for subdivision purposes, and a Coastal Residential :lopment Permit regarding the provision of affordable housing in accordance the Zoning Code and Housing Element of the General Plan. Tucker recused himself from deliberation on this item. Rosalinh Ung gave an overview of the staff report, noting: )ment consists of 79 condominium units with 8 different floor with underground parking structures. . General Plan amendment/LCP Land Use Plan - the change APF to Mufti- Family Residential is necessary because the prof residential uses are not permitted in the APF designation. . The MFR land use designation is appropriate for the project and be compatible with the surrounding uses. . The Planned Community Development Plan Text Adoption is request to rezone the subject property from APF to the PC Disti and waiver of 10 -acre minimum land area requirement for Plann Community District as the subject property is approximately 4. acres in size. . Tentative Parcel Map is requested to sub- divide the property the Marriott Hotel complex. The subsequent Tract Map is pror for the condominium ownership. . The Traffic Study has been prepared pursuant to the Traffic P Ordinance and concluded that project related traffic does not an unacceptable level of service at the studied intersections. . The Coastal Residential Development Permit is required as project includes 16 units for affordable housing in accordance the Municipal Code. The applicant proposes to locate these i off -site within the City limits. . A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to evaluate project with traditional zoning of multiple family residential folloi by a thirty day review period from July 15th to August 15th of year. file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas \2005\mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Since then it has been determined the most appropriate zc designation for the property would be Planned Community. addendum has been prepared to address the change of the zc designation and is attached to the document for consideration. Staff believes the findings for this project can be made and that provides additional residential opportunities comparable wi surrounding area of Newport Center. erson Toerge asked if the new condominiums would absorb any unused allocation. He was answered no. Dustin Fuller of David Evans and Associates, responsible for ronmental documents, noted: . The project will be exporting about 40,000 cubic yards of mate which equates to approximately 80 truck trips per day over a 36 period, which broken down equals 11 -12 truck trips per hour. total ADT added to the project will be minimum and will not a traffic impacts. The air quality analysis includes mitigation measures that would include covering the free board on the export material and re cleaning of the streets as the trucks exit. We will be adding language in assuming a 30 mile round trip for fill site as the maximum. The applicant will be looking for someth closer. Based on a 30 mile round trip with 80 truck trips we we put a number on the trips. 'During demolition and excavat daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than a cumulal 2400 miles per day hauling materials from the site to and fr the dumping site.' Another mitigation measure to be added addresses a haul truck route. 'Prior to commencement demolition and grading of the project, the applicant sl submit to the City calculations showing the proposed tra route for all trucks, the distance traveled and how many d; truck trips that can be accommodated while keeping cumulative miles traveled to below 2400 miles each day. 7 daily haul truck trips shall not exceed 2400 miles dur, demolition and excavation activities. Harp asked that 'review and approval by the City to be included i new measures. on Toerge, referring to page 4 of the Errata, questioned 1 of the building coverage of 100% less setback represented chart. Temple explained that appears to be allowing coverage to able area of the site. Page 36 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PhiAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 n Toerge asked if the construction works parking in the EIR? He was answered, no. Fuller noted that generally during construction, the workers park site. However, there is no formal analysis. s. Temple stated this is not a matter of environmental review, rather it matter for the Building Department and the Public Works Department e grading plan is approved and the project building permits a )proved. If there is a thought there might be a parking problem, v ould ask the contractor to identify how that would be managed so the ould not be on- street impacts. cuing, Chairperson Toerge noted there is a discussion on what to the trucks leave the site. Considering the water quality issu we specify that sweeping is the means of cleaning the street < w hosing down the streets. Temple answered yes. Toerge, referring to page 346 of the Mitigated Neg asked about the housing stock and vacancy percentage. Temple answered there is a very high vacancy rate because of t number of second homes; turnover in the rental stock, and that t the Census tells us. glee Newman, Principal of Government Solutions, representing i icant, noted that the Marriott Hotel has been going through �nsive renovation. As part of that effort they seek to acquire idential Development on the property adjacent to the hotel on Is !ed as tennis courts. This would provide an opportunity to bring n, sale' homes in the Newport Center. She then introduced her tee nbers. She noted that Lennar has reviewed all the conditions in i f report and mitigation measures and are in agreement to all. White of Government Solutions, noted the following during oint presentation: • Aerial photo of the site location. • As part of the Marriott renovation it became apparent that the tenniE courts were no longer being used. • The proposed project is 4.25 acre site with 79 luxury condominiums. • The proposed project will be going through the Coastal Commissior for their determination following approval of the applications. Page 37 of 42 file: //F:1 Apps1 WEBDATA\IntemetlPlnAgendas 120051mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 . This is a unique residential opportunity in Newport Center. • We are requesting that we have a maximum height of 65 feet H we are allowed up to 375 in the high rise district. • The FAR on the site is 1.9; which includes the 100% subterrar garage. • We have 201 spaces provided, 198 required, which is 2 spaces resident with 1/2 space per guest. . The guest spaces are equally distributed throughout the garages coordinate to the units they are intended to serve and are i grouped in one specific area. . The Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated in June this year, reviewing a number of areas such as air quality and significant impacts were identified as a result of the project. . The surrounding neighbors would be the Colony Apartments ac the street, the Marriott on one side, and the country club on other side. . We are having on -going discussions with the country club coordination, sales disclosures and CC and R's protect both residents and the golf course. Buchta, MVE, speaking for the applicant, noted the following on t site: . Site is constrained on the Santa Barbara edge by 15 -20 feet grade fall to the golf course edge. . The building will be stepped up with a 2 and 3 story Type construction over one level of a parking garage. . The architecture is Mediterranean style with smooth si detailing, precasts surrounds on the windows, wrought iron det, on railings and Juliet balconies and Mediterranean inspired details with built up fascias. . The Santa Barbara edge has the pedestrian linkages to Fashl Island and entries to the buildings. There are wide expanses glass and expanded decks at the lower level. . He then explained some of the various unit layouts and floor plans. White continued: Page 38 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet \P1nAgendas \2005\mnI 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 . This project has been in the planning and design phase for years. . It has received review and approval of The Irvine Company. . It is compatible with the surrounding uses • The site has two entrances off Santa Barbara for both residents guests. • There are two entrances off the promenade where both resid and guests will park. • There are several access points from the units where residents guests can egress to Fashion Island. . She then noted exhibits views taken from a third story building how the buildings will look along Santa Barbara, as well as from golf course. . They have received many inquiries as to potential buyers. . This is a 4.25 acre site with nearly 2 acres of open space. Commission inquiry, Ms. White noted the applicant has agreed to edition that they will locate 16 units of affordable housing somewhere City of Newport beach. The agreement will be in place approved City Attorney by the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 5sioner Eaton asked about the parking designation of ; access restrictions. Buchta, referring to the garage plan, showed the visitor ds White added that residents' parking will be behind gates and tt CC and R's are to be crafted in such a way that restrict residents park in those spaces as well as they are not able to lease the res out and that guest parking is specifically marked and will gnated as 48 or 72 hour stipulation for guest parking. Guest parki not be behind the gates, residents' parking will be gated. The parki is will be clearly marked with what building a driver is going to a res and levels will have signage or something on the pillars. Gue; have some type of phone security box to be buzzed up into 1 missioner Cole asked what the feature that separates the golf the property. Page 39 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas \2005\mnl 1- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 White answered that the building itself in a lot of the places acts as :e; where the building is open there will be a fence between the g rse and the property. Depending on what the edge looks like, some �e units are 3 -4 feet above grade as it is so they likely won't need :e, but, in other places the golf course has expressed their desire e a fence. We are working on something that will be amenable i Lennar and the golf course and nice for the residents. The buildinl approximately 15 feet back from the property line. Commission inquiry, Ms. White noted: . They will be working on sales disclosures and CC and R's regard to the errant golf ball and the safety rules. . The architects are looking at special types of window materials. . The rotunda effect are end units and allow for floor -to windows in the end units at that location. There is no common room as the residents will have the use of Marriott. comment was closed. Toerge asked: . Clarified the terminology used in the draft resolution. . PC regulations - segregate or include a breakdown of the floor area and the parking square footage so that it is clearly why they are over the FAR. . Condition 39 looks to be describing a problem but not a condition. . Condition 81 - idling of construction vehicles for 5 minutes only they are to be shut off. Temple answered that the FAR reflects the total of the building establish the suggested FAR in the Planned Community text )ort the proposed project. Ung noted that the condition was drafted such that the applicant option to either re- locate or move it further away from that. It aed for condition 81. issioner Henn clarified in the agreement for the affordable housi units will be identified and available by the time a certificate incy is issued for the project. Page 40 of 42 file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \P1nAgendas\2005\mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 41 of 42 Temple answered staff would want this at a minimum to be assu they were actually in place before the City would allow occupancy. Hawkins noted this should be made a condition. Harp noted that this will be incorporated into the agreement and add condition 5. isioner Hawkins noted condition 15. The parking plan and approval of the Public Works Department and City Edmonston answered that condition 46 covers review by the Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge recommend approval o General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005, Local Coastal Plan Land Us Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative tract Ma No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, and Coasta HNoes: evelopment No. 2005 -004 to the City Council to the Ci approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration OA2004 -16 findin s and conditions as modified. Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn None Tucker None BUSINESS City Council Foll ow -up - none provided due to late hour. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none provided due to late hour Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the Genera Plan Update Committee - none provided due to late hour Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Loca Coastal Plan Certification Committee - none provided due to late hour Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee - none provided due to late hour. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Cole discussed the meeti that was held with the City Attorney, Chairperson Toerge, J Goldfarb of Rutan and Tucker and Building Director Jay Elbet regarding the Narconon intensification use and the ramifications file: //F:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PhiAgendas\2005 \mnl l - 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 ih Federal and State legislation that govern these facilities. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a futi agenda for action and staff report - none. Project status - none provided due to late hour. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Cole will be late the next meeting and Chairperson Toerge will be leaving early. bAKKY to 1 UN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 42 of 42 file: //F:1 Apps1 WEBDATAIIntemet \PlnAgendas120051mn11- 03- 05.htm 6/26/2008