Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/2001• • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian; Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley - Commissioner Kranzley was excused, Commissioner Gifford arrived at 6:40 STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Todd Weber, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of October 18.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian, and voted on, to approve the edit on page 12 of the minutes of October 18, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Noes: None Absent: Kranzley, Gifford Minutes of November 8.2001: Agajanian, Tucker, Selich Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian, and voted on, to approve the amended minutes of November 8, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Selich Noes: None Absent: Kranzley, Gifford Public Comments None Posting of the Agenda: • The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, November 30, 2001. Minutes Approved Approved Public Comments Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 SUBJECT: Cannery Loft 501 -507 & 500 -512 30th Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue (PA2001 -128) Request for a Site Plan Review, Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Residential Development Permit and Traffic Study for the construction of 22 commercial /residential buildings on 16 lots that encompass approximately 1.44 acres in the Cannery Village area. The Use Permit involves the request for the buildings to exceed the base height limit of 26 feet by 7 feet. The project also requests to subdivide one lot, which was the result of a previous merger of 7 lots, recreating the previous subdivision pattern. Chairperson Tucker noted that no action on this matter would be taken at this meeting tonight. We want to make sure that .the Commission and public understand this project. We will receive public comment tonight so that we can then instruct staff as to what items we want clarified at -the next meeting. We also will not be reviewing the CEQA matters tonight. I would ask the EQAC representative to make his presentation at the next meeting. There are five different action items that we are going to be looking at for this project overall. • Site Plan review- involves the water front lots. • Use Permit - involves all the lots and is a request by the applicant to exceed the basic height limit. • Tract Map - re- subdivide what was once seven lots merged into one lot and now the applicant is asking to re- subdivide that back into seven lots. Coastal Residential Development Permit - pertains to affordable housing. Traffic Study - the project will generate more than 300 average daily trips. Environmental document - supports all discretionary actions that the Planning Commission is considering. Ms. Temple stated that there is no additional information other than prepared answers to a series of questions that the chairman provided staff and other Commissioners that would be better addressed subsequent to the project presentation by the applicant. This is an initial hearing and the staff report does not include a set of findings and conditions that would allow final action tonight. Mr. Phil Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive spoke on behalf of the Cannery Lofts LP. He noted that this project is a fresh and a new master plan investment in Cannery Village. He thanked the staff for their time and help on this project. He noted that there have been several community meetings discussing this project. The presentation tonight will focus on the project design and its evolution and we reserve the right to revisit environmental, compliance finding questions at subsequent meetings when all the documentation is at hand. Mr. Kevin Weeda, 429 West 30th Street as the applicant with Cannery Lofts, LP spoke about the project. He noted that the Cannery Lofts is a live /work • INDEX Item No. 1 PA2001 -128 Continued to 01/03/2002 • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 pedestrian mix use project design. I have been fortunate to take enough lots and look at master planning a small block within Cannery Village designing in accordance with the Specific Plan. He then presented a Power Point display noting the following: • Vicinity Map of the project location composed of 22 lots, 10 lots on the north side of 30th Street, 8 lots on the south and 4 lots on the waterfront. • Pictures of completed projects locally on Lido Island and in Cannery Village area. He then introduce his architect noting that he hired a firm that had a lot of experience with this mixed use type of product. David Hetch and Jim Tanner, architectures of the project continued with the presentation noting the following: Pictures of finished products with the live /work concept in San Francisco, etc. Kevin Weeda continued with the presentation pointing out the immediate properties on 30th Street, Snug Harbor and Cannery Restaurant, and existing buildings on 31 st Street and 291h Street with commercial /residential mixed use. David Hetch continued with the presentation noting: • • The mixed use with residential parking on the ground level. • The overall site plan with commercial /residential parking. • Paving patterns. • Landscape areas /details. • Side yard setbacks. • Views to the Rhine Channel. • A 10 -foot public access area adjacent to the Rhine Channel. • Shared parking courts. • Theme of material as identified in the Specific Plan. • Proposed property lines. • Overall views of the model that was on exhibit. • Commercial spaces are one story high along both sides of the street and then stepping back to the residential above. • Water front lots with public access. • Comparison slides of proposed design with if the project was built out per the Specific Plan, which is 26 -foot height limit and what is possible leaving the setbacks per the Specific Plan in front and back. • The lots are 30 feet wide. • Building out 26 feet lot line to lot line and setback to setback, could potentially build out 50,000 cubic feet of enclosed area allowing for some parking area underneath. A diagram of the proposed design with the tiered residential above with setbacks from the street has a total of approximately 34,000 cubic feet build out. • Diagrams showing how residential is stepped back from the street in • trying to reduce the mass due to the increased height. INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 INDEX • Diagrams showing the proposed breezeways to allow air and light into the project. • Additional comparisons between the 26 -foot allowable height and setbacks compared to the proposed design. • Diagrams depicting the private garage and living areas. • Diagram showing the manipulated materials as specified by the Specific Plan. Mr. Weeda summarized that a lot of time and effort has been spent with the design team working through a lot of different designs to capitalize on what the essence of the Specific Plan is. We feel this project meets the Specific Plan and have incorporated those requested materials. The units have been designed with architectural integrity giving a lot of open areas, breezeways and terraces to make them more interesting than building to maximum limits. By the Specific Plan guidance, we could actually build 50,000 cubic feet on each one of these lots, at 26 feet tall, 30 feet wide and still incorporate all the parking in the rear. - From an urban design standpoint, that was not practical and was very dark. We have incorporated breezeways that go through the entire project so that there is a transfer of light and air. We are committed to designing a good project that works well with the community. We think this project solves a lot of problems that our communities will be facing in the future, particularly with congestion. This proposed project offers the owner /operator to live and work in the same location, thereby necessitating no car trips on the roadway at 5:00 p.m. We think this is a good use of our lots in particular and are in a place where redevelopment would be nice.. We are committed to doing a high quality project. Chairman Tucker then announced a three - minute break to allow time for the Commission to review the materials board and project model. Commissioner Kiser asked about the posts and independent structures as seen in one of the slides that come off the main buildings. What is the purpose of these elements that are not part of the mass of the structure, the beams and columns that come out towards the street? Mr. Weeda answered that they are going to be a metal trellis that will have a canvas awning that will slide back and forth. They are mainly an architectural feature to add dimension to the terrace area and provide some shade. Parking is provided on site with additional parking on the street. A plan utilizing the height of 26 feet on each setback line front and rear and on the zero lot line on each property sideline without seeking any extra entitlement is something that could be done with only a building permit. A site plan review is required along the water front lots and a tract map would also be required. Commissioner McDaniel expressed his concern of how this project transitions into everything else, how does it look from the water? How does it blend into the community? • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Mr. Weeda noted that scale plays an important part. Our building that is actually 35 feet tall compared to the proposed ridgeline units, which the highest point is 31 feet tall and at the other end of the area is the Cannery Restaurant with a ridgeline of 40 feet. Scale wise, the project will be between these two buildings. The scale relationship is nice and is not going to be abrupt. There is a ten -foot walkway on the waterside and the project has breezeways to reduce the massiveness. Commissioner Kiser asked about the mechanical elements. Mr. Weeda answered that the top of the mechanical elements are above the 31 feet. We are keeping this lower than the 35 feet. There will be a railing around the mechanical equipment as required by building code on each of these units. Commissioner Kiser asked about the public walkway in front of the project on the water. What happens to it on the other end of the project? Mr. Weeda, referring to a slide, answered that is private property and would therefore not be providing access in that area, but there is access provided . through the public streetway. We are proposing to turn this area into a public park. The owner of the Cannery Restaurant has offered to assist in that concept so we are hoping to have that as part of our design package. Chairperson Tucker asked what the trellis walls on Lafayette lots would look like. Mr. Hecht answered that the trellis elements are slender steel framework with a lattice out of metal that will provide an urban edge and provide some distinction between the streets and the courts that are by the property. No vegetation is proposed at this time. You would drive into the private garage areas there. The trellis material is very thin and open similar to a screen door. Mr. Weeda noted that the park feature is something to be included in the project as the street end will not be used as an access so there is no reason why we couldn't dedicate it or make it something more public and useable. At Commission inquiry, he noted that the trash can sizes are small 35 -45 gallon size. We will organize coordination for a commercial trash pick up of trash for the commercial units. The trash cans are proposed to be kept in the garage, not in the alleyway. Commissioner Selich asked what controls would you have in the future that will keep these buildings looking like they are? What will prevent someone from putting in a remodel with a cape cod fagade? Mr. Weeda answered that nothing would prevent them from doing any type of architecture other than city ordinances. I can't image at the sales prices that • we are looking at that someone would come in and do those types of changes. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • December 6, 2001 INDEX They could tear down the structure and build anything they want in the middle of this. Mr. Weeda, at Commission inquiry, noted that there are 16 lots and they are asking that one lot be re- subdivided back to the original 7 lots thereby having a total of 22 lots. They would all then be fee simple. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Tucker asked for those in support of the project to speak first. Phil Bettencourt stated that Mr. Tavari of the architect's office is available to use the graphics if the Chair deems. Bill Acker, as an architect and co- developer of 417 30th Street stated that at that time of development, we were in hopes that more development would be spurred by what we did. The only two that happened were the two projects on 301h Street done by Mr. Weeda. The buildings are designed well and in the spirit of the Specific Plan. The character and materials used reflect what we all anticipated with the Specific Plan and Cannery Village. We have a developer who has created quality work and I hope that you will urge him to do that in Cannery Village. This project is about 60,000 square feet, which is like 10 6,000 square foot homes in the Down Coast area, so it really isn't that big a project. I think we need a big critical mass like this to kick off this area just like downtown Balboa needs it and other parts of Newport Beach. Doing it one lot at a time is really tough. So I hope we can encourage them to pursue this project and develop it as proposed. I am very much in favor of improving the streets. Rolled curbs are fine, I would probably not want to see any curbs there and see the more casual parking then what we get when we have curbs. Driving in off the street encourages the 'in and out' traffic that small art studios and my own office have, that kind of quick parking. I hope that you would encourage with a project of this size, under grounding the utilities in Cannery Village. It is important to the quality of our project and perhaps critical mass of this project, would encourage all of us to participate in that. Also, in the further development of the parking structure in the public parking lot, I think we would all like to see that. Chairperson Tucker noted that we had received correspondence that indicates that the repetitiveness of the design is inconsistent with the eclectic feel of the village and the eclectic intentions of the specific Plan. What are your thoughts on that? Mr. Ficker answered that is probably a natural reaction because people are used to looking at single 30 -foot developments and expressing their own character on each lot. However, that doesn't seem to be happening very quickly. If a lot of people bought a lot of lots and built their own houses on there, but if you look at what is there, this project is more like one building with a lot of articulation on it. We should not be surprised if someone were to come in here and wipe out all the property lines and build one building and have loft • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 living above light commercial /industrial or professional uses. I think the architects have done an outstanding job. Jack Jakosky, resident of Balboa Peninsula and owner of an office building on 32nd Street. I have been in this area for a long time both from a family and owner standpoint. I applaud Mr. Weeda for the vision of assembling these lots and master planning it. It is a fantastic amenity to the Cannery Village and in terms of creating a critical mass in terms of moving the area along. What is planned here is a great amenity with a great linkage to the rehab of the Cannery Restaurant. I strongly urge the Commission to approve it. Mr. Weeda has demonstrated quality and concern with aesthetics on the projects that he has done on Lido and the two buildings on 30th Street in Cannery Village. Having someone who is local doing this type of project is advantageous because Mr. Weeda will ensure that his passion and quality of commitment is there. Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Rapp, 313 Via Lido Soud stated that he lives in a house that the applicant has built. We are very impressed with the work and have had so many people stop by and take pictures of my house. We always get such lovely comments about our home. It's his community as well, and he is very sensitive as you can see from all the homes he has built. We are strongly in favor of this project and hope you will approve it. Jack Croul, owner of the Cannery Restaurant stated he thinks it is great that Mr. Weeda has taken this run down area and come up with a design that is superior. We are working together to build a park at the end of 30th Street where it dead -ends into the channel, if the City will go along with it. I recommend that you approve this project. Gordon Atkinson, owner of Atkinson's Men Clothing Store on Via Lido. I live on Lido Island and have known Mr. Weeda for ten years. He builds great projects and is a family man. He cares about this project and it is wonderful to see. Phil Edmonson, architect stated he has been in the Cannery Village since 1984. He had the opportunity to work with Mr. Weeda to work on the second project that you saw he built in the Cannery Village area. It is my opinion, this project is completely consistent with the Specific Plan and parleys the aesthetics of the Cannery Village area that we are all seeking to recreate that was here when it was actually a functional working portion of the harbor. The examples shown in the beginning of the presentation showed the single, hodge -podge single lot possibility of infill development that doesn't necessarily achieve a cohesive feeling for the area that the Specific Plan is trying to achieve. In agreeing with previous speaker, it may feel like a large project when you look at it overall, but as you get into the details it addresses very well the needs and potential of those lots., It adds to the fabric of the city. Mr. Weeda is a professional and this project is exactly on the mark. I urge you to support the project. 0 Steve Rabell, spoke in support of this project citing similar reasons. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 INDEX Tom Holbrook, 220 Via Mentone- noted his family experience working in the Cannery Village area. He noted that this area needs something like this project, it is well over due. It is a great area and will be an enhancement. I support this project. Tom Farrell, 117 Via Karon noted he has seen Mr. Weeda's work. He builds a beautiful project. The closed Snug Harbor and the boat yards are an eyesore and this certainly would be an improvement. As the construction lender, he has been involved with the plans, looked at economics, and looked at this thing to the maximum, so he gives his support. Ted McKibbon, 1107 Highland Drive spoke in support of the project. It is a unique implementation and what I have seen of the renderings, I think there will be a great improvement there. .Mark Faulkner, 411 301h Street has his business of product design office. Architecturally, Mr. Weeda has demonstrated that he knows how to build quality buildings. The team that he has put together is strong. The Tanner Group is renowned for the live /work loft type architecture. As a design professional, I applaud the designs of the architects; they have done a great job and I urge you to support this project. Mark Merrill, owner of property on Mariner's Mile spoke in support of the project. He noted that the fragmented ownership is a difficult issue to overcome. This is a unique concept of architecture. I urge you to support this project, as this multiple lot project will be good for the area and the economy and a catalyst for good things in Cannery Village. Barbara Mason, 601 Lido Park Drive stated that her only objection is to the architecture. She approves of the concept of living above the work area, but the architecture is the style from the 50's and is very much out of favor and is very ugly. From the air a lot of the high rises in the area will be looking down at all the air - conditioning units, it would be better to have roof gardens. I ask that you not support this project as proposed. George Leeper, Cannery Village noted his concern of exemptions to parking, disability parking or height limitations. My understanding is that the height limit is 31 feet with an average of 26 feet. This project violates this rule and I am against it just for that reason. As a member of the real estate community I question whether or not these are marketable and they may be left in the community. I hope that does not happen. Buzz Person, 507 291h Street spoke in opposition to the project. As a past Planning Commissioner he had discussed and voted on many issues including the Cannery Village Specific Plan. We in Cannery Village for the most part are in favor of development of lots in there, and have been for a long time. The problem has been that a particular landowner owned several lots and sold a 8 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 portion of them off to Mr. Weeda very recently. That landowner sat on those lots and would not develop them and just collected the rents. The reason there has not been a great deal of development in the past ten years is that there were no lots available for people to develop even though there had been high demand. Most of us who do live in the Village above the commercial property love that type of living, it is great. As a past Chairman of the Planning Commission when the Cannery Village Specific Area Plan was adopted, we did not intend or envision this type of project nor a row of buildings on 30'h Street all looking the same, with the same elevations and with four more on the waterfront. I wrote the language specifically that continuity that preserves the variety and individuality of uses that give the area its charm. I have little recollection of language that deals with the architectural features and I don't think we gave a lot of time to that when we considered the Specific Area Plan. I am very concerned, I am pro development and we need it, but I don't think this is the right development. I understand the concerns spoken previously, but I believe that you need to give this project a lot of time and thoughtbecause it will affect approximately 20% of the landmass in the village. At Commission inquiry, he noted that he objects to this project because of the mass of the project. The mass and the way this particular project is put together is somewhat startling ... At Commission inquiry, he noted we envisioned a type of individual buildings that would have different elevations, in and out features and all with different materials. This project has essentially all 22 buildings the same. The mass issue is reported in the staff report, and to be honest, I don't think the applicant would build to it. A building with a 26 -foot height with a flat roof could conceivably create a greater deal of mass as opposed to this, but I don't believe they will do that. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Tucker noted that there would be another hearing on this matter. We will keep in mind all your testimony. Commissioner Selich asked staff to look at all the different applications and with things that are being proposed particularly in the public right of way. I would like to have some of those improvements in the conditions in the project and how we can do that. I am thinking particularly of the encroachments going to Council, whether they happen or not and if they do no happen it may have an influence on how I look at this project. I would like to see how that could be tied together. Ms. Temple answered that the Planning Commission does not actually approve non - standard improvements in the public right of way. However, if the features associated with those improvements off site are critical to the Commission's willingness to either approve the Site Plan review or the Use Permit to exceed the basic height limit, I believe that you can make those conditions of approval. This would mean that unless they could achieve council approval of those improvements, then your approval would not be able to be fulfilled. INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 INDEX Ms. Clauson agreed adding to also include it to the extent that it might relate to an environmental impact mitigation measure also could be considered. Chairperson Tucker asked about the walls of the building facing the Cannery Restaurant, are they going to have windows or be sheer walls? He expressed his concern regarding noise and potential complaints from residents. Mr. Campbell answered that there was not a specific elevation prepared for that, but you can see it on sheet 6 of the plans and there are some windows there. . Mr. Hecht answered that there are separate elevations in the drawings, and those would have additional windows. There are certain requirements that we have to meet regarding noise. - -Mr,- Tanner noted there are also certain techniques that we can use for the reduction in sound transmission by using laminated glass and we will meet state law. Commissioner Kiser asked about potential input from Fire Marshal. What about this? Mr. Campbell answered that there have been numerous discussions and that . there is still some negotiations in progress regarding some of the features. The drawings do reflect what the fire department wants to see at this point with the exception of work to be done about the open terraces on the street and whether there was a fire separation wall needed there. We feel that the bulk and mass of the building really would not be changed, if anything it would actually be reduced with some of the separation walls coming out of the project if they can demonstrate adequate occupancy separation to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. Ms. Temple added that this particular project has been in plan review and some form of interaction with Building Department and the Fire Marshal's office for quite some time. The project presented tonight is substantially different from the original concepts that we reviewed so the project has undergone very significant redesign over the last several months. Chairperson Tucker asked for an inventory of items that were still issues, i.e., parking, CEQA and Fire Marshal issues. I would like the staff report to deal with what the open items were, where we are or if we are in a position to resolving them and if there are any still open especially if they affect the design of the building. -Additionally, any issues that have been resolved that had impact on the design is to be pointed out as well. Continuing, he recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of January 3, 2002. We have other matters that we have had trailing and we may not actually hear this item on the 3rd, but I would like this continued and if staff and the applicant are in a position to proceed with this, I would like to be able to have it heard then. • 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to continue this item to January 3, 2002. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: Kranzley SUBJECT: Carrico Pacific Construction Company 1811 Quail Street (PA2001 -157) A request for a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Development Text Amendment to increase the development allocation within the Airport Area 2 -7 (Statistical Area L -4), Newport Place Planned Community Block G & H, which would permit a 1,590 net square foot addition to an existing office building located at 1811 Quail Street. Public comment was opened and closed. is Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-004 and Planned Community Development Amendment 2001 -002 by adopting Resolution No. 1543. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: KranzJey SUBJECT: Design Standards for Mobile Homes on Individual Lots • PA 2001 -223 An amendment to Chapter 20.60 (Site Regulations) to establish design standards for mobile homes on individual lots. Commissioner Agajanian asked if there was a minimum floor area size for the manufactured homes? Ms. Temple answered that they are regulated to the same extent as any other conventional single - family development, which has no minimum size. The only minimum is that every individual unit must have two parking spaces. Public comment was opened and closed. INDEX Item No. 2 PA2001.157 Recommended for approval Item No. 3 PA2001 -223 Recommended for approval City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt Resolution No. 1544 recommending approval of modification of Code Amendment 2001 -005 to the City Council. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich SUBJECT: JWA Settlement Agreement Extension General Plan Amendment • PA 2001 -222 for General Plan Initiation GPI 2001 -003 Initiation of a potential amendment to the General Plan relating to the extension of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Extension. Commissioner Agajanian noted the date of the resolution should be changed. It was agreed by staff, saying it should reflect the current date. Public comment was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt of Resolution No. 1545 amended to reflect today's date, recommending initiation of the General Plan Amendment GPI 20041 -003 to the City Council. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: Kranzley SUBJECT: Betfingen Residence 2215 Pacific Drive • Variance No. 1228 Review of final plans for substantial conformance with plans approved on July 22, 1999. Ms. Temple noted that this is a circumstance where a building code requirement came into play after the Planning Commission approved the variance that required a second exit from the upper level deck. As a result, an additional external stairway is now required. It is in the area of the variance so we are bringing this back to the Commission to determine whether it can be determined in substantial conformance with the original approval or whether an amended variance application would be required. We did call the adjoining resident on the easterly side and that person did indicate that they were not aware of the change and they may have some concerns in that regard. 12 INDEX Item No. 4 PA2001 -222 Recommended for initiation Item 5 V1228 Approved 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Commissioner Selich asked when this variance came to the Planning Commission, doesn't it also go to the Building Department, it seems like a rudimentary issue to be addressed. Ms. Temple answered that the plan review request process does include the Building Department. Their standard comment is to conform to the Uniform Building Code and Local Amendments. They deal with it when they see the plans. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that there was a shadowy indication of the stairwell on the plans but the extent of it was not shown on any of the elevations so it did not come to our attention that it was anything other than something that might have been erased out or maybe having to do with access to the lower level as opposed to the upper level deck. If there was an indication that it was there, it was not clear to staff and it certainly was not pointed out to us by the architect. Chairperson Tucker asked what the standard was to proceed with a substantial conformance issue. Is it that we have evaluated it and have come to the some conclusion in our own minds and not necessarily mean a change? Ms. Temple answered that is one aspect of it. If the critical criteria that the Commission used in approving the variance, for instance: that the area of the variance was not in an area that was not visible in certain locations: would not increase the overall height of the building, as approved, by the street; would not significantly affect lateral views from other properties; if those types of considerations can be determined by the Commission, I believe it is within your ability to determine substantial conformance. However, it does exacerbate the actual amount of variance that this project requires by way of noticing in the case of range of how many feet above the height limit is and those are factors to consider as to whether this requires an amended application. Commissioner Kiser asked what the process would be for the applicant if we find that it is not in substantial conformance and then alternatively if we found tonight that it was in substantial conformance, what happens in each case? Ms. Temple answered that if you determine substantial conformance, staff will take that direction and essentially allow the Building Department to issue a Building Permit. If you determine it is not in substantial conformance, we will require the property owner to submit a formal application for amendment to the variance. This would involve the regular fee and full noticing as required by our variance procedures. It would come back to the Planning Commission for public hearing and action. If any circumstances had changed that would lead the Commission to determine that approval of the variance was not warranted, you could attempt to make further changes to the structure. However, the applicant could withdraw the amended application and proceed with the already approved variance and simply re- design the upper level to be a size as to not require the second exit. 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 INDEX Ms. Clauson stated that the variance that was approved and if the Planning Commission determined that this change is not in substantial compliance with the variance, it would be a new application. They would have the option of either re- designing their project in a way so that they are in substantial compliance with the variance that was approved, or they would be subject to a new variance application. Commissioner Selich noted the standard he would look at is that even if the stairway did encroach into the height variance area, would it have a major affect on the variance and the determination made at the time? If it were found not to have a major affect, I would look at it being a substantial conformance issue. If it was a major issue that would have had a major impact on the amount of encroachment into the variance area if you will, or had a substantial impact on the decision, then I would probably not be in favor of the substantial conformance. From what I have seen, I don't believe that it does have a major impact and I think it is a minor change to the project and would be supportive of a substantial conformance finding. Commissioner Agajanian asked that if the deck sizes have not changed, what prompted this additional review? Ms. Temple answered that when a third level exceeds 500 square feet, it requires • two separate exits to the ground by the Uniform Building Code. The difficulty with this kind of change is that it is difficult to re- design it in a way where people won't find ways to utilize the full space by placing furniture on risers, etc. The Building Department is very careful on people trying to come up with creative solutions to reduce the size of decks and really creating more problems. For instance, they say the will fill up just to the rail a certain area, but it just simply becomes a three - foot stepping stone to an even higher level and unfortunately a level that does not have a rail so that it creates a more dangerous situation from a life safety point of view. They look at the roof size as to what to deal with in the reduction of the upper floor area. Commissioner Kiser asked what substantial conformance is from a legal standpoint. Ms. Clauson answered that as far as what kind of court decision(s) have come out to give some guidance, that I have not looked at. I think it is a discretionary call on the Commission's part as to whether the variance that you approved is what is up there and what the changes that have been done have any kind of impact on the findings or factors that the Planning Commission considered in approving that variance. Ms. Temple stated that it is actually the entire third level that requires the two exits and the combination of the deck and the third floor area is 850 square feet approximately. 14 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Bill Edwards, Principal of Planet Design, 3334 E. Coast Highway spoke as the designer of the project and distributed colored exhibits explaining the design changes made to the project after the initial variance approval. The theme of the project was changed to Italianate that brought down the levels of the parapet and brought in the eave and cornice lines away from the sweep. Referencing the exhibit he pointed out the areas of reduction, rail systems on all the decks and spiral staircase with open riser, open rail and painted to match the adjacent surf ace of the building. Chairperson Tucker asked why the staircase was not shown on the elevations at the initial hearing. Mr. Edwards answered that due to the various changes that occurred relative to the expanding and contracting of the building envelope and changes to the lower level and extensions the plans did not have the lower level expanded version. The structure was not shown on the exterior elevations as it was not resolved as to how it would look. The design was in the early stage of change from the French mansard to the Italianate design, so it was not confirmed what it would truly look like at that point. It was an inadvertent omission. Ms. Temple commented that Section 20.91.055 of the Municipal Code addresses . amendments and new applications for use permits and variance applications. She then proceeded to read the section. Ms. Clauson added that those plans that were approved would still be in effect. The point is you have been presented with something that shows changes that may be a trade -off with reduced elevations and having part of it brought back. To the extent that the Commission is viewing somehow that a trade -off for the increased variance and somehow that would have 'a substantial impact in your decision then you may want to look at it from the point of view that you would need to have new plans approved. There is the possibility that even though this is the way it is designed and it shows it is bring brought back, they could still build out to the old plans. Commissioner Gifford asked what the form would be if we were to find this in substantial conformance? Can we attach conditions? Ms. Temple answered that a motion would be in order. If you want to revise the plan you approve then you have to require a new application. Following a brief discussion it was determined that the reason for this review is due to the building code requirement of an additional stairway. Ms. Temple added that the blue area on the distributed colored exhibit is the original approved plan. Absent the staircase, if the applicant proposed an architectural design that would remove the areas in blue, I would have no . problem finding this in substantial conformance because it is less than was originally approved. In terms of the spiral stairway itself is as it is presented. 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 INDEX Commissioner Gifford expressed her concern of the proper verbiage because it is not clear from just this presentation. Ms. Clauson suggested it be done by motion and that information is provided that you find that an application for the stairwell with the open risers and the design shown on the plan is in substantial conformance. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edwards stated that there was a lot of confusion during the design process, etc. The profile of the French mansard did present a design problem in positioning the stair basically in its three dimensionality. Having removed that it gave us an opportunity to have the stairs tight against the cornice line with the Italianate design as we possible could. The spiral plan was only shown on the earlier original floor plan that was submitted to Planning at the early review stages before the request for the additional square footage on the lower level. _._.......__...... -.. Public comment was opened and then closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to find that the revised plans dated 12/06/2001 are in substantial conformance with the condition that the spiral staircase with the wrought iron, open rail, open riser, finished to match the adjacent building. Continuing, he noted that this issue got to be very confusing. There was a request for a floor area variance that was dropped out and then offer the street vacation took place when the original variance was approved, then there wasn't a need to get a variance for the floor area because now they had the lot area to provide that additional floor area. I think it is within the range of what was originally approved particularly considering there seems to have been quite a reduction back from the profile of the previously approved buidling. Chairperson Tucker noted his support for similar reasons as stated and that he wanted to move this item along. Commissioner Kiser noted that with everything he heard tonight and the comments from staff about what substantial conformance is, as much as he was not here during the original hearings, he couldn't come to a conclusion that as he sees this and knowing the neighborhood very well and looking at the plans past and current, couldn't say that stairway in that location is in substantial conformance with the approved plans. Regardless of how much one may or may not feel it is a good idea to move this on and let these folks build this home, with what we are charged to do tonight, I will be voting against the motion because I don't think that stairway is in substantial conformance with the approved plans. 16 is • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Ayes: McDaniel, Noes: Kiser Absent: Kranzley Tucker, Gifford, Selich SUBJECT: O'Rourke Appeal 2244 West Coast Hwy • Planning Director's Use Permit No. 79 Appeal of the Directors denial of a request to extend the termination of a temporary use permit for 120 -day days. The temporary use permit authorized the storage and repairs of an existing boat for a period of time not to extend beyond October 23, 2001. The boat occupies a portion of the parking lot and displaces 5 required off street parking spaces. Ms. Temple noted that this issue was originally raised to staff in the early part of this year based upon a complaint from an adjoining property above regarding the ongoing construction activity related to the boat on this property. We sent out Code Enforcement and confirmed not only that the activity was going on but it was occupying a number of parking spaces that are required per Code for the building. We talked to the property owner involved and discussed how long it would take to complete the work because it apparently had been going on for • some time without our knowledge. We established the timeframe for the temporary use permit in a way that would grant approximately four weeks beyond what at that time was the estimation of completion of work. Because of the nature of the work and its location and because the adjoining residents are apparently affected by the ongoing activity, I did not believe that the activity should be extended any further and that more appropriately the property owner should find a more conventional location for the ongoing maintenance and repair of this particular boat. The applicant has provided us with a letter that is at your desk enumerating the various items that remain for completion and also indicates in part that the extension is necessary because of a theft that occurred on the property in the early part of November. The only comment I have in this regard is that the date of the theft was apparently a week or two after the use permit had already expired so it was clear he was not going to be able to complete it regardless. Also at your desk is a letter from the adjoining property owner objecting to any further extension. She then proceeded to pass a picture of the boat to the Commission. Commissioner McDaniel stated that when you gave this extension, you had a conversation with the applicant and he gave you this date? Ms. Temple answered correct, it was done with Mr. Jay Garcia who explored the timing needed and granted a period of time allowing for a modest amount of delay beyond the anticipated timeframe. The applicant agreed that was an adequate timeframe. • Mr. Larry O'Rourke, owner of the property and boat that is being repaired noted 17 INDEX Item 6 PDUP 79 Upheld the appeal City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 INDEX that this boat had caught on fire in 1996 and then moved the boat to the back of his building. 1 received a notive of violation in June of 1996 and was asked to respond. The staff reviewed this project that is located next to another boat yard. The City has been aware of the ongoing repair work. I talked with Mr. Garcia and we decided on a timeframe of six to seven months to rebuild the boat. My estimation was incorrect as it has taken longer. It was not completed by October 23rd so I requested an extension of 120 days at that time. That extension was denied by the Planning Director, so I am appealing this to the Commission. My objective is to get this boat back into the water. I own the building and occupy a third of it, and 13 spaces are allocated as mine. I have 4 staff members, so there is plenty of spaces left. We work on this boat from 9 to 5, Monday through Friday. Chairperson Tucker asked why what is being done is unlawful? Staff answered that the only reason is because it is occupyning code required parking spaces for the office building. Ms. Temple added that when this was first reviewed by the Fire Department and our department, they were concerned principally as whether the use was permitted. This type of activity is permitted in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. No one thought at that time to ask the question as to whether it was actually occupying required parking spaces. Unfortunately for Mr. O'Rourke when we got the later complaint in 1999, 1 asked that question and we discovered that it was occupying required parking spaces. . Mr. O'Rourke added that he brought the boat up from San Diego for storage. Time and financial constraints kept him from working on it until approximately June 2000. Chairperson Tucker noted that the issue is that the boat is occupying code required parking spaces. The applicant has to go through a permit process that is designed to give people a break. There is a process whereby you can ask for permission, but that process comes to an end at some point. The question before us is it appropriate for that process to come to an end? It is not relevant how it came to our attention. Commisisoner Agajanian noted that with six years of working on it, do you see any end? Mr. O'Rourke stated that from June 2000 the boat had been worked on; prior to that it was only stored there. It is taking a long time. I gave you a list of things that need to be completed along with an estimate of time of what I thought it would take. My alternative is to haul it out of there and put it in a yard where I can't oversee the work and it will end up taking me that much longer to finish it. A brief discussion followed regarding temporary use permits, required commercial parking, potenital of an off site parking agreement, timing. Public comment was opened and closed. • 18 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to grant an additional 120 days as requested. Mr. O'Rourke agreed with Commission that April lsr would be a good date. Commissioner Selich noted he is in favor of upholding the staff decision stating this has been going on too long there. As the applicant said, he is not a professional boat restorer and I am not convinced it is going to be done in 120 or 180 days. I think it will be back before us. The applicant gave staff the time estimate and 1 think he should abide by it and move on. Ms. Temple noted that if the applicant were to come back for a further extension, she would bring the matter back to the Planning Commission. The Code sets limitations on temporary use permits and how long they can go for. Approval of a temporary use that exceeds a year's time is really just a use permit and is normally acted upon by the Planning Commission. A continuance does nothing because the approval is already expired. Technically it would be in violation. The correct action would be to approve a further extension with a time certain, that would be the best course of action if you wish to extend this. At Commission inquiry she stated that the typical course of action if the boat was to stay there, was to give some reasonable deadline for removing the boat. • In this particular case we would probably give him a ten to fourteen working days type of time frame. We would then issue a notice of violation and then continue on to administrative citation if needed. Commissioner McDaniel noted his agreement that the applicant has been in violation, but given all the extra space he has it is not like it is sitting out on the street. What do we solve by denying this, I think we give him a time and give him the opportunity to get on with this and be done with it. Commissioner Kiser stated that the City has given the applicant what he wanted several times and is not inclined to give the applicant again just what he wants. I suggest something in between that may cause the applicant to finish his boat between 60 to 90 days. Commissioner Selich noted we are not the court of last resort, the City Council is. If we turn this down, he can appeal it to the City Council and get it to the end of the process. If it isn't done at the end of 120 days and comes back to us and we deny it, it will drag out to the City Council. If you want to give the guy an incentive, deny it, he can appeal it to the Council and between what ever happens with Code enforcement that time will elapse. We are just another stop along the way, whether we want to admit it or not. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to allow the applicant a final extension to February 11, 2002 to get his boat repairs finished and remove the . boat from the parking spaces it is occupying. 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Chairperson Tucker noted his agreement with Commissioner McDaniel's statements. It is a permitted use and the parking space use doesn't seem to be an issue. There are situations where someone is over parked but it shouldn't go on forever. I agree with Commissioner McDaniel that an application should be filed by a time certain so that there is on end. If it turns out that Commissioner Kiser's position is the one that more people want to go with then of course I would support that as well. Commissioner Gifford asked if Commissioner Kiser would add verbiage that any application for an extension be filed by and then insert a date certain. Commissioner Kiser agreed as long as it would not put us in a worse position. Ms. Clauson stated that it would be difficult. My suggestion was that the approval be with a condition that any desire for any extension of that date would have to be applied for and approved by the Planning Commission before that date. And that would be tough to do within that 60 -day period. Commissioner Kiser said it would come back to the same people. This seems an unnecessary step. Commissioner Agajanian asked to consider inserting the word final in his motion. The maker of the motion agreed. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford Noes: Selich Absent: Kranzley 4 # # SUBJECT: Quick Appeal 1208 E. Balboa Boulevard • PA2001 -190 Appeal of the denial of Modification Permit No. 2001 -108 requesting the retention of an existing patio cover that encroaches 12 -feet beyond the original property line into the abandoned right -of -way of the former East Bay Avenue Mr. Jim Campbell offered the following information on modifications granted within the surrounding area with similar situations: Records for the 1100, 1200 and 1300 blocks for East Balboa show there were no modifications on file for any encroachments in the setback for the 1200 block of Balboa. For the 1100 block we have 2 modifications primarily for side yard encroachments although there is a patio depicted on one of the plans; the second one was for a bay window to encroach into the second floor balcony on East Bay. These encroaches range from 3 feet 6 inches and 2 feet 11 inches. On the 1300 block there are two encroachments, one for a six -foot high wall and 6 20 • INDEX Item 7 PA2001 -190 Decision Upheld • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 linear feet into the abandoned right of way that extended out to the bulkhead line. Another one was for a five -foot high pool protection fence around a spa at 1310 East Balboa that is five foot high into the abandoned right of way. Ms. Temple noted that the appellant has brought a number of potential similar encroachment issues to the attention of code enforcement and the Building Department. We have reached a conclusion on some and are still working on others. A number of the addresses given to us have other forms of approval, such as variances approved many decades ago, which authorize them. We have discovered some that do require permits and we are pursuing all the necessary actions to get them properly permitted. In one particular area on East Bay Front on Balboa Island there is an active project in Public Works to look at encroachments and the public right of way in a fashion similar to the ocean front encroachments several years ago in the West Newport area. So, those are in separate processing and will be resolved ultimately in that fashion. However, there are some numbers where we are pursuing appropriate— permits and potential modification of permits as well on other installations of similar nature. Chairperson Tucker stated that the Commission is not interested in hearing about personal differences between neighbors or how issues come to our attention. We operate under an ordinance, we do not operate under emotion or try to decide who is a good neighbor or who is not, we just want the facts. Gary Quick, 1208 East Balboa stated he has nothing new to add to the staff report. Chairperson Tucker asked the appellant why he thinks a modification would be appropriate in his case. Mr. Quick answered that for eleven years of cruising the bay, he got the idea from many of the homes in Newport Harbor. Chairperson Tucker stated that we have an ordinance that says certain things have to occur to justify a modification, what someone else has done is not one of them. You need to speak to why this modification is not harmful to your neighbor's tranquility, social welfare or property values. Why does this modification come to the level that is insignificant and has no material negative impact on your neighbors? You need to argue that point, not what someone else has done elsewhere. Mr. Quick answered that other than what is in the report, he has a letter from an architect saying that in his professional opinion that this was not about views, it was about aesthetics. Chairperson Tucker answered aesthetics is certainly one of the features, but in this particular case, there is very little where view has come into play for us. Usually . when a modification matter comes to us, it is an insignificant affront to what our standards are and doesn't usually hurt anybody and is beneficial for the property 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2101 INDEX in question. You have neighbors who are all saying this is hurtful, and is something that should not occur. We want to hear from you why it is not hurtful to them. Mr. Quick answered that in his opinion it does not block their views. Public comment was opened. Bill Shepard, 1206 E. Balboa, next door to this project. My comments have to deal with part of the ordinance, justification for findings for variances, one was deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties. Chairperson Tucker stated this is a modification, not a variance. Mr. Shepard stated that there is substantial gain by the applicant that would change the character of the neighborhood and all of our other comments are in - °-letters that we have written and sent to you. Chairperson Tucker noted the findings: 'In order to grant relief to an applicant through a modification permit, the Modifications Committee shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious • to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code.' These are the findings that need to made, so the extent that others are going to speak to it, the comments should be if you are against this, how is it detrimental. Mr. Shepard answered that it blocks views, gives an advantage to that particular property versus other properties in the area and those are two distinct disadvantages to the neighborhood. It does block my view somewhat. Douglas Wood, 1214 East Balboa Blvd, stated that this modification application exceeds the allowable height rimits, obstructs the views for the neighbors, exceeds allowable setback limits, covers allowable open space and is a detriment to property values. There are nine letters from neighbors submitted and a number of other people who could not come tonight because of other commitments. The fact is that the neighborhood is opposed to this modification. Dan Gilliland, 1134 East Balboa Blvd., stated he is approximately 180 feet westward of the subject property. I want to express my feeling that this should be denied as it is an abomination. It does all the things that the neighbors have mentioned. I want to see this denied and get on with it. In thirteen days it will have been six months since this was erected. At that time the people erecting it knew it was in violation, they had no permit. 22 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel noted that he has not seen or heard anything that would cause him to overrule the Modification Committee decision. I uphold their ruling. Commissioners Kiser, Agajonian, Selich and Gifford stated their agreement with upholding the decision. Chairperson Tucker stated that the items that have been granted in the past are not in the scope or nature that this one is. I am not seeing the justification, as sympathetic as I am to the property rights of an individual at some point they do stop. I feel the same. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to uphold the decision of the Modifications Committee and deny the appeal. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajonian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: Kranzley ii• • SUBJECT: Salavati Condominium Conversion Permit Appeal 605 Iris Avenue • PA2001 -196 Appeal of the approval of Condominium Conversion Permit No. 2001 -017. The applicant requests relief from three conditions of approval. Ms. Temple noted that as allowed by code, the Modifications Committee deals with most condominium conversion permit applications. This one was considered and conditions were applied. Of the three conditions, which the appellant has objected to, one is related to a requirement that the two single garages be required to have a roll up garage door as opposed to a flat panel garage door. The reason the Modification Commission imposed this requirement is because the carport spaces that immediately front the two garages, are below the minimum depth required for residential parking spaces. While the Code does not have any specific requirement that roll up garage doors be installed in any particular case, it has been a standard action on the part of the City and the Planning Commission to require roll up garage doors when a driveway apron or parking space be it required or not required parking in any dimension less than 20 feet in depth be allowed only in association with roll up garage doors. This has to do with the concern that cars parked on the driveway apron or in this case a carport adjoining an alley would tend to encroach across either a sidewalk or a code required setback due to an inclination of most drivers to not park inordinately close to a flat panel garage • door wanting to leave sufficient space for the door to be opened without having to move the vehicle or potentially damage the bumper of the car. That 23 INDEX Item B PA2001 -196 Modified decision of Modifications Committee City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 INDEX is the reason for the condition and is a standard condition even though it is not contained in any code requirement nor in any policy adopted by City Council. The other two conditions are ones that we do not actually believe is within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to omit or to waive: one is the requirement that the applicant obtain an encroachment agreement or permit for non - standard improvements that are already installed in the parkway. Encroachment Agreements and Permits are required by the Municipal Code and are actions that require approval by City Council in most cases. Not having this condition would not allow the City to require the applicant to maintain the non- standard improvements nor to provide the City with the liability protections that they seek in association with those improvement approvals. The third condition relates to the imposition of a park fee for one additional unit. The original building was a single family dwelling then remodeled into a duplex and then subsequently converted to a condominium. Title 19 requires that an In -lieu park fee by paid for the additional unit. This is a Subdivision requirement and is not in the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to waive. Mr. Campbell stated that the applicant had not installed the pavers. According to the applicant, those pavers have been there for many years. Ms. Temple stated that the city codes would require that for those non - standard improvements to be maintained they require an encroachment permit. The only item before you is the garage doors. • Commissioner Kiser asked what the distance was between the garage door and the property line. He was answered 16 feet to the setback with a required 5- foot setback that is not approved for the parking of automobiles. Plans were distributed for review. Chairperson Tucker asked the depth of a standard parking space. He was answered that it is 19 feet. Continuing, he noted that right up against the garage door it would be 2 feet longer than a typical parking space. Public comment was opened. Mr. Amir Salavati 605 Iris Avenue distributed pictures to the Commission. He stated he installed the doors because he had no other choice because of the drain from the second floor would be in the way of the track for a roll up door. He would have to make the opening smaller, which would put him in violation of the Building Code. Each garage door has a side door so the people can get in and out without opening a garage door. Referring to the pictures he showed that his car parked in the carport is not extending beyond the 21 feet. My plans show that the two bathrooms drain down and there is no other way to put roll up garage doors. Chairperson Tucker noted that we do not consider somebody else's' problem or the way that they improperly did something and use that for a justification for letting someone else to do it. 24 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Commissioner McDaniel noted that the drywall is around the sewer pipes drains from the second floor. Mr. Salavati noted the box is attached to the pipe and it cannot be moved any closer. Ms. Temple noted that Modifications Committee made a site inspection and noted that a roll up door could be installed. We do not regulate the width of the actual garage door opening specifically, but the Code minimum width is only 8 feet 3 inches. These particularly garages are substantially wider than that in clear width. Based on my estimate it is at least 9 feet and somewhat larger. There is plenty of room to frame in a slightly smaller roll up garage door and avoid the obstructions noted within the garage entrance. Public comment was closed. Ms. Gifford noted she is not sure that the reason for requiring a roll up door is that compelling. I know in my own residence there is a similar situation where there is pipe that is framed in. I have called every garage door company in the area and everybody tells me the some thing, it can't be done. I don't know if this case is exactly similar or not, but it can be a difficult situation. I do not see really is truly compelling nature of requiring a roll up door and if the solution would be to narrow the garage door some way, I think that is trading one problem for another. It is very difficult to maneuver your car into the garage. 1 think narrowing the door is more harmful. I would be inclined to relieve the applicant of this condition. • Commissioner Kiser stated he drove out to the property and realized that he would have been able to get in and out of the carport. If a car is parked beyond the setback in the alley, whoever owns the place at that time could be cited. Given the access doors, there are several more feet available for parking and I don't think it is critical. I agree that we could remove this condition. Chairperson Tucker noted he would like to see the roll up doors if they are feasible, if they aren't then they aren't. I'd like to know what the factual setting is rather than just what we have heard from the applicant. I feel that I am missing information. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to modify the decision of the Modifications Committee and eliminate condition 9 related to the roll -up garage doors. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanion, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: Kranzley 25 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 SUBJECT: Hyatt Newporter (PA 2001 -180) 1107 Jamboree Road i PA 2001 -180 A request to include the Summer Jazz Series and the Holiday Pavilion as permanent events in conjunction with the present resort hotel facility. Ms. Temple noted that staff is recommending that this item be removed from calendar. Upon doing the initial staff report review, Ms. Wood discovered that the noise work probably was not sufficient to answer all the questions that the Commission might have. Further review is contingent upon completing work in that area before the Planning staff will re- calendar this item. It will be re- noticed at that time. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to remove this item from calendar. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: Kranzley •i• ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple stated that at the last Council meeting of November 27 +h there were two items for the Coast annexation. One is the one of ongoing processing of subdivisions and authorizes the mayor to sign a cooperative agreement between the county of Orange and the City of Newport Beach. All Subdivision actions and approvals for principal permits will continue to be processed by the County of Orange until completion of the project. The City will take over planning services and permit approvals only one -year post certificate of occupancy for all buildings. The Commission should not experience any increase in work load from this annexation. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - No meeting. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - No meeting. d) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - None. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Kiser asked for someone to look at the signs in front of the Gina's Pizza regarding reserving for pick up only. INDEX • Item 9 PA 2001 -180 Removed from calendar Additional Business is 0 26 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 INDEX f) Status report on Planning Commission requests - No changes. g) Project status - No signs. h) Requests for excused absences - None. ADJOURNMENT: 10:45 p.m. Adjournment Motion was made to adjourn this meeting to December 11, 2001 at 3:30 p.m. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: Kranzley EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION E 27