HomeMy WebLinkAboutThirty First Street LLC_UP, MD, LA_407-413 31st St (PA2006-031)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 2
January 4, 2007
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3209
jmurillo@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 2006 -001
Modification Permit No. 2006 -052
Lot Line Adjustment No. 2006 -010 (PA 2006 -031)
407 - 413 31St Street
APPLICANT: Thirty First Street LLC
ISSUE
Should the City appove a Use Permit request for the construction of four, mixed -use
buildings at a proposed height of 31 -feet, above the base height limition of 26 -feet? The
Use Permit request includes a commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) less than the minimum
0.25 FAR required for mixed -use development projects. In addition, the applicant is
requesting the approval of a Modification Permit to allow parking spaces to encroach into
the front and rear setbacks and a Lot Line Adjustment to create four lots of equal size.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Use Permit No. 2006 -001, Modification Permit No. 2006-
052 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2006 -010 subject to the findings and conditions of
approval included within the attached draft resolution.
DISCUSSION
Background
At the November 2, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, staff presented a review and
analysis for the Commission's consideration and requested comments and input on the
project. Staff requested input on whether or not there were sufficient facts to support the
parking space encroachments into the front and rear setbacks. Minutes of the
Thirty First Street LLC (PA 2006 -031)
January 4, 2007
Page 2 of 8
discussion are attached as Exhibit 2. In summary, members of the Commission
provided the following comments:
• The Commission seemed generally supportive of the Use Permit requests for the
height increase and for reduced commercial floor area.
• The Commission seemed split on the issue related to the Modification requests,
but may be convinced if greater justification to support the findings for approval is
provided.
• A majority of the Commissioner's expressed a strong desire for the applicant to
study the entrances to the commercial units and enhance the retail component of
the project.
• The Commission unanimously felt that land use compatibility was an issue and
supported any features or improvements that would minimize possible
incompatibility impacts, particularly for the unit adjacent to Rudy's Pub and Grill;
however, the Commission varied on suggestions, ranging from reversing the floor
plan of the units so that a solid building elevation would face the alley and avoid
balconies and window openings overlooking the parking lot, to simply requiring
real estate disclosures and double paned /sound- insulating windows.
Project Changes
The applicant has considered the suggestions and comments provided by the
Commission and has redesigned the project accordingly, while still maintaining the
original design concept for the project. The following changes have been incorporated
into the project:
31'
Maximum Floor Area
Limit
Thirty First Street LLC (PA 2006 -031)
January 4, 2007
Page 3 of 8
31'
26'— Rear- Barrel-
Vaulted Roof
Midpoint
#Rb
31'
I Residential 10.75 (2.354 so. ft.) 10.75 (2.354 so. ft.) 10.75 (2.345.5 so. ft.) I
l.za min — u.ou max
784.5 — 1,569 so. ft.
Total 1 1.25 (3,923 sq. ft.) 1 0.99 (3,104 sq. ft.) 10.99 (3,095.5 sq. ft.)J
Maximum Building Bulk 15,022 so. ft. 13.730.5 so. ft. 13,730.5 so. ft. I
Exterior Parking ` 5 % of exterior Not Applicable' I Not Applicable
Area I parking area
Front Setback Area 1 50% 50% 50%
Residential I 2 per unit I 2 per unit I _ 2 per unit
Commercial 1 3 (1 per 250 so. ft.) 31 31
subject to a Use Permit for increased height
subject to a Use Permit for decreased commercial floor area
rear parking area is covered and enclosed by side walls
Height Reduction
Although the proposed height of the project was not considered to be a significant issue
and the findings could be made to support the request, the applicant has attempted to
reduce the overall number of deviations from the base development standards that were
originally requested. Therefore, the applicant has redesigned the building's main barrel -
vaulted roof structure and utilized imaginary roof projections, bringing the rear half of the
roof into compliance with the 26 -foot base height limit and the front half down to a
midpoint height of 27 -feet 6- inches (29 -foot height previously). The ridge of the roof
structure has not changed and still complies with the 31 -foot ridge height limitation. The
dormers extending into each of the front elevations retain the 29 -foot 3 -inch midpoints,
as previously proposed.
Thirty First Street LLC (PA 2006 -031)
January 4, 2007
Page 4 of 8
Staff had reviewed and analyzed the subject roof structures in the previous staff report,
and since the facts to support the increase in height have not changed and roof heights
have actually been reduced, staff is recommending approval of this request.
Parking Improvements
As discussed in the previous staff report, staff was able to suggest findings for the
approval of the Modification Permit request for the parking space encroachments
related to compatibility with the existing development in the neighborhood and to the
determination that the project would not be detrimental to the neighborhood; however,
staff had difficulty in assessing whether a practical difficulty existed, that in combination
with strict application of Code requirements, resulted in a physical hardship that was
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Code.
At the November 2, 2006, meeting, the Planning Commission seemed generally split on
this issue and requested additional facts in support of findings for approving the
Modification Permit. The applicant has since redesigned the parking configuration of the
project to bring the two commercial spaces at the rear of each building into compliance
with the 10 -foot alley setback; however, the applicant was unable to move the tandem
spaces out of the setback, as that would require the displacement of commercial floor
area to accommodate the parking spaces. The applicant was also unable to relocate the
handicapped parking spaces that encroach into front 5 -foot setback, as that would
require increasing the front setback of the commercial units in order to provide the
required ADA path of travel requirements.
After working with the applicant to develop possible design alternatives to eliminate or
reduce the parking space encroachments, staff has reaffirmed its belief that the
development standards developed for the Cannery Village Specific Plan creates a
physical hardship for new development. The Specialty Retail District is intended to
establish "...a strong specialty retail core for the Cannery Village area by encouraging
mutually supportive businesses, establishing a continuity of shopping and pedestrian
orientation, and provides a high level of pedestrian interest, comfort and amenity ". The
development standards created to implement the plan, may in fact create an
impediment to development that strictly conforms to the standards.
As illustrated by the following points, providing the number of code required parking
spaces on -site creates a number of design constraints that may be viewed as
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan:
• As discussed in the previous staff report, many of the existing developments in
the Cannery Village area are non - conforming in regards to the number and
location of parking spaces provided, several of which do not provide any off -
street parking. Staff believes property owners have been reluctant to redevelop
Thirty First Street LLC (PA 2006 -031)
January 4, 2007
Page 5 of 8
their properties due to this difficulty in accommodating the required parking, and
as a result, the inability to develop up to the maximum floor area limitations.
• Mixed -use projects have historically proved that difficulty exists when trying to
develop a successful project and provide the total number of code- required
parking spaces.
• Recently developed mixed -use projects, such as the Cannery Lofts and the
Monarch Building, have sought similar encroachment requests, in addition to
utilizing tandem parking, to adequately provide the number of required parking
spaces on -site and allowing them to meet the minimum commercial floor area
requirements.
• Difficulty in providing the number of code required parking spaces is evidenced
in this case by the applicant's Use Permit request for the reduced commercial
floor area. The proposed commercial units could easily accommodate the 34.69
square feet of commercial floor area needed to meet the minimum 0.25 FAR
requirement; however, the project would then require an additional parking
space on each lot, which could not be accommodated on -site without the use of
tandem parking spaces.
• Parking spaces must be located in the front setback area of this project as the
number of code required parking spaces for the commercial uses cannot be
accommodated across the rear of the project without the use of tandem parking
spaces.
• The need to locate parking spaces in the front setback area results in
commercial units that are significantly set back from the street frontage, which is
a design solution that is inconsistent with the Specific Plan's purpose and intent
of creating a pedestrian - oriented retail environment. To eliminate the parking
space encroachments into the front setback would require the commercial units
to be set back further, thus increasing this inconsistency with the Specific Plan.
Given these difficulties in designing a successful mixed -use project consistent with the
purpose of the Specific Plan and its implementing development standards, staff believes
the facts necessary to support the Modification findings are evident.
Comoatibility Improvements
The applicant has rejected the suggestion to reverse the floor plans of the buildings as a
method to reduce potential noise impacts to the proposed residential component
associated with the activities of the adjacent Rudy's Pub and Grill. The applicant wants
to maintain the proposed configuration and has purposely designed that particular
Thirty First Street LLC (PA 2006 -031)
January 4, 2007
Page 6 of 8
residential unit to face west in order to take advantage of the natural light and
ventilation.
In order to reduce potential noise impacts, the applicant has converted the third -story
balcony of the residential unit adjacent to Rudy's into a decorative, unusable balcony
projection and replaced the door opening with a double pane window. The balcony
simply serves as an architectural feature in order to maintain the original design and
aesthetics of the building. The applicant has also agreed to use sound insulating doors
and double paned windows with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 35 or
greater for the entire project, as previously recommended. The applicant has also
agreed to record real estate disclosures on the properties informing any potential buyers
that the residential units are located in a commercial district and may be subject to
operational noise impacts or disturbances, including from Rudy's Pub and Grill.
Although reversing the floor plans and eliminating window and door openings onto the
west elevation facing Rudy's is the most effective method to reduce noise impacts and
disturbances, staff agrees with the applicant that it will greatly affect the aesthetics of
the project. The architectural character of the west elevation will be readily visible from
Newport Boulevard and is greatly enhanced by the window treatments and deck
opening. The addition of sound insulating doors and windows should reduce noise
impacts and disturbances, and the required real estate disclosures should make future
purchasers of the units aware of possible impacts.
It should be noted that with the adoption of the new 2006 General Plan, mid -block
portions of the Cannery Village area (such as this project) may be developed
exclusively with residential uses. Staff believes a project designed exclusively as
residential adjacent to Rudy's presents a greater incompatibility and introduces
increased operational impacts to a residence on the ground floor. Although many
possible operational impacts may affect the tenants of the current mixed -use proposal,
as tenants of such a project, they should be more aware and accept such possible
disturbances. The tenants of this project will also be buffered vertically from the
surrounding commercial uses. With the proposed conditions of approval discussed
above, staff believes the Planning Commission can make the required Use Permit
findings, as set forth in the attached resolution, that the project will not prove detrimental
to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or
working in or adjacent the project.
Retail Enhancements
As recommended by the Planning Commission, the applicant was unable to relocate the
entrances of the commercial units to the front elevation due to the ADA path of travel
requirements and limits on the slopes of walkways extending to the required
handicapped parking space; however, in order to enhance the retail aesthetics of the
project and differentiate the commercial spaces, the applicant has introduced brushed
Thirty First Street LLC (PA 2006 -031)
January 4, 2007
Page 7 of 8
aluminum signage bands that wrap around each of the storefront windows. Although not
a significant change, staff believes the signage enhancements do enhance the project's
commercial component of the project, while still complementing the overall architecture
and design theme of the building.
2006 General Plan Consistency
The November 2, 2006, staff report analyzed the project for consistency with the Retail
and Service Commercial (RSC) land use designation of the 1988 General Plan Land
Use Element. The new 2006 General Plan has since been approved and this project
site is now identified as Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H4), which permits properties
located within the interior parcels of the Cannery Village to be developed with multi-
family residential uses, as well as mixed -use and commercial buildings. Within mixed -
use structures, the ground floor shall be restricted to retail sales and restaurants and the
rear and upper floors shall be used for residential. The total floor area of mixed -use
projects is now permitted up to a 1.5 FAR (1.25 FAR previously). Each building within
the proposed project is comprised of a total floor area of 3,104 square feet or 0.99 FAR,
consistent with this designation. Additionally, Land Use Policy LU 6.10.3 "Specific Plan
Guidelines" of the 2006 General Plan, requires developments located within the
Cannery Village area to utilize the design and development guidelines identified in
Cannery Village Specific Plan. As discussed in detail in the previous report, staff has
analyzed the design and architectural character of the project and believes it complies
with the Cannery Village theme and development guidelines established for the area.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this
hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item will appear upon the
agenda for the meeting, which is posted at City Hall and on the city website.
SUMMARY
Although the applicant has not made significant design changes in response to the
Commission's comments, the subtle changes proposed do enhance the design of
project and reduce the level of deviations from the basic code requirements. Staff
believes sufficient facts to support the affirmative findings for both the requested use
permit (increase in height and reduction of commercial area) and modification permit
(parking space encroachments) are evident as discussed above and in the previous
staff report. The applicant has presented an attractive building design that meets the
Cannery Village theme and complements the surrounding properties by using a variety
of architectural elements and varying themes for each building, consistent with the
eclectic nature of the area. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning
Thirty First Street LLC (PA 2006 -031)
January 4, 2007
Page 8 of 8
Commission approve the project as proposed, subject to the findings and conditions of
the attached draft resolution.
ALTERNATIVE
The Planning Commission has the option to deny or modify the request if the facts to
support the findings for the Modification Permit, Use Permit, and/or Lot Line Adjustment
are not evident. Denial of this project will require the applicant to redesign the project;
should the applicant redesign the project exclusively as residential units, he may have
to hold the properties for an unspecified period of time, until which implementing
guidelines or possibly the revised zoning code is developed to implement this change in
land use designations.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
FA __.i
Jairrre Murillo, Associate Planner
Exhibits
1. Draft Resolution of Approval
2. November 6, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes
I Revised Project Plans
4.
EXHIBIT 1
Draft Resolution of Approval
t1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -001,
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2006 -052, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO.
2006 -010 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR, MIXED -USE BUILDINGS
LOCATED AT 407, 409, 411, & 413 31ST STREET (PA 2006 -001)
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Thirty First Street LLC, with respect to properties
located at 407, 409, 411, & 413 318t Street, and legally described as Lots 9, 10, 11, & 12 in
Block 431 of the Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach, requesting an approval of Use Permit
No. 2006 -001 to establish a height limit in excess of the 26 -foot base limit pursuant to Section
20.65.055 of the Municipal Code for the construction of four, mixed -use buildings and a
commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) less than the minimum 0.25 FAR required for mixed -use
development projects. In addition, the application requested approval of Modification Permit No.
2006 -052 to allow residential parking spaces to encroach within the 10 -foot alley setback and
commercial spaces to encroach within the 5 -foot front yard setback, and Lot Line Adjustment
No. 2006 -010 to create four lots of equal size; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 4, 2007 in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the meting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both
written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this
meeting; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the proposed mixed -use buildings, pursuant to the
conditions according to which it will be operated and maintained, is consistent with the Mixed
Use Horizontal (MU -H4) land use designation of the 2006 General Plan Land Use Element
which permits properties located within the interior parcels of the Cannery Village to be
developed with multi - family residential uses, as well as mixed -use and commercial buildings.
Within mixed -use structures, the ground floor shall be restricted to retail sales and
restaurants and the rear and upper floors shall be used for residential. The total floor area of
mixed -use projects is now permitted up to a 1.5 FAR (1.25 FAR previously). Each building
within the proposed project is comprised of a total floor area of 3,104 square feet or 0.99
FAR, consistent with this designation; and
WHEREAS, Land Use Policy LU 6.10.3 "Specific Plan Guidelines" of the 2006 General
Plan, requires developments located within the Cannery Village area to utilize the design and
development guidelines identified in Cannery Village Specific Plan. The design and
architectural character of the project has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with
the Cannery Village theme and development guidelines established for the area; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) designates the site for General
Commercial (CG -C) uses and permits a wide range of commercial activities with an emphasis
in providing a specialty retail core. Residential uses are also permitted on the second floor
above commercial uses, consistent with the Cannery Village Specific Plan limitations.
Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this Coastal Land Use designation; and
J\
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paae 2 of 13
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the Cannery Village /McFadden
Square Specific Plan (SP -6) zoning district and is designated for Specialty Retail (SR) uses.
The proposed mixed -use buildings are a permitted use within this zoning designation. With
the exception of the increased building height, reduced commercial FAR, and parking space
encroachments, all of the development regulations of the SR/SP -6 zoning regulations have
been met; and
WHEREAS, the overall architectural theme of the proposed project is reminiscent of
the past use of the area and the differing architectural style of each building will complement
the eclectic style of the Cannery Village and existing buildings on 31St Street; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project, pursuant to the conditions under which it will be
operated and maintained, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such
use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the
general welfare of the City for the following reasons:
1. Mixed -use developments with commercial uses on the first floor and residential units
above are permitted uses within the Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H4) land use
designation as well as the Specialty Retail land use designation of the Cannery Village
Specific Plan Zoning District.
2. The proposed Use Permit request for increased height should not prove detrimental as
the project provides a significant increase in public and visual open space and the
overall ridge height does not exceed the 31 -foot ridge height limitation established for
the area.
3. The Use Permit request for the decrease in commercial floor area below the 0.24 FAR
will result in structures of sizes that are consistent with the purpose of the Cannery
Village Specific Plan because similar 750 square -foot commercial units have proven to
be large enough to accommodate a viable business; and
4. The parking space encroachments into the front and rear setbacks have been
reviewed by the Traffic Engineering bepartment and has been determined to not
cause any safety or hazards. A minimum of 24 -feet of back -up area to the building
across the alley has been provided for the residential parking spaces that encroach
into the rear 10 -foot alley setback, as well as adequate back -up area for the
handicapped spaces in the front of the lots.
WHEREAS, commercial floor area is limited to a maximum of 0.5 FAR and a minimum of
0.25 FAR. Residential floor area is limited to a maximum 0.75 FAR. The project consists of 0.75
FAR of residential, however, only provides 0.24 FAR of commercial. Section 20.63.040(E)
(Floor Area Ratios and Building Bulk) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires findings
and facts in support of such findings for approval of commercial floor area below the minimum
required 0.25 FAR. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows:
Ja'
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 3 of 13
1. Finding: That the proposed commercial space constitutes a significant portion of the
project.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed commercial floor area of each unit is 750
square feet and results in a 0.24 FAR (only 0.01 FAR less than required). The minimum
required 0.25 FAR would require a commercial floor area of 784.69 square feet (34.69
square feet more than proposed). Although this is a minimal increase in square footage
that could easily be accommodated into the project design, the extra square footage
would require one additional parking space to be provided per building. The applicant
was unable to incorporate an additional parking space into the design due to the narrow
lot widths, even accounting for the proposed lot line adjustment. Although the use of
tandem commercial parking could accommodate the additional 34.69 square feet of
commercial floor area, it is less desirable than the project as proposed. Therefore, it has
been determined that the proposed 0.24 FAR constitutes a significant portion of the
project as it comprises 32% of the total project area.
2. Finding: That the proposed commercial space is large enough to accommodate a viable
business.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed 750 square feet commercial units are only
34.69 square feet smaller than required with a 0.25 FAR. The reduction in square
footage is nominal and should not have an impact on the viability of a business.
Additionally, on the typical 2,790 square foot lot (30' x 93') found in the Cannery Village
area, 697.5 square feet is the minimum commercial area required (2,790 x 0.25 = 697.5
sq. ft.). The applicant has noted that 750 square feet of commercial floor area is more
than adequate to accommodate a workable business and that many of the existing
businesses in the Cannery Village area operate out of spaces ranging in size from 500 to
750 square feet. The applicant states that they have 9 tenants in the Cannery Village
area that currently operate thriving businesses out of commercial units less than 750
square feet in area. Additionally, the Cannery Lofts development provides several 745
square-foot commercial units, which have been proven to accommodate viable
businesses. Therefore, the proposed 750 square -foot commercial units are large enough
to accommodate viable businesses and the required reduction in FAR is reasonable.
WHEREAS, the project is proposed to exceed the 26 -foot base height limit by having
an average doormer roof height of 29 -feet 3- inches and an average roof height of 27 -feet 6-
inches for the front barrel - vaulted roof, measured from an elevated finished floor elevation (6.27
feet above mean sea level or 9 feet above mean low water) to the midpoint of the roof. This
elevated level is required by code so that the first level is above potential flooding levels. The
peak height of the building is approximately 31 feet from the elevated finish floor elevation. The
site is located in the 26135 height limitation zone established by the specific plan that permits
buildings and structures to exceed the 26 -foot height limit up to a maximum of 35 feet through
the approval of a Use Permit. Section 20.43.050(H) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of the increased height. Such
findings and facts to support such findings are as follows:
0
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 4 of 13
Finding: The development will provide for both public physical and visual access to the
bay within the limits that public safety is ensured and private property protected.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project is located near the intersection of
31st Street and Newport Boulevard and does not currently provide, nor impact, any
physical or visual public access to the bay.
Finding: The increased building height would result in more public visual open space
and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention
shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground
cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. The proposed buildings have been significantly setback from 31St Street, well
exceeding the 5 -foot minimum front yard setback. Specifically, the first floor entry
element is setback 13 -feet and the main structure is setback 18 -feet 6- inches. The
second floor provides a setback of 16 -feet to the deck and 23 -feet to the main
structure. The third floor also provides a 23 -foot setback to the main structure,
with the exception of a small pop -out that is setback 20 -feet. Additionally, the third
floor has been setback 27 -feet 6- inches from the rear property line, well
exceeding the 10 -foot minimum alley setback. By setting the upper levels back
from the first level, in conjunction with the significant setbacks from the street and
alley, the project will provide for significant public visual open space on the project
site than otherwise could have been provided if the project were built to minimum
required setbacks. Additional visual open space and views will be provided
through the 10 -foot wide breezeways between the lower levels of each building.
b. By increasing the setbacks, the project results in a 61% lot coverage (Lot
Coverage is defined as the percentage of a site covered by roofs, soffits, or
overhangs and by decks more than 30 inches in height), well below the 84% total
maximum lot coverage possible for the site if the project was built out to the
minimum setback requirements. The additional setbacks provide increased open
areas that would not be achieved without increased height.
3. Finding: The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural
treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the
area within the general theme of a marine environment.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The project has concentrated the floor area of the buildings to the center of the lots
to allow for increased open space within the front and rear. The increased building
height allows for the increased setbacks, particularly with the upper levels of the
building, and helps reduce the building mass gradually from bottom to top. Several
of the materials incorporated into the design complement the marine environment,
such as the metal industrial type roofs, cedar shingles, board and batten siding,
i ��
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paae 5 of 13
and the use of the radius roof lines. Each building has a unique design theme and
use of materials which not only complement, but also contribute to the overall
eclectic character of the Cannery Village.
b. Without the increased building height, the third floor may not be possible, thus
resulting in a two -story development with a much larger footprint. Additionally,
minimal open space would be provided and the loft style building would not be
achieved.
4. Finding: The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale
relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public
spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including
both horizontal and vertical dimensions.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. There are a variety of building heights in the Cannery Village area. Surrounding
buildings are generally one and two -story at or near the 26 -foot height limit. Some
projects, including the Cannery Restaurant, the 280' Street Marina project, and the
Cannery Lofts exceed the 26 -foot height limit. Some of these building are
nonconforming, light industrial buildings, and others have received use permits to
exceed the base height limit.
b. The highest portions of the building mass have been concentrated away from the
street and alley frontages, towards the interior of the properties, by providing a
generous front yard setback and a compliant 26 -foot high flat roof section at the
rear. Through this vertical design, the front and rear mass of the buildings are
minimized and allows for more light and ventilation to the immediate neighbors.
The curved roof lines visually help to minimize the bulk of the buildings by gradually
lowering the roof height to the front and rear of the lots, thereby creating additional
opportunities for visual open space. Additionally, with the exception of an existing
mixed -use development to the east, the project site is separated from other uses
by 31St Street to the south and an alley to the west and north. This separation, in
conjunction with the design of the buildings to limit the bulk and mass of the third
floor to the center of the lots, eliminates any undesirable or abrupt scale
relationships between the project and existing developments.
c. The project only exceeds the 26 -foot average roof height limitation by 3 -feet 3-
inches and complies with the 31 -foot maximum peak height limitation for the area.
Therefore, when comparing this project to other newly constructed buildings that
maximize the height, there should be no visible or abrupt difference height.
5. Finding: The increase in height shall not result in floor area exceeding the floor area
otherwise permitted.
15
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paae 6 of 13
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed floor area ratio is 0.99, which is below the
maximum 1.25 FAR permitted under the Cannery Village Specific Plan; therefore the
project does not achieve any additional floor area due to the additional height.
6. Finding: The maximum height in all districts shall be measured in accordance with the
definitions contained in Section 20.65.030.
Facts in Support of Finding: The height of the proposed structure has been measured
in accordance with Section 20.65.030.
WHEREAS, Section 20.93.030 (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of a Modification
Permit for the encroachment of residential parking spaces into the rear 10 -foot alley setback
and the commercial handicapped parking spaces into the 5 -foot front yard setback. Such
findings and facts to support such findings are as follows:
Finding: The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties
associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results
in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. Providing the number of code required parking spaces on -site creates a number of
design constraints that may be viewed as inconsistent with the purpose and intent
of the Specific Plan.
b. Many of the existing developments in the Cannery Village area are non - conforming
in regards to the number and location of parking spaces provided, several of which
do not provide any off - street parking. Property owners have been reluctant to
redevelop their properties due to this difficulty in accommodating the required
parking, and as a result, the inability to develop up to the maximum floor area
limitations.
c. Mixed -use projects have historically proved that difficulty exists when trying to
develop a successful project and provide the total number of code - required parking
spaces.
d. Recently developed mixed -use projects, such as the Cannery Lofts and the
Monarch Building, have sought similar encroachment requests, in addition to
utilizing tandem parking, to provide the number of required parking spaces on -site
and allowing them to meet the minimum commercial floor area requirements.
e. Difficulty in providing the number of code - required parking spaces is evidenced in
this case by the applicant's Use Permit request for the reduced commercial floor
area. The proposed commercial units could easily accommodate the 34.69 square
feet of commercial floor area needed to meet the minimum 0.25 FAR requirement;
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paae 7 of 13
however, the project would then require an additional parking space on each lot,
which could not be accommodated on -site without the use of tandem parking
spaces.
f. Parking spaces must be located in the front setback area of this project as the
number of code required parking spaces for the commercial uses cannot be
accommodated across the rear of the project without the use of tandem parking
spaces.
g. The need to locate parking spaces in the front setback area results in commercial
units that are significantly set back from the street frontage, which is a design
solution that is inconsistent with the Specific Plan's purpose and intent of creating a
pedestrian - oriented retail environment. To eliminate the parking space
encroachments into the front setback would require the commercial units to be set
back further, inconsistent with the Specific Plan.
2. Finding: The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development
in the neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. Several recently constructed and approved mixed -use projects in the Cannery
Village were granted similar modifications and many existing developments within
the area, particularly along the subject street, are non - conforming and currently
encroach up to the rear and /or front property line with the parking or the structure
itself.
b. The proposed 5 -foot residential parking encroachments into the 10 -foot alley
setback will not conflict with access to the garage on the opposite side of the alley
and will not restrict vehicular maneuverability within the alley. The proposed
encroachments are non - structural and are for the parking of vehicles only.
c. The proposed 5 -foot alley setback is comparable to the standard 5 -foot alley
setback required for residential districts for properties adjacent to alleys of 15 -feet
or less in width.
3. Finding: The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or
safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not
be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. The City Traffic Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and
believes the project will not create any safety or hazards as the project provides a
minimum of 24 -feet of back up area to the buildings across the alley, as well as
adequate backup for the handicapped spaces in the front of lots.
11
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paae 8 of 13
b. A minimum 15'x 15' sight line will be provided at the intersection of the two alleys,
further improving the safety and maneuverability through the alleys.
c. The existing garage for the retail structure currently does not maintain a setback to
the rear property line and parking for the retail building is currently provided within
the front setback, neither of which has proven detrimental to date with the
exception of difficulty maneuvering through the alley. With the elimination of the
garage and the 5 -foot setback provided, alley maneuverability will be increased.
WHEREAS, Title 19 (Subdivision Coded of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of a Lot Line Adjustment.
Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows:
1. Finding: The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites.
Facts in Support of Finding: The original four lots are legal buildings sites that were
created in 1907 and are legally described as Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12 in Block 431 of the
Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach.
2. Finding: Any land taken from one parcel will be added to an adjacent parcel and no
additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment.
Facts in Support of Finding: The project will result in four 33.75 -foot wide lots and will
not result in the creation of any new parcels or change the number of existing parcels.
3. Finding: The parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all
applicable zoning regulations and there will be no change in the land use, density, or
intensity on the property.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed parcels comply with all applicable zoning
regulations, including minimum lot size, and will maintain the current General Plan
land use designation of Mixed Use Horizontal and Specific Plan designation of
Specialty Retail with a proposed FAR limitation of 0.99, below the maximum 1.25 FAR
limitation for mixed -use developments permitted by the Specific Plan.
4. Finding: The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional
improvements and/or facilities.
Facts in Support of Finding: The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the
need for additional improvements and/or facilities because public improvements and
infrastructure currently exists on the site and in the area. The conditions of approval for
public improvements are a result of project implementation and would be required
regardless if a lot line adjustment were proposed. However, the existing structures will
be required to be demolished prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment, as
setbacks and building code issues would otherwise arise.
l�
Planning Commission Resolution No.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Use
Permit No. 2006 -001, Modification Permit No. 2006 -052, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2006-
010, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ".
Section 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this
Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called
for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4th DAY OF JANUARY 2007.
BY:
Jeffrey Cole, Chairman
Am
Robert Hawkins, Secretary
AYES:
NOES:
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 10 of 13
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -001, MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2006 -052, AND LOT LINE.
ADJUSTMENT NO. 2006-010
STANDARD CONDITIONS
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plan, and elevations stamped with the date of this meeting, except as noted in the
following conditions.
2. Use Permit No. 2006 -001, Modification Permit No. 2006 -052, and Lot Line Adjustment
No. 2006 -010 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval
as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an
extension is otherwise granted.
3. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
4. This Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning
Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which
it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or
materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is
operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance.
5. Provisions shall be installed to comply with the City's on -site non -storm runoff retention
requirements.
6. All utilities serving the development shall be undergrounded.
Each unit shall provide separate sewer connections and water meters.
8. All plan check, development, and utility connection fees shall be paid.
9. The minimum finish floor elevation of the buildings shall be 8.67 feet above mean sea
level based upon NAVD 88 vertical datum (6.27 using NGVD 29).
10. The commercial space within the project shall not be converted or used for residential
purposes. Residential space shall be used for residential purposes and shall not be
converted or used for exclusive commercial purposes. Commercial activity within the
residential portions of all buildings shall comply with Section 20.60.100 (Home
Occupations in Residential Districts).
11. Signs shall be regulated by the Chapter 20.67 (Signs) of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
16
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 11 of 13
12. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed
landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site planting areas. These plans shall
incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the
plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building
permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic
sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the
plant materials selected. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be
protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping
shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the
Traffic Engineer.
13. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with
the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy
and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and
trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation
systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and
cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
14. Prior to the recordation of the lot line adjustment, grant deeds indicating the changes
in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review
and approval.
15. The lot line adjustment and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County
Assessor's Offices.
16. In conformance with the California Coastal Act, Coastal approval shall be obtained prior
to the recordation of the lot line adjustment and issuance of building permits for project
construction.
PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
17. The applicant shall incorporate the use of sound insulating doors and double paned
windows with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 35 or greater for the entire
project.
18. A real estate disclosure shall be recorded on the properties informing potential buyers
that the residential units are located in a commercial district and may be subject to
operational noise impacts or disturbances. The document should disclose the types of
uses in the area, such as eating and drinking establishments, group meeting facilities,
etc., and the types of noise impacts and possible disturbances associated with such
uses. The disclosure shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office
prior to recordation. .
19. The tandem parking spaces of the residential units shall be set back a minimum of 5-
feet from the rear property line.
01
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paae 12 of 13
20. The covered commercial parking spaces located at the rear of the project shall
maintain the minimum required 10 -foot alley setback.
21. A minimum of 50 percent of the required front yard setback area (84 sq. ft.) shall be
devoted to landscaping.
22. The rear 5 feet of each lot, between the parking area and the alley, shall be
constructed with decorative hardscaping.
23. The commercial floor area of each building shall maintain a floor area of 750 square feet
as proposed on the approved plans.
24. Exterior decks, setback areas, covered passageway, and covered vehicular parking
areas shall not be covered or enclosed without the prior approval of the Building and
Fire Departments and the Planning Commission.
25. Commercial trash receptacle(s) shall be stored within the commercial space or shall
otherwise be screened from public view as determined by the Planning Director.
Residential trash receptacles shall be stored within the residential garage.
26. The enclosed garages and residential tandem parking spaces shall be available for the
exclusive use of the residential occupants for parking purposes only. No conversion of
the garage spaces to other use shall be permitted. The covered parking spaces at the
rear and handicapped commercial space in front shall be available for the exclusive
use of the commercial businesses and customers while those commercial businesses
are open for business.
27. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire
Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted
version of the California Building Code and must meet all applicable State Disabilities
Access requirements, including but not limited to the following conditions:
a. Covered accessible parking and loading areas shall be provided on each lot and
shall comply with the applicable requirements.
b. A second exit shall be required from the 3rd floor unless an acceptable alternative
can be provided to the Building Department's satisfaction.
C. Rated occupancy and sound separations are required between the dwelling units
and commercial occupancy.
d. Provide one hour exterior construction walls at each side of property lines
adjacent to the seismic separations.
e. Where the accessible path of travel slope from the street or parking to each
commercial entrance exceeds 5 %, the applicant shall provide guide curbs,
handrails, and landings per Title 24.
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Passe 13 of 13
28. A minimum 4 -foot wide ADA compliant sidewalk shall be provided behind all existing
and /or new parking meters and fire hydrant(s) along the 31St Street frontage, unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Department.
29. The driveway approach "X "s and curb cuts proposed along the 31St Street frontage shall
comply with current ADA standards.
30. A minimum 4 -foot landing separation shall be provided between driveway approaches.
31. All portions of a driveway approach, including the "X ", shall be constructed within the
prolongation of the side property lines of the property for which it serves.
32. The proposed on- street parking spaces shall measure 8 -feet by 22 -feet, per City
Standard STD 805 -L -A and STD 805 -L -B.
33. The applicant shall provide one public fire hydrant, which shall be installed in a manner
and location agreed upon by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, and
Utilities Department.
34. The City's water main that serves this development is installed along the alley northerly
of the site and the alley westerly of the site. The applicant shall submit engineered plans
and substantiating calculations detailing the manner under which the new fire hydrant will
be installed.
35. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Traffic Engineer for the construction of
shared driveway approach(es).
36. The applicant shall obtain City Council approval for the proposed curb cuts along the 31st
Street frontage.
37. The bottom width of the proposed 1 -car driveway approaches shall measure a minimum
of 10 -feet.
38. The intersection within the two alleys shall maintain a 15 -foot by 15 -foot clear line of
sight.
39. Red curbing is required between the driveway top of X's and the nearby on- street
parking space "T "s.
40. The applicant shall pay the costs of furnishing and installing new parking meters along
the 31St Street frontage.
41. The applicant shall install a parking meter post and parking tee for any new /relocated on-
street parking space along the 31 st Street frontage.
42. ADA access aisles adjacent to 31St Street shall have a 2% maximum slope
�5
EXHIBIT 2
November 6, 2006, Planning Commission
Minutes
75
Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006
Page I of 8
ITEM NO. 6
SUBJECT: Thirty First Street, LLC (PA2006 -031)
407, 409, 411 & 413 31 at Street
Continued to
Use Permit to establish a height limit of 31 -feet, exceeding the base height limit o November 16,
26 -feet, for the construction of four mixed -use buildings and approval of 2006
commercial floor area ratio (FAR) less than the minimum 0.25 FAR required fo
mixed use development projects. In addition, the applicant is requesting the
approval of a modification permit to allow parking spaces to encroach within the
front and rear setbacks and a lot line adjustment to adjust the interior property
lines of four lots into four equally sized parcels.
Murillo, Associate Planner, gave an overview on the staff report noting
• The Commission would not be able to take action on this item tonight
because of the inadequately prepared Public Notice, but the Staff would like
to have a discussion and receive the Commission's comments.
• The proposed project involves the demolition an existing retail building and
automobile repair facility, and redeveloping the site with 4 new mixed-use
buildings. With the exception of the architectural treatments, each building
will be similarly designed and will consist of 750 square feet of commercial
space on the ground floor and a two -level residential unit above.
• Although mixed -use developments are consistent with General Plan and
permitted uses with the Cannery Village Specific Plan, projecl
implementation requires the approval of four discretionary applications,
which include a use permit for increased height and reduced commercial
floor area, a modification permit for parking space encroachments into the
front and rear setbacks, and a lot line adjustment.
• A detailed review and analysis of each of the requests has been included in
the staff report. In summary, Staff believes sufficient facts to support the
findings for the requested increase in height and reduction in commercial
area are evident given the size and location of the lot, and design of the
project. The applicant has presented an attractive design that meets the
Cannery Village theme using a variety of architectural elements and
complements the surrounding properties by providing attractive details and
visual relief on all sides of the building.
• Staff believes 2 of the 3 required findings for approval of the modification
permit request can be made related to compatibility with the neighborhood
and ensuring that the encroachments will not prove detrimental. However,
Staff questions whether or not there are sufficient facts to support one of the
required findings and would like to engage the Commission into a discussion
to determine whether the justifications for the parking space encroachments
are adequate.
• Staff believes there is a fair argument to say that the lots are small in size,
and therefore creates a practical difficulty in accommodating a viable
commercial and residential development permitted by code while providing
the necessary parking. However, Staff also recognizes that there are other
design alternatives that could accommodate complying parking spaces, but
is unsure whether or not that would result in a less successful commercial
space, and therefore inconsistency with the purpose of the Cannery Village
Specific Plan.
• Depending on the outcome and direction we receive, Staff will re -notice th
project and return with a draft resolution on November 16th.
11
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 12/21/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006
Cole wanted clarification on what are the issues to be focused
Murillo said they would like to focus most on the modification request,
Id also appreciate any comments from the Commission on any of the o
mmendations from the Staff.
Temple said in the last part of the staff report was a discussion on land u
lists and this is another location where one of the units will overlook
mercial parking lot for a restaurant. There may be some design solutions 0
it assist in minimizing that possibility for conflict. Therefore, the Staff was
if the Commission would want to discuss this tonight.
nmissioner Hawkins questioned opening the hearing on this item since it
properly noticed and the possibility the public did not receive the notice.
Temple responded the Public Hearing was noticed on this item, it just left
aspect of the application, that related to the encroachment of the parl
:e into the front yard setback. There isn't a problem with opening the hea
we are not going to take an action tonight.
Eaton had a'couple of design related issues, first of which is:
. What does the Specific Plan allow?
. In the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan we have specific design criteria.
• This project is in the specialty retail part of the Specific Plan, which
described as the retail core. However, these units appear to have be(
designed with the retail as an after thought.
. In contrast to the Cannery Lofts, the entrance to the residential takes up
significant portion of the commercial frontage. There is no access to ti
commercial occupancy from the street.
. Can we address this issue in the Specific Plan, since the Specific Plan doi
not currently allow us to say this project is not designed to meet the intent.
Temple answered:
. The City's Zoning Code, in some areas, have intent and purposes.
. One of the weakness of the code, in Staffs opinion, is it never follow
through enacting regulations that would address that intent and purpose.
• The actual regulations do not require things that were suggested, but al
include all of the same provisions that allow less commercial FAR throu
certain permit approval processes.
. There is no criteria for what design feature might assist a core pedestri
retail area. In fact the permitted land uses, compared to the other parts
the Specific Plan, have little, if any, differences. It would be difficult to at
asking for project modifications that are consistent or consistent with t
procedures to allow exception in the Zoning Code, even if it is thought tt
the project does not meet some of the intent and purpose.
. This is something that the Commission can take into consideration.
• These are residential units with enough commercial to satisfy the Cit
requirement.
Page 2 of 8
1�
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.usIP1nAgendas /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 12/21/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006
issioner Eaton then addressed the second part of his issue:
The most westerly unit has it's balconies overlooking Rudy's parking
which will end up with the same situation as the Newport Beach Brev
Company.
Do we have the ability to suggest to the applicant that we can not make
findings as to compatibility unless perhaps those units were reversed so
more blank wall was facing the alley, which would not have the balcor
overlooking the parking lot.
Temple said that if the Commission could not make the findings related to
patibility to the neighborhood, they could ask for that change.
Hawkins had some concerns:
The compatibility issue was a concern.
The project abuts the AI -Anon facility, which may have compatibility issues.
Regarding the land use incompatibilities, he handed out a letter, in
connection with another project, from a firm of Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus,
and Peckenpaugh. This letter had items that could be considered,
including deed restrictions, conditions for release and covenant not to sue;;
and other CC &R restrictions. He pointed out that Mr. Jackson stated the
likelihood that an owner of a unit in the residential project will make a claim
against the operator is significantly reduced. It doesn't eliminate it, bui
may affect it.
i Cole suggested starting with the land use conflict and get som�
for Staff and asked the following
• This is a mixed -use project which is permitted under the General Plan,
proposed General Plan and the Cannery Village Specific Plan.
• Was the Staff looking for direction on the perceived conflicts of land use
the adjacency to restaurants and bars and other uses that might allow tl
to redesign their project.
• Was the 8 -foot high wall that would be a buffer a proposal or sugges
from the applicant?
. Has the real estate disclosure condition been suggested?
. Is the reversal of the floor plan of the buildings to face inward not sometl
the applicant is willing to consider because it s not achievable due to de:
or cost reasons?
r. Murillo answered as follows:
. The 8 -foot high wall is a feature that the applicant has proposed.
. The real estate disclosure condition has been suggested as well as the
of double -paned windows to help insulate noise.
. The applicant's preference is to maintain the design as proposed.
Wilson, the applicant, introduced himself along with Bill Guidero
A. Mr. Wilson made the following comments:
Page 3 of 8
aA
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 12/21/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 4 of 8
• He was aware of the issue pertaining to the Newport Beach Brewing
Company and that it was a hot button, but thought there were some distinct
differences between the way the project faces towards Rudy's parking lot..
• They had reviewed the direction that the project faces and felt it was in the
best interest to face with the light and ventilation. That is why it is faced du
West.
• They have looked at the Newport Beach Brewing Company situation and
have been involved with this situation.
• Felt there was a distinct difference between the Newport Beach Brewing
Company which is a pub, and Rudy's which is more of a grill and a pub.
• They have talked to Rudy's, and Sober Living (the Newport Club) regarding
different things and feel that everyone is following their intending uses and
can all co- exist.
• Feel they have a great design. The elevation is key from Newpori
Boulevard. It could be changed but you would be looking at a blank wall
and pointed out what it would look like in the handouts.
• They have had a lot of practice since they have tenants and manage
properties in Cannery Village. They have 13 tenants in Cannery Village,
which include lawyers, commercial artists, equipment companies; florist, and
hair stylists.
• They "are knowledgeable on what type of spaces people are looking fWin
Cannery'Village and what are commercial viable and successful.
• A big component of the other facilities was looking at what is the commercial
entrance and what is the residential entrance and felt that was important to
encourage both the residential and the commercial aspect to co- mingle.
airman Cole thought the concern of the Commission is the noise and rowdy
uptive behavior from adjacent uses like this have been issues in the past.
!re is a genuine concern that this will happen again with the approval of thi:
lication. He then asked what the was the different number of the bedrooms it
units.
Wilson said 3 bedroom and 2 bath units.
Cole asked if the buyers would probably be young professionals,
Wilson said in the Cannery Loft most live and work in their units, so that woul
ibably be the same for this project. They will be holding the units and rentin
m out. He believes the difference between this project and Cannery Lofts i
t those lofts are looking down on the Brewery's parking lot and the entrance c
restaurant, which they are saying is a bar. Where as with this project they wi
looking at the backside of a 2 -story brick building and the parking lot would b
)osed to the outside decks, which should be a buffer. They are not expecting
be quiet. Behind the project is the Newport Club and there will be soma
igregation issue there also. He believes the type of clientele that will rent
se units will understand what they will be looking at while standing on thei
conies. He didn't see any change of renting out these units within the next 5 t
years.
imissioner Hawkins asked if Mr. Wilson had received a copy of the Jacksc
larco letter and encouraged him to read it over. Commissioner then asks
they are not seeking any subdivision and that these units are simply for rent.
3-6
http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PhiAgendas/mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 12/21/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006
Wilson answered correct. The only thing they are seeking is a lot
stment. They purchased the lot -in -a -half next to the 3 original lots they
will be spreading the half lot equally among the 4 lots.
oner Hawkins asked Mr. Wilson, in speaking with the Cannery
if they had complained about noise from Rudy's.
Wilson got the impression from the them that their expectations after me
were different from when they bought the units as residential. The issues
Brewery are a concern but didn't feel the issues will be the same at Ri
muse there is not a front door that will be viewed from any of units. They
d to address this with some open areas in the 8 -foot wall going down the
ommissioner Hawkins said that the Cannery Lofts residents had mentioned
m that they are concerned with the Rudy's operation as well. He felt the client
` this project will be similar to that of the Cannery Lofts and wasn't sure there H
way out of the compatibility issue.
Commissioner Eaton asked the following question:,
. The staff report says you cannot connect the commercial and the residentia
to make them real livetwork. Do the Cannery Lofts also not have.
connection between their downstairs commercial element and the
residential.
Wilson believed they were separate units.
Temple said the building code wouldn't permit it because of use
Eaton asked the following question:
Asked if the reason for keeping the units on single lots was for the
of being able to sell them in the future.
Wilson said yes, but initial intention is to hold them as rentals for an
od as far as there vision at the moment.
imissioner McDaniel said the Commission is very concerned with sound and
seen a lot of complaints with the activities in the area. He cautioned 1h(
icant to pay a lot of attention to how they buffer the sound and they wil
ably see some deed restrictions.
airman Cole wanted to know if there was a consensus on the land i
igestion by Commissioner Eaton on redesigning the project to face inward
can give the applicant some direction for the next meeting.
Page 5 of 8
nmissioner Toerge said anything that can be done to minimize the compatibility
ie will be favorable. He addressed his concern that the lot nearest Rudy's is
a small lot, and the lot line adjustment request is to make all the lots the same
i. They then use the small lot argument as a reason for justifying the
3�
http://www. city. newport- beach,ca.us/PtnAgendas/mnt 1- 02- 06.htm 12/21/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 11 /02/2006 Page 6 of 8
roachments in the setback. Commissioner Toerge said he was not inclined
hardship for small lots or any physical hardship to justify the encroachment
setback.
mmissioner Hawkins referred to the purpose of the Cannery Village Specif
n, code section 20.43.020 -D - "The Cannery Village area is intended to ser%
active pedestrian- oriented specialty retail area with a wide range of visito
ving, neighborhood commercial, and marine- related uses permitted" and then
,s about the core area that Commissioner Eaton referred to. He was concerne
o the design of the project and it's retail access issues and didn't think it cou
considered retail. He would like to see the retail be more prominent.
iissioner Eaton said he was in agreement with this and would also try
the pedestrian entrance more subtle.
nmissioner Henn pointed out that this was just 750 square feet and H
er be significant specialty retail. Therefore, he would have more flexibility
project.
Mr. Wilson wanted to address that the commercial was a side load and inward
because of the handicap access. The front parking space was a handcappe i
pace and the ramp had to access that space.
Chairman Cole asked Mr. Wilson to speak about the encroachment issue and the
parking design.
. Wilson said the Cannery Lofts had asked for the same encroachment and ti
:re he got it and it helps that commercial space. Any openings on the side ne
be 10 feet clear from the property line, which make it a very long and narr
ilding. When you encroach these 10 -foot from the rear on the parking and
)t from the front, there is a minimal of commercial left.
Cole said so the encroachment is for the parking requirement more
size.
Wilson said the other thing was to avoid tandem on commercial.
issioner Hawkins said he could be flexible on the request if some of
were addressed.
Toerge asked what were the width of the current lots.
. Wilson said the first lot, number 407, is 45 feet and lots 409, 411 and 413
30 feet.
kirman Cole said he didn't have a major problem with the encroachments
reasons given, but feels there should be some stronger real estate discloses
missioner Hawkins referred to the Jackson, DeMarco letter and the
ctions mentioned in the letter and they should be considered or included
'man Cole said he agreed that if these were addressed it would help in
use issue.
http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 12/21/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006
Henn would like to see a better case for the hardship on
Peotter said he would not like to see a blank wall facing
comment was opened.
comment was closed.
Cole asked if this item needed to be formally continued.
Temple said we would continue this item and also re- notice it. Ms. T
led to be clear on what the Commission would like to see on this project:
. A strong desire for the applicant to study the retail entrance from the front.
. The Commission is split on the modification, but might be convinced if 1
applicant writes up a more complete case to support the finding for appro.
on the setbacks.
. Requirements other than require reversal of the units.
nmissioner Toerge asked if there is anything that restricts these units from ji
ig residential on the ground floor.
s. Temple said the current General Plan and Zoning require that commercial
component of these projects and that is to be on the ground floor and resider
only allowed on the second floor and above. The new General Plan ma
odifications to this. It will continue to be a mixed -use area but it would allow
id -block portions of this area to go exclusive residential, only requi
)rrmmercial at street intersections. This particular project has no 'sti
tersections because the alleys are not counted as streets, so this project cc
exclusive residential once the zoning mechanism to implement the r
eneral Plan is established.
Toerge addressed the following:
• The suitability of the these small lots for the intended purpose of puttinc
commercial on the ground floor.
• He wasn't inclined to compromise fundamental planning requirements in ar
effort to make this project happen.
• Felt there was another way to develop the property that is commercially
reasonable and is suitable that wouldn't require modifications.
• There seems to be a perceived entitlement to some of these properties.
They have entitlement subject to the requirements in the codes and the
development standards.
. Perhaps they should make this into a 3 lot subdivision instead of a 4
subdivision and be within the code.
-nissioner Hawkins asked Ms. Temple if it was the intent of the New Gen
to obliterate the requirement in the Specific Plan on the core specialty ri
>, or is there some accommodation, or are the core areas would move to
Page 7 of 8
http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas/mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 12/21/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006
in the New General Plan.
Temple said there was a recognition that Cannery Village does supl
lest amount of viable commercial, it isn't a main commercial district beca
area is off the beaten path. Not requiring commercial on every property m
Fe to make that more viable. The requirement in the mid -block area is not
residential, it allows exclusive residential but also allows mixed -use
usive commercial.
nissioner Hawkins then asked if any requirements of this project would take
seat to the requirements of the General Plan.
s. Temple said should the General Plan be approved there may be great inter(
certain areas to make use of the new provisions of the Land Use Plan. As p;
the implementation program, we could see an interim zoning that would apply
areas of change in Newport Beach. That would provide some speci
;cretionary path to exercise those General Plan provisions. It may take
)nths or longer to enact all the code changes. We would have to work with t
.y Attorney's office to make sure any interim provisions are appropriate.
iii-man Cole asked for a motion to continue this item to a later date.
Jon was made by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item to
2006.
None
n: None
Page 8 of 8
>q
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mnl 1- 02- 06.htm 12/21/2006
EXHIBIT 3
Revised Project Plans
35
I
z
l
I % �
gg ��
4
� pp
�.l�iY
� I
I
I
4 '
I
}: o
a
71 --
7
xa T' T��
a
a t
r r
a�Ia�
w
1 Nt+ld 9NI�121Vd !3115 � i I � �i
k 8�
4 � _
o
K, —J`s t O�x x♦ a o
ffi � o
! 1
I °
a
I
8
.Y it
3�
�5! r�mma�es.. psnv'mw
I
z
l
I % �
gg ��
4
� pp
�.l�iY
� I
I
I
4 '
I
}: o
a
71 --
7
xa T' T��
a
a t
r r
a�Ia�
w
1 Nt+ld 9NI�121Vd !3115 � i I � �i
k 8�
4 � _
o
K, —J`s t O�x x♦ a o
ffi � o
! 1
I °
a
I
8
.Y it
3�
■
—
o-m
I
H NDU
flas
s. Q
el d
0
O
�in LL
z
Q
- � T
I I
I � I
MON
4 I ,
J � I
I
� I I
I
I
I
i
- I F_
I a
0
0
I �
a
0
3�
GNVlcl 400'S 'd} 1 I
M SNY"Id 210014 213df1 °�! ' I
I
e
�L
I
z
J i
pO
I
I
I
II
I.
I
I'.
I
I
I Z
Q
0.
O
LL
3C`
e nn,a >nuna
TUM
I
Il
- -.
pl r:
D
a
d
J
0.
J IL
w�
3
Q
J
IO
LL
z_
e d
I
� IP
E;
I �
a
1 d
iJ
a
0
0
I J
ll
I �
I
�1
I
I
z
IO
LL
z_
e d
I
� IP
E;
I �
a
1 d
iJ
a
0
0
I J
ll
I �
I
m�
3�ciiao �ioeaia � w.rww�...a �e.w.
i
I
I
P
i
Z
O
F
U
N
A
J
9
- --1
I
*--
' � ��I i .
/... ,.
�i � � 'I � � !; � �
90436W 'VXV 6di M 59989 '9O 'HDVW SHOdA M
(wva AWMOH%OOIM VMT JERM 8909 913
UJUSE ZOM SALEM 'D" I ^I 'JA13H" JaHMAJAMM
0 Ely
v
_a 4ye
By��Yp 4• n
sea a e:ian� ^o.�
I I ¢
I
I
I
I
6
r"
R I
i.
i
a
I
I> '
d
I t
I:
I:
pgg g,g
@ 6
g ft�e°�r$Ra RRa7Bpi$
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
6
r"
R I
i.
i
a
I
m'
07T1�y3r1Sj,5"2�(- +{,�,?UH:I.'. N011b'l(17'1NJ !� f 1 � IIfI 'd
NM "e` >+�i.±.+- �rt�w,.+*r�!7w.^..w+" . � H3Jt✓ I I I � � .�
I
I I
a ,.•� -. p I I o
I v
I a
I o
I I j I o
0 ,J
q(p
0
J
LL
J
W
W
EXHIBIT
November 6, 2006, Planning Commission
Staff Report (excluding exhibits)
qq