Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTESPlanning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 18 ile : //F:1Users\PLMSharedlGvarin\PC min eta11200611 1 1 62006.htm 03/01/2007 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn - all resent STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director atricia Temple, Advisor aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager Jim Campbell, Senior Planner finger Varin, Administrative Assistant and Planning Commission Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Hawkins congratulated the Commission and staff for their work on completing he General Plan Update for the City, and Commissioner Henn for his election to he City Council. Temple introduced Mr. Lepo who is the interim Planning Director and has n over the responsibility of the Planning Department. Chairperson Cole noted this is Commissioner Henn's last meeting as Commissioner. He thanked him for his vision of the City and the sharing of his business acumen. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on November 10, 2006. HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 2, 2006. ITEM NO.1 otion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Approved Peotter to approve the minutes as corrected. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, and Toerge Noes: None bstain: Henn ITEM NO.2 JECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485) 2920 Newport Boulevard Continued to The Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpu 12/07/2006 aursuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City in 1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. City has received several Page 1 of 18 ile : //F:1Users\PLMSharedlGvarin\PC min eta11200611 1 1 62006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 aints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission to the complaints, the operational character of the use and the conditic which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commissi :quire alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions ,al. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary a tion of the Use Permit is not being considered at this time. Temple reported that this item is to be continued to December 7, 2006. was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by :I to continue this item to December 7. 2006. Noes: None Abstain: None ..r OBJECT: Newport Bay Marina (PA2001 -210) ITEM NO.3 2300 Newport Boulevard PA2001 -210 Plan Review, Use Permit, Modification Permit and Vesting Tentative Traci Approved to allow the construction of a mixed -use development on a 2.4 acre site ed north of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. The ct consists of the demolition of all structures on site and the construction of Dximately 36,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27 dwelling unit lominiums). Eleven three -story buildings are planned to be built over ;rranean parking garage. The reconstruction /reconfiguration of the existing lead, boatways and docks is also planned. The Site Plan Review application d authorize the entire project and the Vesting Tentative Tract map would tit a subdivision map to allow for the residential units to be individually sold. Use Permit would establish a building height limit of up to 35 feet and the fication Permit would allow portions of the proposed buildings to encroach n the 5 -foot front yard setback. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH 071144) including mitigation measures was submitted to and reviewed by the nine Commission . Cunningham, contract planner for the City, noted the following: This item was continued from October 5th. In response to concerns expressed by the Commission, the applicant made these changes: All structures have been relocated outside of the front yard (Newport setback thereby eliminating the need for a modification. The areas between buildings F and G, H and I have been elimina resulting in an additional six feet along the northern property line. That feet results in the ability to place a delivery area between building K northerly property line. A condition has been added that the space modified to allow delivery vehicles to gain access and egress from space so there will not be multiple turn movements. The residential component along the deck level has been eliminated replaced with commercial and parking spaces. Subterranean garage has been re- designed. Commercial floor area has been increased slightly by 250 square feet Page 2 of 18 ile: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006\ 11 162006.htm 03/0112007 riammng Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 3 of 18 tial floor area has been decreased by 3,330 square feet. The total nun of proposed dwellings remains the same as the units have been designed. The paseo area between buildings C and D has been widened to additional landscaping. The total landscaping throughout the site has been increased. Ir. Campbell, referencing a sketch, added that the building height ranges in rea are 35 feet, 17 feet, 21 1/2 feet, 25 feet, 19 1/2 feet, 35 feet, 22 feet, 281 9 feet, 43 feet (on site) and 27 1/2 feet (on site). He confirmed that those buih ver the height limit set forth in the Specific Plan pre -date adoption of the Spe McDaniel noted that it appears the average is in the 20 foot range. r. Campbell added that a required finding that discretionary approval of ar crease in building height would not result in an abrupt change of scale betweer Ijacent structures may be made in this case because of the horizontal separatior :tween the proposed structure and adjacent structures which have heights of 3.1 at and 17 feet, respectively. Chairperson Cole asked if there are low building., Ijacent to the 28th Street Marina. The response was that there is no building or th Street and the shipyard is across the street. North of that building are e ries of two story buildings along Lafayette Street around 25 - 26 feet. scussion continued. Commissioner Toerge added there is a significan Terence between this project and the 28th Street Marina project. Unlike the nt case, the 28th Street Marina project is two buildings with residential unit; back a substantial distance from the street. The project now before the >mmission is a series of buildings with facades of all floors rising in the same ane from the street edge . The 280 Street Marina project has a staggered roo ittern and the structures are not simply squares but rather angle back from the •eet. The product type is significantly different in that the residential units are ,nsolidated into two buildings instead of 7 or 8 buildings. This issue is not jus ie of building height, but rather one of height of the buildings at the perimeter o a project site. One of the proposed buildings exceeds the building height limi id is in the middle of the site and I find no problem with that one. It is the heigh id adjacency at the perimeter of the property and the vertical nature of the oposed building that causes the abrupt scale change, not just the height. There a trade off and the Code supports the idea of making buildings higher so that we n gain more view corridor. In the 28th St. Marina there is a 50 foot wide corrido at widens to 100 feet. This project has a much narrower corridor and narrow; wn towards the bay instead of widening out so that it restricts the view and /en the height, doesn't represent an appropriate the trade off. I am looking fo eater view corridors. 1 don't think the project does that. It is only fair to compare a two projects in a more complete fashion than the just the height of the highes Cunningham added: The Commission also asked for a Parking Management Plan and Construction Parking Management Plan. The applicant has supplied the and they have been reviewed by staff and are contained in your packets. There was a request for clarification on the marina parking which is in the staff report. . 1e : //F :1UsersTLNIShared\Gvarin\PC min eta112006111162006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 A buyer notification form has been developed by the applicant and i contained in the packet. Staff would like to see more detail (on this farm at the time the project is developed and that it be more generic and cover ; • wider range such as potential boat operation and /or additional restaurants. Some of the issues yet to be discussed are the buffering issue on th, northerly property line adjacent to Woody's, re- design of the subterraneai parking with triple tandem parking which staff recommends be eliminatec the use of the 19 -slip area has been clarified and is included in the sta report; the southerly ramp from the deck level to the arcade area stays a one way; and, a second resolution with underline and strikeout is in th, packet with changes to conditions. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions. )I McDermott of Government Solutions, representing the applicant, introdu staff and noted the following changes to the project in response to :erns expressed by the Commissioners at their last meeting as well iges made in response to the concerns of neighboring property owners: All structures have been relocated outside of the front yard (Newport Boulevard) setback. All residential uses were eliminated from the main deck level and have replaced by commercial uses. The structures on the bay side of the property were consolidated to the separation at the westerly ( Woody's Wharf) property line. Building K adjacent to Woody's has been modified with the removal of all windows on northerly side and the building has been shifted 6 feet for a buffer of 13 feet and an 8 -foot masonry wall is now proposed and a loan zone for bldg A has been added. An additional condition is proposed to read "An 8 -foot high block wall with e foot high glass panel on top consistent with the architectural design of the project to be provided along the northerly property line to provide screenir between the Woody's Wharf Restaurant and the proposed mixed uses consistent with condition 72 which requires adequate site distances." An additional loading space was added in the western portion of the project on the deck level. Additional parking spaces were added to both the subterranean parking structure and the parking deck. Landscaping enhancements along the bay front and slipway. There are eight buildings with two units per building for a total of 16 dwelling units. Building C office has been redesigned to pull the stairway back away from the right -of -way to have pedestrian landing area located on -site and out of the public right -of -way. Bridge elevation at Newport Boulevard is at 8 feet with an increase of 2 feet to the deck area. The railing is designed to be vertical tubular steel. Page 4 of 18 ea/F:lUserslPLMSharedlGvarinlPC min eta11200611 1162006.htm 03/01/2007 panning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Discussion then focused on the following areas of concern: Landscaping and architectural articulation of the proposed 8 -foot wall on the M westerly side of the project. The width of the view corridor, especially on the bay side of the property. The timing of preparation of the detailed Construction Management and the Parking Management Plans. Width of the sidewalks is 10 feet. The second and third stories set back 2 feet on the front of the building facing Newport Boulevard. otant City Attorney asked if there was a condition related to filling the del of the bridge with tables and chairs, etc. such that you won't really have corridor. Is there any type of restriction related to this? Campbell answered there isn't a condition that would limit that. McDermott continued: The rendering for the bridge area is shown as outside the view corridor, part of the easement that we have to provide. The parking has been revised in the subterranean level with an increase number of spaces. The number of spaces that exceed the Coi requirement is 24. All the residential units have garages. Retail office parking includes 16 commercial carports and 152 stalls. Marina parking is 15 stalls for the 19 slips and is provided in tl subterranean parking and so marked and enforced. All deck level parking consist of garages and parking for commercial uses in carports. The subterranean parking has been redesigned and allows for very goi circulation. She then noted where the parking attendant placement coL be. The view corridor consists of 5,327 square feet, the proposed expan view corridor will now be 13,204 square feet to be protected by easement that perhaps would allow for tables and chairs. View corridors were then discussed as were the pedestrian and car across the bridge. ,ommissioner Hawkins asked if the bridge was an integral part of the lation and what the proposal was for Slip 19 and Condition 67 regal anent berthing. Is. McDermott answered it would be difficult as they would end up with aparate projects without access across the bridge. She then referred to the an and discussed ingress /egress and fire access. She then discussed Page 5 of 18 e: //F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min eta11200611 1 1 62006.htm 03/0112007 rianning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 18 of the slipway and the ability to have the berthing capability. pion continued on berthing types, keeping the view corridor opened condition(s). McDermott continued: The Statement of Overriding Conditions in Exhibit B regarding cult resources states the buildings are in good condition. We suggest using term "poor." Condition 14 - clarified that the noise ordinance standard should be mixed use not for multi - family. The mixed use standard is 60 dBA betw the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Condition 46 - requirement that elevators be gumey- accommodating. 1 would like to clarify that the commercial elevators will be gums accommodating but would prefer that elevators that only go the residen floors be residential elevators. According to the Code, elevators required for certain commercial areas over a certain square foota Because of the size of the square footage added into the 2nd and floors on building K, building areas are below the threshold that requires elevator. Therefore, there will be no commercial elevator because I handicap access is not required for that small of a space. Temple noted it is not necessary for the Commission to designate speck s of elevators; the Codes will be applied. We can, therefore, eliminate lition 46 as the Fire and Building Codes dictate these uses. Jnuing, Ms. McDermott noted: Condition 67 - limiting Slip 19 berthing operations will need to be discussed. Conditions 51 and 66 - refer to the Construction Traffic Management Plan and to the Parking Management Plan which have been submitted and the applicant offers to bring these back for your review and ultimate approval. She then noted the parking attendant locations on the exhibit. There either be booths or a gate system. Discussion continued on the easement, the recordation and orientation of corridor. Staff recommended that this recordation be conditioned along with Tract Map. Nark Malak, architect, noted: The configuration gives more opportunities for views. The prior we( shaped configuration is a view from a small area and he referred to exhibit. The rectangular configuration allows for more opportunities for views and an expansion. iscussion continued on the view corridor along with the ten -foot easement on )nt waterway and access. 03/01/2007 :: //F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min eta112006111162006.htm viannmg Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 18 Pommissioner Toerge noted: { { The Specific Plan stipulates that the property has to provide a view co and part of the nexus for allowing the height is an effort to create the corridor. The existence of the existing view corridor is irrelevant. The relevant consideration is an effective view corridor. He then compared this to other projects within the City. Referencing the exhibit, he noted the configurations. ssion continued on view corridor, pedestrian access, signs, parking and nmissioner Toerge noted that this site cannot be developed without a U mit. There are a multitude of trade -offs in this proposed project and it can eloped in a significantly different way to reflect some of his concerns. The a number of places throughout the City that give you FAR entitlement that y 't attain when you are obligated to meet the current Code. This may, in fact, of them. While the project may be under the FAR maximum limitation, it e d meet the requirements of development standards and guidelines in order aive approval, and in some cases, that means you can not get to the maxim( I or density. The entitlement of the property is subject to all applical idards and codes, not simply the maximum floor area ratio and densities. McDermott noted that the entitlement allows for 43 units and t sing to do 27 units so there are fewer residential units than would be the mixed use designation. loner Henn noted we should consider a balanced view of this where requests a project that is less (intense) in some respects. imissioner McDaniel noted he is in favor of not having the 19th slip be a N due to the discussion on the view corridor. It is a valuable asset to the City s that view corridor without a boat in the way. We need to keep this o missioner Hawkins suggested having this slip for loading and not having ing at all. He indicated his appreciation that the applicant has made ges based on the Commission's concerns. He then asked about the c corridors gaining footage. Commissioner Henn noted his concern of having available space for boaters tl are using the bay to tie up for a short periods of time to patronize a shop 'estaurant. Ar. Ken McKently, architect, referencing the exhibit, discussed the orientation he buildings, elimination of windows, and narrowing paseos as to extend t width) of the view corridor by approximately 6 feet. Wssion continued on view corridors and paseos. Is. McDermott noted that the applicant is requesting that sale of small boats bi lowed so that there might be small boats that are stored here in some respec >nnected to the marine uses that would be encouraged in those commercia e : //F:lUsersTLN1SharedlGvarinlPC min 1 1 1 1 1 62006.htm 03101/2007 rlanning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 continued on a possible height restriction. comment was opened. Steinbrecker, local resident, noted: 30 -year resident of the City. 3 -story height limit of the buildings on the street is a shock for people to see. Is a 35 -foot wall along Newport Boulevard really what you want to see? This is a massive facade and recommends that it be staggered back from the street. This development will put pressure on the City when future come in with their project. Three -story buildings will change things and be detrimental to the feel of area. She suggested staggering the roof height. Sarventi, partner of Woody's Wharf, noted: Having residences next to their establishment is problematic. Following discussions with the proponent, they (proponent) have offered put buffers on that side of the project as well as the sound wall and I offer to maintain that wall with no windows on that side of the buildi and beefed -up those disclosures. They have offered to bring in their no consultants to attenuate noise inside our restaurant. We feel better abi this development. The buildings along that area are in poor shape and a development such this is a positive thing for the City. The concerns raised in the letter from their attorney have been met and feel much better about this proposed project. Traffic and parking and noise complaints coming from the development their biggest concerns. :ommissioner Hawkins suggested a condition be added related to the ittenuation in Woody's Wharf. :ommissioner McDaniel noted that Woody's Wharf also has the responsibility ontrolling noise and traffic on their property for the benefit of other neighbors 10 m Wasco, representing the Crab Cooker, noted: He noted that considerable consideration has been given to Woody's in the form of increased setback, sight and sound wail, no windows Page 8 of 18 e: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \11162006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 9 of 18 (their establishment and removal of residential next to that wall. Referring to the elevation with the Crab Cooker on it, he noted that 1 have zero lot lines and have residences looking straight down. They concerned with the mitigation done for Woody's. He suggests that a consideration of not having balconies on their side of project and possible more than a zero lot line. missioner Hawkins noted that the Crab Cooker was represented at the la ing and no real concerns were noted other than the stability of the commc Woody's is a different type of operation than the Cooker. Odors may be ern with the open walkway and perhaps there may be some way to wo A that. Perhaps the applicant can work with the Crab Cooker to addre: concerns. iissioner Henn noted the issue of the abruptness of the height change raised and asked Mr. Wasco how troubled he was by the height ch; en the Crab Cooker and the higher building. Wasco noted if this is within the Code then it is the landowner's right Slop his property as such. He noted that another view corridor can >idered that leads back to the bay by the area of the Crab Cooker. Griffith, representing Mr. Rubian, owner of the Crab Cooker, noted: They suggest that in the balcony area sound glass be installed to smoke, odor and noise. The Construction Management Plan should not allow staging in the area as it will be problematic for their delivery trucks and patrons. On the disclosure to the public, it would be appropriate to get input both Woody's Wharf and them before it would be adopted. m followed on the disclosure, protection, input and approval by Director and notification to the Planning Commission. Campbell then noted a minor change to condition 51, Richard Pappas from Woody's Wharf noted their concern about residential and commercial uses. He noted his appreciation for the applicant and the work being proposed. Public comment closed. Dommissioner Toerge noted: Notice requirement to residence buyer - Condition 64 should reference buyers and owners and not lessees. The last sentence needs to be re- worded. Notice should be given at the time a purchase agreement is executed and not at the time a deed is executed. This way it is up front and not after the fact. The notice needs to be re- worded and should be a notice to not just the first) buyer but to subsequent buyers. Existing uses will change over time and e : //F: \UserS\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \11162006.htm 03/01/2007 ridimmg Uommission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 10 of 18 that fact needs to be reflected in the verbiage. Referencing the site. plan he continued noting his concerns: 0 The largest retail building on the project has no adjacent loading area. All parking for this retail building is in the garage and there is no parking and there should be some. Dissatisfied with the overall site plan and questioned if it meets the intent the Speck Plan and the Codes that we have. Appreciates the changes to the subterranean parking as presented which makes it far more reasonable to use. There should be an ingress /egress on the southerly lane to create access into the deck level to give residents and visitors a more reasot alternative to get in and out of the site. Asked for and received an explanation of the locations of trash throughout the project by Mr. Malak. Mr. Absha Anabar, of ETCO Investments, noted: Trash enclosures have been addressed and the site is designed so that office, retail and commercial uses will be provided with professio janitorial services. All of these units will have this janitorial service that will bring the trash do to the parking structures or to various locations on site. Referring to I site plan, he pointed out the various locations. All residential units will have curb pick -up according to City standards. Commissioner Toerge noted further concerns: Coastal access issues: 919 Bayside - access 8 feet unrestricted; 28th Marina - 9 -10 feet unrestricted Six feet for this project is too narrow to provide reasonable access along bulkhead and not consistent with the projects that have been cited. Pedestrian access needs to be provided on the bridge and large enough people to circulate safely. 19th Street slip - allowing permanent access impedes the view easem and there needs to be a definition between temporary and permanent there is no dispute. Parking - no surface or deck level parking for the multitude of commei and retail facilities that are going to be here; this is a serious flaw of plan. arking Management Plan (PMP) and parking layout plan go hand in hand. Thil I an is not really clear as it references stations where people might come in to pay, gates. These need to be firmly established and referenced on the PIMP that ties e: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \11162006.htm 03/01/2007 manning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 11 of 18 �into the specifics of the physical development. This project does not do this yet. A complete PMP needs to be reviewed by the Planning Commission needs to be prepared in conjunction with the site plan. Deck level pai is important as an attraction element for potential customers. He then discussed potential enhancements for the subterranean facility. The 35 foot wall on the newer plan may lessen the noise impact for Buildh K; it makes the property less compatible with the adjacent property which open. He then noted several abrupt height changes on the property Iii which he feels compromises the compatibility issue The 8 -foot wall on the property line would need some specific approval. encouraged that the wall as it moves toward the street step d somewhat as there is an abruptness of an 8 -foot tall with a 4 -foot g panel on top. The sound attenuation needs to be addressed on Newport Boulevarc according to the EIR and along the property line by the Crab Cooker. Double -paned windows or other measures need to be implementer throughout the whole project as this is an integration of commercial anc residential uses. There should be more than one ingress point to the decl level of the project. The southerly drive to the deck level at 22nd Stree and Arcade should allow ingress and egress. There is a requirement to have a view corridor. The effectiveness of view corridor is relevant to the redevelopment of this entire site. proposal to have boats taller than the bridge seems to obstruct the and defeats the purpose of the view corridor. The Construction Management Plan (CMP) contains a lot of variables. does represent a positive effort by the owner /development. However, doesn't measure up to the detail that I want to see as it relates to satisfyii the requirements of the EIR. McDermott noted that they can bring the Construction Management Plan Parking Management Plan back to the Commission. The idea of n anuation is appropriate and they are willing to provide the glass walls over ib Cooker and intend to meet all of the noise requirements. They agree to v a step down wall by Woody's Wharf. Noting the exhibit, she identified retail is adjacent to the buildings in addition to parking below grade. Commissioner Hawkins noted a correction on the draft resolution for the Tract in paragraph 11 which talks about archeological and historic resources. Follo a brief discussion it was suggested to add, "....to the extent possible." ;hairperson Cole referenced the following issues: Ulding height request: Smissioner Eaton - findings can be made. We will be seeing more 35 -foot uildings in the future. ommissioner Henn - agrees with these comments adding this increase in height )es allow for more view corridor. e : //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlGvarinlPC min eta11200611 1 1 62006.htm 03/01/2007 riammmg Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 12 of 18 ommissioner McDaniel - wall next to Woody's Wharf is a concern. The wall uld be shorter as it gets to the water. He suggests some sort of articulation and of a flat wall. nissioner Eaton suggested a condition regarding articulation and utilization -led windows subject to the approval of the Planning Director and the sat on the 8foot plus 4foot wall as it approaches Newport Boulevard. agreed this could be done and conditioned. tmissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the view corridor with the additional as a benefit. i Cole noted consensus on the height and adding a condition on on Building K and staff will decide how it drops down. continued. Sarventi noted that the 8 -foot wall was suggested as a means to block with the list, Chairman Cole noted: Residential use on the deck level has been addressed. Delivery service vehicles access has been addressed. ?dmonston noted that there is no established City criteria on the proximity of ng spaces and where they are provided in some of the older commercial s. We try to place them where they are most useful for the majority of tesses. The problem may be if you have delivery drivers who are in a rush, will park where it is convenient for them. However, we get few complaints on missioner Hawkins noted there should be no parking on the bridge. inuing with the list, Chairman Cole noted: Parking /Construction Management Plan - is it City protocol to require these at this stage of an application for our review? r r. Campbell answered not usually; however, with projects of this size that he whole site with excavation, we have required them up front for review. conditions have been made that these are subject to review by the Pla Director and City Engineer. =ollowing a discussion on a possible public hearing for the review of :onstruction Management Plan, it was decided to amend Condition 51 to t his back for review by the Planning Commission. The Parking Management I loes not necessarily need to be publicly noticed. dmonston noted that the Parking Management Plan as presented is omplete. ommissioner Toerge noted the PMP and CMP provided by a previous applicantl it Our Lady Queen of Angels proposed project was reviewed in -depth by th e: //F.kUsers\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \11162006.htm 03/01/2007 riammng Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 13 of 18 (Planning Commission. He went on to list the deficiencies in this proposal. nmissioner Peotter noted this is a proposal for a shopping center that mg all the requirements per Code. They are not proposing that there be p, ing now, and if they do, they will need to come back and have it reviewed satisfaction of the City Engineer. Most of the issues that may come up will mical in nature and not public in nature and staff can handle it. >ioner Eaton noted his agreement with previous comments. :d that Condition 66 have an added noticing requirement and that is appealable. Henn noted his agreement. nissioner McDaniel noted the concerns of the Crab Cooker proprietor. to know what is going on especially in the arcade area and how it will in continued on parking resulting in possible changes to the site plan. issioner Hawkins noted that if there is a design change in the site plan, if such change wouldn't have to come back for review. Campbell answered it would unless the Planning Director felt it was tantial conformance with the Conditions of Approval. If the driveways chan ings change or are not within staffs comfort level, changes would be brou for review. Cole offered his understanding of Planning Commission Condition 66 with the added language that we provide notice to owners and that the decision of the City Traffic Engineer and Planr are appealable to the Commission, The Planning Commission agreed. parking issues - consensus was met. ar on Crab Cooker side, full height glass on balcony level - consensus as condition. Staging in Arcade Street - Condition 51 covers this; consensus to include won regarding poor performance pursuant to the PMP will be further reviewed by Traffic Engineer. Input on disclosure language - subject to City Attorney approval referenced Dondition 64. There was consensus to add content and change "lease' to "dee ind provide notice at time purchase contract is executed. Noticing will be done vithin 300 feet. Discussion continued. .andscaping issues - Commissioner Hawkins noted it should not restrict the vii dor. Staff suggested memorializing the view corridor as presented by t cant tonight including specifics. The consensus was that landscape plan is e reviewed by staff and incorporated within the easement referenced in Conditi 1. iew corridor - reducing the walkways down to 6 feet to allow an additional 4 e : //F:1UserslPLN\SharedlGvarinlPC min eta112006t11162006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 the right hand side of the slipway. There was consensus to require this. -joint ingress and egress on the south side of the property instead of just Henn noted he prefers one -way egress. 3mmissioner Toerge noted the restriction of left hand turn into the cui cation. The only way someone coming down the peninsula can access this to drive down 22nd Street and make a U -tum. stant City Attorney Harp added that there is a no parking area in the : of way and ultimately a decision will have to be made whether to allow and possibly increase parking there. Referencing the site plan, this F identified. Edmonston added that the City Council can make the decision if that could entry area, or if the overall benefit would suggest having additional parking. ;cussion continued on Encroachment Permit requirement, limited parking in :a, entry way access point, no loss of parking in the public right -of way, surf parking on site, access to water benefit, aesthetics of the arcade area, ety. Consensus was to keep as proposed on the current plan. front walkway issue - Mr. McKently, architect for the project, noted that J make the sidewalk wider, 8 feet for sidewalk with 2 feet for landscape. noted this would be an aesthetic call for the Planning Commission. 8 well. 2 feet can work for landscaping. owing discussion, the consensus was for the wider walkway at 8 feet with for landscaping along the bay. The walkway will be widened on the side bridge to 6 feet for pedestrian access. wells in the deck going down into the subterranean parking - Mr. McKently tect for the project, noted there are two concerns: they might lose stalls anc are taking landscaping from the top and moving it below. There are some �s where this can be done and not affect the parking count. We are open tc attenuation - needs to be done throughout the project site. This ed in Condition 61. Commissioners agreed. Mr. Campbell noted Condition 14 should reflect the standards in the Code; 45 dBA for interior noise and 60 dBA for exterior noise. 311p 19 - Used drop off people at the shops. The height needs to be tempered io overnight parking. The bridge height is 4 1/2 feet above the dock. No m and used by Duffy boats and gondoliers only. U.Campbell noted that the dredged depth in the slip will be shallow, roughly At low tide you may be able to park a Duffy and nothing else. You are n omg to be able to get a large boat in there. ollowing discussion, it was decided that Slip 19 be used for two -hour berthing iything 4 feet above the deck. Page 14 of 18 e: //F:\UserslPLN\SharedlGvarin\PC min eta11200611 It 62006.htm 03/01/2007 Fianning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Campbell added a condition that the garages be unobstructed and used ;ing only with no storage. There are at least 8 to 10 more conditions :her 8 -10 being amended. He does not have the language for all of these naested that these be brought back at the next meeting for review if Imission would like. Cole noted that would be acceptable. Anabar of ETCO noted that they are in agreement with all of the i. Temple noted that a condition needs to be added that the public access ni be signed from all public right -of -way entries. The proponent agreed to that. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Cot > to approve Use Permit No. 2001 -038, Site Plan Review No. t Beach Tract Map No. 2004 -003 and certification of the Ern Report as presented tonight subject to all the findings and 3 those to be affirmed by the Commission at the next meeting. nmissioner Toerge noted the accommodations requested in the application complexity of the project. He noted he would not be in support of the prc to the abrupt scale of the box -like structures, poor parking distribution fot tmercial uses and lack of a secondary ingress /egress point at 22nd Street. hairperson Cole noted that the applicant has addressed the major concerns of e Commission; this is a type of project that meets the intent of the McFadden re Specific Plan for a mixed -use development; we had very little public nt for his oroiect and it will areativ enhance the area. Ayes: I Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Henn oes: Toerge bstain: None 407, 409, 411 & 413 31 st Street Permit to establish a height limit of 31 -feet, exceeding the base height limit eet, for the construction of four mixed -use buildings and approval of imercial floor area ratio (FAR) less than the minimum 0.25 FAR required + :d -use development projects. In addition, the applicant is requesting t roval of a Modification Permit to allow parking spaces to encroach within t t and rear setbacks and a lot line adjustment to adjust the interior prope > of four lots into four equally -sized parcels. Temple reported that this item is to be continued to December 7, 2006. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by McDaniel to continue this item to December 7. 2006. Ayes: I Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Henn Noes: None 4bstain: None Hoag Healthcare Center (PA2006 -113) 500 -540 Superior Ave Use Permit to allow the conversion of 97,000 square feet of research evelopment (R &D) /general office use to medical office use. The project incl ITEM NO.4 PA2006 -031 Continued to 12/07/2006 ITEM NO. S PA2006 -113 Continue to 12/07/2006 Page 15 of 18 le: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \11162006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 16 of 18 he demolition of one of the existing buildings and the construction of an additional parking structure that exceeds the maximum building bulk limitation for the site. Additionally, approval of a Traffic Study is being requested pursuant to the City of port Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Temple reported that this item is to be continued to December 7, 2006. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissione McDaniel to continue this item to December 7, 2006. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Henn Noes: None Abstain: None ITEM No. 6 SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -007 (PA2006 -211) PA2006 -211 Day Care Regulations , , ould Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amendedl approval revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children an )se for adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards? Jerson Cole noted that this item would be heard first as a member of has requested. ssioner Henn noted he would abstain from discussion and vote on as he had not participated in the initial meeting on this subject. Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting This item had been heard at the public hearing on October 19th. This is a set of regulations dealing with large family child care homes and intended to allow the City to avail itself of the land use controls permitt under State Law. Staff was directed to return with this item with an off - street parking stand which in our report deals with the standards in the Institute Transportation Engineers publication Parking Generation representative standards for parking from other communities. The staff report includes a recommendation that the off street park standard be set as two off - street parking spaces and a drop -off and pick area approved by the City's Traffic Engineer and that a driveway could used for this purpose. This is in addition to any required off- street park for the actual dwelling unit on the property. Public comment was opened. Joe Garrett, local resident, noted: • He lives next to a day care center. Concerned with lighting with flood lights in a residential area. Concerned also with the noise and traffic issues related to this use as well. leJ/F: \Users\PLNlSharedlGvarinTC min eta112006111162006.htm 03/01/2007 riammng Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 17 of 18 He asked that something be added to the current Municipal Code wit regards to lighting in a residential neighborhood. I inquiry, he added: Pick -up and drop -off occur at a red- painted curb in front and there are cars waiting in line. We have 3 -foot setbacks. At times he has to use ear protection in order to rest during the day it is so loud with the children playing outside in the front yard. The front yard is fenced. comment was closed. Alford noted that there are no current standards for residential lighting and it is re of a common standard regarding shielding direction away for commercia as. State preemptions limit us to controls dealing with issues of concentratior I spacing, traffic, parking and noise. Effects of light impacts may not fall withir se categories. Our noise control standard would limit the overall operation t< hours between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. and outdoor activities betweer hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p,m., so this might provide some relief from the lighting. suggested that this issue be addressed in a general standard for residentia a dealing with light and glare. remple added that perhaps the designation for outdoor lighting of swin > and tennis courts might be applicable. She noted that the State preen restrict this application and staff will, therefore, work with the City Atto and present findings at the Council meeting, if the Commission wishes. Alford added that the proposed standards have added language that the ;s be essentially residential in character. The care provider residen dard states that this use is clearly residential in use and character a iental and secondary to the use of the property as a residence. The Zonii iinistrator, in reviewing these future use permits, can use this as a way :rolling lighting and some other types of activities that might deviate from ientiai character of the area. At Commission request, Ms. Temple read Section 20.60.050 entitled Lighting. :ommissioner Peotter asked about the employee parking. Ar. Alford noted the survey was taken on a number of day care facilities ifferent settings and are not the small ones in residential neighborhoods and t1 iey are the larger commercial facilities as the number of children indicates, w n average of 85. He noted there are no set staffing requirements and can open ith a single care provider. It would be problematic to try and enforce a stand,, ,at could change over time by adding /removing employees, adding /removing i O'er of children. scussion continued on review processes. wirperson Cole noted we could recommend approval of this item to the Ci )until and request that staff add additional language regarding lighting :: //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlGvarinlPC min eta112006111162006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 18 of 18 estrictions. ommissioner Hawkins noted that perhaps another standard relating to residential ing needs to be inserted in the Code. The staff report needs to include this ideration. ssistant City Attorney Harp noted his agreement that there may be genera tandards in the code that need to be altered and that general regulations that pply. ion made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commission aniel to recommend approval to the City Council by adopting the resolution staff is dire cted to do further research regarding residential lighting for then all residential facilities. [nd s: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge s: None tain: Henn ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted the City Council considered an approved the Marine Charter Land Use Parking Regulations; the Grou Residential Facilities Code Amendment; continued the Big Canyon Count Club General Plan Amendment until January 9th at the request of the applicant as there was concern over the pending EIR litigation and the appeal for Our Lady Queen of Angels expansion was denied. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no report. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coasta Committee - no meeting. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Peotter would like to see the meetings organized better and suggested that there be an annual Zone Code clean -up. Discussion ensued and this item will be brought back i January. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Henn has been elected to the City Council, therefore, this is his last meeting he will be attending. Following a brief discussion, it was decided to start the next meeting a 5:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 p.m. ADJOURNMENT ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION le: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \11162006.htm 03/01/2007