Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-18-2005Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 4 4 Page 1 of 17 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS one None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on August 12, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of August 4, 2005. ITEM NO. 1 Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to pull this item from the conseni Approved calendar and approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Panini Mediterranean Restaurant ITEM NO.2 4647 MacArthur Blvd. PA2005 -155 'equest to amend Use Permit No. 2002 -040 to extend the hours of operation of the Approved Panini Mediterranean Restaurant from 1:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. aime Murillo, Associate Planner, clarified an error in the staff report relating to th file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Page 2 of 17 enced resolution and conditions for approval for Use Permit 2002 -040. ✓ertently the draft resolution was attached instead of the final approved resolutior conditions which were slightly modified at the Planning Commission meeting. afore, proposed condition 50 recommending the additional security for the ional hours of operation should actually be condition number 51. then gave a brief overview of the staff report noting the previous approvals and t uested closing hour of Panini restaurant only from 1 a.m. to 4 a.m. to provide i ✓ice, late night dining. No alcohol will be served after 1:30 a.m. Staff suggests tl wance for a one -year trial period to see what the demand for additional I; :)rcement services will be. Staff also suggests a condition to provide additioi urity in compliance with the comprehensive security plan for the additional hours iration, which should reduce the need for additional law enforcement services. Murillo explained the security plan that had been provided in 2002 had bee awed by the Police Department as it is their responsibility to see to full compliance. ,nmissioner Eaton noted he had asked staff about a need for a new resolution a ifirmed one was not required for this item. He asked about the waiver of parking t. Mr. Murillo answered that the Planning Commission waived 174 parking spa( condition that the applicant obtain an on -site parking management plan. Discuss awed on a written off -site parking agreement and the need for a new resolution )roval with possible continuance. nmissioner Hawkins asked if the applicant had been in compliance since notice non - compliance. He was answered yes. missioner Tucker asked if any complaints concerning the parking or se( cts of this operation had been received. He was answered neither issue reported. % Ghazi, in response to Commission inquiry, noted he has read and staff report and conditions and findings. comment was opened. is comment was closed. missioner Eaton noted his concern about affirming a resolution that waived ng spaces without requiring the off -site agreement which had been offered by cants at the time. '.ommissioner Hawkins noted the same concern adding that when there may be >eparate ownership it may be problematic. He noted this is an ideal location at I airport area for this use; however, some plans in the General Plan update may have mpact on this and other applications in conflict with proposed residential uses in tl ion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the amendment to Use Perry 2002 -040 by amending condition 12 to temporarily expand the hours of operatic Panini for 1 year and incorporate condition 51 to require additional security iitor the restaurant during the extended hours of operation. He added that in th icular location we had restaurant facilities operating there before and basically tt file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Page 3 of 17 (hours of operation were similar during the prime traffic hours; it seems to be working imissioner McDaniel noted his concern that the cafe had been enforced on fl 'ating after the 1:00 a.m. closing time. If possible, can we add to the motion that happens again, this item comes back for deliberation immediately? scussion followed on the procedure for revocation if the law is violated and th itomatic procedure set up in that event. Ms. Temple added that if there are violations i the conditions of the liquor license, suspension and /or potential revocation could :cur. The police department does monitor underage serving and after hours serving. ie Alcohol Beverage Control Board takes action if there are violations. )mmissioner McDaniel asked for this item to come back if there is a violation. s. Temple answered that the Police will notify Planning if there are violations. r. Harp noted that this could be subject to review immediately if there is a violation o e conditions. ;ioner Henn noted this item would come back to the Planning Department to the Commission. Ms. Temple answered that if it is deemed a revocation, or an amendment to conditions is necessary, it would be heard by the Planning Commission. yes: Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Tucker and Henn oes: Eaton bsent: None bstain: None SUBJECT: Saagar Fine Indian Cuisine ITEM NO. 3 4248 Martingale Way PA2005 -026 Use Permit and Traffic Study approval to allow the operation of an eating and drinking Approved stablishment (restaurant) and to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance (ABO). Additionally, the request involves approval of a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The property is located in the Newport Place Planned Community District. Jaime Murillo gave an overview of the staff report noting that this restaurant will occupy a current vacant building. The proposed restaurant will have a total net public area of 2,696 square feet with minor cosmetic changes to the interior and exterior of the building. The project will provide a total of 62 parking spaces on site with rights to use adjacent restaurant parking spaces, if available, through a reciprocal parking agreement. The applicant's request for a Type 47 ABC license for on site consumption is in compliance and meets the required findings of the City's Alcoholic Beverage Control Outlet Ordinance. The applicant requests approval of a traffic study prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The study concluded the project will not ause or make worse unsatisfactory levels at any of the nine intersections studied. Gurcharan Singh Sandher, applicant, at Commission inquiry, noted he has read and understands the conditions of approval and that they are acceptable to him. He file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 4 r 4 Page 4 of 17 hanked the Commission for allowing him to have his restaurant. Public comment was opened. ublic comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve Use Permit No. 2005 -004 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -003, subject to the findings and conditions of approval. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent- None Abstain: None OBJECT: Le Quai Restaurant ITEM NO.4 2816 Lafayette Avenue PA2006 -041 n amendment to Use Permit No. 3578 to allow a 293 square foot expansion of an Approved existing restaurant into an adjacent retail suite for a new lobby and hallway entrance into the restaurant. A waiver of the required parking spaces associated with the addition is also requested. The property is located in the SP -6 (Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area) District. aime Murillo gave a brief overview of the staff report adding that the proposed xpansion is an existing as -built condition which the Building Department has cited the applicant for and required them to obtain proper permits. ommissioner McDaniel asked if the 293 square foot retail suite had parking spaces ,located to it. He was answered no. Roberta Jorgensen, architect representing the applicant, clarified that the small addition is an interior addition only and provides access for a small restroom. At Commission inquiry, she noted they have read and understand the conditions of approval. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the amendment to Use Permit No. 3578 (PA2005 -041) subject to the findings and conditions. Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the proximity of the municipal parking facility that is the parking lot owned by the City. There are metered parking spaces along the streets, but in the City, those parking spaces are taken virtually all the time. here is a parking problem and we are waiving a substantial number of parking paces. He is concerned about losing this resource and encouraged the City to begin its efforts to adopt n in -lieu parking fee program. yes: I Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Tucker and Henn oes: None bsent: None None file: //14: \Plancomm \2005 \081805.btm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Page 5 of 17 UBJECT: Newport Marina LLC ITEM NO. 5 S 919 Bayside Drive I PA2005 -072 ie applications would allow the redevelopment of the Newport Marina Apartment Continued to >mplex located at 919 Bayside Drive. The existing 64 -unit apartment complex, located 09/08/2005 i approximately 4.78 acres, would be demolished and replaced with a 17 -unit, gated sidential community. The tentative tract map proposes to establish 17 individual sidential lots for custom home construction, 1 common recreational lot with possibly pool and shade structure, 2 landscape /open space lots and waterfront lot containing )ating docks (existing). Private streets are proposed. A request to re -zone the site by )plying the PRD (Planned Residential Development) overlay to the existing MFR 178) zoning designation is also included. The proposed PRD overlay and ;companying Use Permit would establish development regulations related to lot average and setbacks specifically for this planned residential development. The )astal residential development permit is required as 64 residential units are proposed be demolished within the coastal zone and the project must be reviewed for )mpliance with the Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act). The project also eludes the demolition of the existing apartment building and all associated structures, ading, installation of utilities, private streets, landscaping, site lighting, site walls, ater quality improvements, access easements and upgrades to the public right of way ijacent to the project site. ommissioner Tucker recused himself from deliberation on this item. hairman Toerge noted his proposed areas of discussion: • City and applicant's notice requirements and compliance. • Boundary of the project. • Consider a General Plan Amendment for single family residential. • Height limit of the proposed houses. • Entry drive design and landscape details. • Specific location and design of the perimeter wall along Bayside Drive. • Building setbacks from Bayside for all buildings, setbacks between buildings on site and setbacks between the streets and the buildings. • Minimum yard dimensions. • Visitor parking requirements for both single family residential zone and multi- family residential zone. • Public access through the site, gated private streets, sidewalks, gang ways to the docks. • Lateral access to the coast on the land or on the floating dock as proposed by the applicant. • Design of the access to the walkway at Bayside Drive and Lot B. • Elevation differences and wall height between Lot B and project elevation. • Dedication of Lots G and F, which are both submerged lots below the mean high tide line. • Ownership of the slips and related parking. • Partial dock dedication for public access and use. • Review comprehensive landscape plan for Bayside frontage, Lot B, entry and disposition of current trees. • Site drainage provisions and water quality concerns. • Statement concerning the operating characteristics of the neighboring Balboa Marine boat yard. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Page 6 of 17 Commissioner Eaton added: I • Intent of the PRD zone without elevations. • Nature of the permanency of existing easement over the docks, which is relied upon by the applicant to provide their coastal access. Temple introduced: • David Lepo, of Hogle Ireland as the project manager. • Pat Alford, Senior Planner is present to offer assistance on questions of the Coastal Act, LCP and provisions of the implementation plan, etc. Campbell, Senior Planner, discussed the first four items: The City sent out the appropriate notices as required by law for both the meeting and the environmental document. At Commission inquiry, he added that the condo conversion ordinance and special notices related there to does not apply to this project. Boundary - referencing an exhibit on the screen, noted the tract map does extend into the bay. Staff sought a General Plan amendment to single - family from multi - family when the application originally came forward. The applicant had submitted an application for a general plan amendment to put it into the single family zone as well as a zone change to put it in the R -1 zone. However, the applicant is not pursuing that application and has chosen to leave the project in the multi - family zone. The differences between the two zoning standards are setbacks and building heights. The difference in the building height limits between the R -1 and MFR zones is 4 feet. The applicant was originally seeking a height limit that was even in excess of the multi - family zone at that time. Staff had indicated that would not work. The applicant then decided not to pursue a general plan amendment and zone change and to leave it in the multi - family zone. A subsequent application on this project came in for the Planned Residential Development Overlay. This overlay allows the City to provide flexibility in setbacks standards only. discussion followed on future traffic conditions due to the change of use from multi - mily site as opposed to single family site. missioner McDaniel asked if there was a possibility for two or three units on a lot? Campbell answered that if they could park it, they could increase units. The licant has indicated that they plan for CC and R's that would prohibit that kind of . Temple noted that regardless of what is contained in the CC and R's, those are ,ate agreements and covenants. If a person came to the City with a building permit uest that met all the development standards for more than one unit including king, the City would still issue that permit regardless of what the CC and R's said. It ild be up to the homeowners' association to make sure that their covenants are Discussion followed on visitor parking requirements that is addressed in the Planned Residential Development overlay that requires 4 parking spaces per unit and the MFR file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 that requires 2.5 spaces per unit. Commission inquiry, staff noted that the height limits for a single family is 24 feet to midpoint of the sloping roof or flat roof, and in multi - family zone it is 28 feet to the Jpoint of the sloping roof or flat roof. The peak of a sloping roof can be 5 feet McDermott, of Government Solutions, representing the applicant noted the ing referencing a PowerPoint presentation: • Location of project in proximity to the Bayside Cove Condominiums, Promontory Channel, Balboa Yacht Basin, Newport Beach Yacht Club, homes and shopping center. • Bayside Drive realignment and development with Coastal Commission review. • Walkway on the floating docks. • The need of the property for significant improvements that would require extensive renovations. • Due to financial issues, it was determined to replace these 64 -unit apartments with 17 custom lots creating a single family area in what was a multi - family area. • The dedication of the bay front public walkway easement that exists now across the front of the property on a floating headwalk at the desire of the Coastal Commission to carry this across to the east. • The site plan displaying an entrance, drive aisles with gate. • Lot A in the center will be a combination of open space and /or pool and would be a private recreational area open to residents of the community. • An easement down to the docks. • Access for residents to the walkway exists in two forms. • The architecture of Carl Aitkin's will create design standards and guidelines that will be imposed upon the owners for cohesiveness and flexibility conforming to the height limits of a maximum of 28 feet with a feeling of old Newport. • The project entry design. • 13 homes have water frontage and will have either sloping lots to the water or small retaining walls allowing grade change with landscaping. • Reduction of density from 64 units, creating a new custom lot community with design guidelines. • Water quality issues were discussed and due to the mitigation proposed will be less of an impact. • Existing trees will need to be removed due to the extensive root system and the additional setback to be provided. • A fully landscaped open front area in the middle of the project is an important amenity to the community. • Dedication of the bay front public walkway easement will be re- designed to accommodate ADA access at Bayside Drive. An easement for the front of the property for the public walkway will be given. • The walkway along Bayside extends down the bay front and the Promontory Channel across the front of the property on to the east. If this was placed on the land, because of the complication of the land to the east, the fact that they are owned by over 50 separate owners, and the ability to redevelop that site suggests that providing the walkway along the entire frontage along the floating dock is in fact providing the appropriate access to the community. Our only proposals are the ADA upgrades as well as the proposed easement over the floating walkway. • A portion of the walkway within the ten foot easement was less than 6 feet in Page 7 of 17 file: //H:1Plancomm�20051081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Page 8 of 17 width. Part of this area is planted and Public Works noted that as long as the planter was modified to allow a minimum clearance of 6 feet, they felt that would meet the requirement and intent at that location. • She then gave a description of the gangplank and walkway and the ADA requirements needed. • There was then a lengthy discussion on the location and design of the public access and the existing wall line, retaining walls, bulkheads, pad elevations and changes in grade. • The zoning allows for up to 78 units but a determination was made for this project and would agree to any conditions assuring that single family development. • We are proposing no interior sidewalks in order to minimize the impervious surfaces. • The Coastal Development Permit will require this project to go on to the City Council and then to the Coastal Commission for approval. • There may be two or three car garages that may be 18 feet back from the curb and the building portion could conceivably be 5 feet from the curb as it is the rear yard with the front facing on the water. It would not be the whole yard, as we are preserving a requirement that there be parking on the driveway. • Environmental analysis concluded there were no impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant. We have met the requirements. • Community outreach - the tenants were notified of a proposed change in use by letter April 19th 2005. The notices were mailed and delivered as well. The letter included the option to extend the lease period. A community meeting notice to each of the residents was sent out and that was held June 23, 2005. All tenants and surrounding property owners were invited. A full presentation on the project with a tentative schedule was made. • We understand the additional conditions that are being proposed relative to additional setbacks along the street and we are in agreement with the 4 foot additional setback for landscaping and the additional 10 foot setbacks behind the wall along Bayside Drive. • With regard to condition 4 on page 34 it refers to how the use permit might be modified or revoked. Because this is a custom lot program we were concerned, assuming that we get approval, once there are private property owners, we would hope that any revocation would apply on a lot by lot basis. It would be difficult once there are individual homes to revoke a use permit on all the properties for a particular violation on one property. • Condition 38 that relates to the sidewalk, we had requested the elimination of sidewalks because of the small nature of the community and our desire to reduce the impervious surfaces and to add to the charm of the community. • The height limit to be used is 28 feet and we feel that gives more variation in the types of roof treatments on a project of this type. • Regarding the characteristics of the neighboring marine boat yard, we recognize that and there will be a series of disclosures and that will be made very clear to the purchasers. We would work with staff regarding the wording on those disclosures. • A comprehensive landscape plan had been submitted with the application. • In terms of the ownership of the slips, the clients have a 80 year lease. The Irvine Company owns the slips to the east and her client owns the slips on this site. • The Coastal Commission has a condition on their prior approval that recognized that these private docks were located such that parking was not particularly convenient for the public. As a result the condition required that the slips must be utilized by people who either live in the apartments or the Cove or are a member file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 of the yacht club. That was designed to ensure that there was parking in proximity to those slips. We have tried to conform to that. :ussion ensued on parking in driveways, and 19 visitor spaces available; hydrology water quality noted in the negative declaration; project proponents providing cents sufficient notice to vacate the premises and /or be relocated. The applicant s to prepare a booklet that will assist the tenants with a listing of similar apartment: rental rates, floor plans, contact names and numbers, etc. components of the project discussed were: • Dock condition of the Coastal Commission. • Internal sidewalk system within the subdivision. • Public easements and storm drains. • Single family versus multi - family designation and the differences in possible zoning. comment was opened. May, resident of Newport Marina, noted: • He is concerned about losing his home. • The deterioration of the project has occurred recently under new management. • A lot of elderly residents live there. Hurly, resident of Newport Marina, noted his opposition to the project: • It is hard to understand what the project wants to do and may be in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act and there may be some deficiencies. • He asked that this item be continued for further review. May, resident of Newport Marina, noted: • What is the timeframe for current residents to vacate? • There are not many openings for rent. Daly, resident of Corona del Mar, noted: . The development will be a wonderful addition to the community. O'Hill, owner of the grounds of the proposed project, noted: • The lease will be 80 years only if this plan is approved in the near future. The current lease is substantially less. • There is one lease now to the tenant, Newport Marina LLC, and at the time the property is subdivided into 17 lots, then there will be 17 leases to each of the homeowners. • What they are selling is a spec custom home on leased hold land or, they are selling a leasehold interest in Lot 5 or Lot 6, which someone could design and build their custom home. • There is a master plan attached to the lease that states the development has to be done in a certain way. There is no clause that says an 8 foot sidewalk can be placed at the top of bulkhead on the north front, so that would be a violation of Page 9 of 17 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Page 10 of 17 the lease. The public access onto the dock along the south side of the project is preferable to one up on the bulkhead. The bulkhead line is 18 feet beyond where the bulkhead is for Newport Marina and the bulkhead could be extended to this line. The idea of a sidewalk along the front of the houses would take away from the aesthetics of the community. If there has to be a sidewalk, the place for it is around Lot A where it would provide access. Commission inquiry, he added: • Lots A, C and D belong to the Community Association and there is a tiny lease payment for those lettered lots. • The current lease would expire if this project is not approved and the landowner would have the option at the end of the lease of requiring the tenant either to take down all the buildings, take down some of the buildings, or take down none of the buildings. • The term of the existing lease is 25 years with a 15 year extension. Toerge noted that the plans were not clear. dine Mesgner, resident of Bayside Drive, noted she just moved in two years ago it is a beautiful place to live and is heartbroken that they are tearing it down. aul Ranty, one of the owners of Newport Beach Yacht Club, noted this project will be beautiful addition to the neighborhood and is in support of it. McDermott, representing the applicant, added: • Requesting the elimination of condition 38, and a clarification of 4. • The wall along the westerly property line will stay in the same format as exists today. • The trees along the bayside frontage will be replaced with new trees as the wall needs to be moved back and a planter added along the front of it. • Potential setback increase along the street frontage between the wall and the back of the houses. Discussion followed on the types and numbers of potential setback requirements. • Proposed agreement on the height restriction on the walkway along the floating dock. Campbell noted: • Staff is suggesting a minimum 4 foot wide landscape area behind the sidewalk and the perimeter wall along Bayside Drive to be located within the common Lots C and D. • Setbacks are incorporated in a table attached to the resolution. • Draft language requiring an easement across the floating walkway that is noted on the Tentative Map. • Access along the southside of the project site can be provided through an irrevocable easement up on dry land with a walkway provided in the future when it could connect to the east. (Carol McDermott, in answer to Commission inquiry noted: file : //H:1Plancomm120051081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Page 11 of 17 • The applicant would accept a permanent easement in connection with the walkway along with the maintenance. • It would be difficult in terms of the lease to accept a condition regarding a sidewalk on the properties. Campbell noted at Commission inquiry: • The bulkhead could not be moved to the south of the bulkhead line as findings under the Coastal Act could not be made. • The Coastal Act requires that developments provide maximum public access. rperson Toerge asked Ms. McDermott what would get redeveloped sooner, the Condominiums or the subject property? . McDermott answered there is public access to the property already. If we are uired to continue this access on land then we would be the only property for 50 - 80 irs that would have that easement whether it was exercised now or later. This perty is now under one ownership and has little opportunity to redevelop as those downers would hold onto it. Because there are 50 or more owners in The Cove with ividual ownerships, the likelihood of them giving that up is highly unlikely. She then borated upon the project referencing the exhibits. blic comment was closed. Commission inquiry, staff stated: • The City standards call for a 5 foot sidewalk width where it is adjacent to the street; and a minimum of 4 feet if there is a parkway between the sidewalk and the street. It must also comply with the American With Disabilities Act (ADA). • The public utilities easement under the sidewalk does not present any problems. • Lots 15, 16 and 17 minimum 10' yard required adjacent to public right -of -way. Alford, Senior Planner, at Commission inquiry noted: • A goal of the Coastal Act is to provide maximum public access to and along the coast which is reflected in the policies of the Coastal Act and our current certified Land Use Plan, which is a component of our Local Coastal Plan (LCP). • There are two forms of access, vertical which is access to the shoreline, and lateral which is access along the shoreline. • This project has all lateral access. • The policies of the Coastal Act and the LCP state that development shall not interfere with the public's right to access to the sea. The general concept is that the public has access below the mean high tide line. Because of the current design of the bulkhead that type of access is feasible. If that was a natural shoreline, you would have the right to walk below the mean high tideline. • It could be argued that the current development interferes with the public's right of access and that the proposed project perpetuates this impact. The public's right of access is to be protected and enhanced and expanded where feasible. • Another provision in the Land Use Plan is that public access be provided from the nearest public roadway to or along the coast with new development. • What you have to consider are issues of public safety, military needs and so forth and impacts to agriculture that is not relative in this case and whether adequate access exists nearby. file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Page 12 of 17 • It could be argued that the existing floating access may not be adequate in the sense that there is some ambiguity to the public's right to that currently, also, it is apparently 6 feet wide and has a dual purpose of providing access and has to be a dock. Normally, under new development we would require a minimum of a ten foot wide lateral access. • There are potential issues of public safety that might be eliminated by having a wider public access on land. • It has been stated several times that this was an agreement made by the Coastal Commission. I believe it was stated that this was circa 1974 and it essentially pre -dates the Coastal Act and may not meet today's standard to provide adequate lateral access. • The issue of a gated community is not directly addressed in the Coastal Act or the Land Use Plan. It has been an issue of increasing concern with the Coastal Commission. If you look at the Public Access Action Plan it specifically mentions stretches of coastline that are inaccessible due to private development in Orange County. It did not specify Newport Beach and is not singled out as being an issue. • Their concern is vast stretches of land being excluded from providing either vertical or lateral access. This is a small project and there is some form of access currently that could be enhanced, so a project of this scale being private or gated, is not a major impact to the access policies of the Coastal Act. hairperson Toerge noted that there are various items that need to be addressed. He en went through his list: . Single family residential versus multi - family residential. This is a single family development with a multi - family height. This project does not comply with the multi - family development of a 20 foot setback requirement from Bayside. Any one of these property owners will have the right to re -apply for multi - family permit or development on each of their lots. We are classifying this as a multi - family project and for all other analysis that might be done this property will be inaccurately characterized as multi - family when it is not. The more appropriate action is a General Plan Amendment to single family and a re -zone to single family residential. To be discussed are the 28 foot high overlay and the setbacks associated with single family. I would direct staff to process this project as a single family residential. ommissioner Eaton noted: . Does not understand what the differences would be in the height and the setbacks between single family and not sure the applicantllessee has the ability to ask for a zone change to a single family. ommissioner Hawkins noted: • The lease will affect what the applicant can do. • He is concerned that the Commission is giving direction to go back to the earlier application. • The mufti- family versus single family, we can discuss conditions that preserve and protect the City's ability to restrict the multi - family to what we are approving today. r. Campbell added: file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 The application originally came forward with a general plan amendment and a zone change going to single family. The application was signed by the lease hold interest but was not signed by the property owner. Following meetings with the property owner it did not appear that was the direction they wanted to go. This application tonight includes leave the site in the MFR zone and add the PRD overlay. The overlay allows the flexibility in the setback standards so the 20 foot setback to Bayside Drive can be modified. The setback flexibility comes at a cost of a 40% open space requirement and a four spaces per unit parking requirement, and those two items have been met. We can not re- process the application as a single family because that application is not complete and is not before the Commission. If it is deemed appropriate to put this in a single family zone, I would suggest that this application is not ripe for approval. sioner Cole note the PRD overlay gives flexibility to the City. He noted his of setbacks and height issues. ,ommissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the multi - family designation and would ike to see the single family designation. nmissioner Henn stated this is a single family development. He is concerned about ambiguity about what could happen to these properties in the future. His Terence would be a solution that involves a single family designation but that also ws findings for flexibility to address some of the setback issues. Campbell noted the Use Permit associated with the request for the Planned idential Development (PRD) can be conditioned limiting it to be a single family imissioner Henn noted that he is less concerned about single family versus multi - ly if he felt there was absolute assurance that under the multi - family PRD solution would be no further subdivision of the properties. Campbell noted it would be difficult to add those units because with the PRD ;rlay comes the requirement of 4 spaces per unit. The way this is designed, it would almost impossible to subdivide them. The only way to do it absolutely is to 5ignate the site single family by the Land Use Element. :ussion continued on the entry drive re- design, entry to the lateral access at side and the location of the wall. Commissioner Hawkins suggested that when the licant has finalized a detailed landscape plan, it could come back to the emission for approval as we have done on other projects, e.g., the wall required for St. Andrews project. There was a straw vote split 3 to 3 on whether to have a )iled landscape plan brought to the Commission for deliberation. son Toerge noted the building setbacks from Bayside, between dwellings the houses and the internal streets. Following a discussion on the MFR ent of 20 feet, it was determined that the PRD gives flexibility for setbacks. Lepo, consultant, noted that in the body of the staff report, it refers to the 5' R adjacent to the interior streets. Henn noted the fire access to the bay and staffs recommendation to Page 13 of 17 file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Page 14 of 17. Widen it. I I Lepo noted it was between Lots 5 and 6, and the applicant agreed to have the fire sss 6 feet wide paved plus the 5 foot wide setback. straw vote was taken on the appropriate setback from Bayside Drive, MFR is 20 feet, e applicant is proposing 5 feet, and staff is recommending 10 feet measured from the operty line at the common lot issioner Eaton agreed with the 10 feet with sidewalks. issioner Hawkins, no sidewalks and the setback 10 feet. ission Cole, setback 10 feet, no sidewalks. erson Toerge, setback 10 feet, no sidewalks. issioner McDaniel, setback 10 feet, no sidewalks. issioner Henn, setback 10 feet, no sidewalks. arson Toerge then noted the visitor parking requirement. MFR requires visitor the SFR does not. The MFR requires guest parking that is being satisfied with behind garages. Temple added that there are 19 guest parking spaces in addition to the parking . sided in the garages, driveways, and explained the PRD available street parking iairperson Toerge then noted the water front walk on land or on the floating dock. e are to attempt to provide maximum public access, expand and enhance it when asible unless there is adequate access elsewhere providing that access on the water not adequate and potentially unsafe. As the project is completely removing the isting buildings, it is feasible to put this access on the land, thereby expanding and hancing the access. One of the most sought after attractions is to walk around ►Iboa Island, and for us to create access on the land that might one day create a ntinuous on -land access to the bridge to Balboa Island is our responsibility. He ted his concern of safety in directing people down to a floating dock that is six feet de with a hand rail on one side. This access should be put on the land and at the minus of the proposed access at the easterly property boundary, a similar gangway mp be added there to allow the pedestrians to get to the floating access and continue the current floating access to the east. The handicap ramp down to the existing ick should also be included in the project to provide ADA access that might not ierwise be granted given the limitations on the slope for a ramp that might occur on easterly end. The access should be generated on the land. :)mmissioner Henn noted the walkway on land would be walkway to no where and will for a long time when and if the property to the east is developed. However, it is an iportant issue to be addressed. We should provide for the future ability to do that but >t require it now. I don't believe putting that access on the land is an enhancement. I ink having an easement that can be executed in the future, if it becomes appropriate at the walkway on land can be made continuous, in a way that makes sense. I would chance the public dock walk way to widen and add safety features to it. nmissioner McDaniel noted his agreement with Commissioner Henn's statement. would like to see the floating walkway expanded and enhanced such as lighting, A access and handrails. file : //H:1Plancomm120051081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Page 15 of 17 (Commissioner Cole agreed with the previous statements. He added that the dockway ould create better access then something up higher on the bulkhead. nmissioner Hawkins said he had no problem with the proposed coastal access ng that there are three sides for coastal access, along Promontory Channel, along boa Island Channel and along the Coves Condominium. The proposed project is !ring more than two thirds of the perimeter is dedicated to coastal access, which Kimizes coastal access. He is comfortable with the floating dock and believes that inland marsh land will require that sort of on the water walkway. The only way ,e will be an extensive stretch of walkway is to have it on the water. He is cerned about placing a walkway on the land and then transitioning it to the other kway on the water as another safety issue can arise. Eaton noted that the enhanced dock is the better solution. iairperson Toerge noted that there is a majority that the dock access with some sort enhanced safety measure would be appropriate as opposed to the on land access. then brought up the dedication of Lot G and Lot F. Temple noted that Lot G is public tidelands, Lot F is still waters of the United es. In referencing Lot G, it is to the leasehold interest to the docks and not the al water and land beneath, as those belong to the people of California. The ass to the docks is within Lot G according to the Tract Map. Jerson Toerge then noted the ownership of slips and parking for those slips. He for a condition on this project to ensure that only residents can access and use slips. . Campbell noted that there is a private agreement attached to the leasehold inte it restricts the use of the docks to the residents of the three adjoining properties. ese are treated as residential docks so parking is not required. There is no cond approval that would restrict the use of the docks; however, it can be added. straw vote on a condition to restrict the use of the docks: Eaton, yes Hawkins, yes Cole, yes McDaniel, yes Henn, yes Toerge noted there was no drainage plan or water quality plans. Campbell noted that a Water Quality Management Plan and a Storm Water lution Prevention plan were prepared and reviewed by staff in conjunction with the paration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The measures ensure that no idards are being violated. ,hairperson Toerge suggested that a condition be included that provides a statement and a requirement for the applicant to inform all owners about the operational characteristics of the neighboring Balboa Marine boat yard and its impacts. The rest of he Commission agreed. file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Page 16 of 17 hairperson Toerge noted the maintenance of the walkway. Staff answered that a >ndition can be crafted by staff to reflect the upgrade and maintenance. brief discussion ensued on housing issues related to the Coastal Residential evelopment Permit application. otion was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item to September 8th to low staff time to formalize conditions as suggested during the deliberations. He )ted he would like to review the condition and resolutions as this project has many sues to it. avid Lepo, noted he has 11 provisions based on what he has heard tonight. ommissioner Henn noted the there is an issue as to what kind of application this is id hopes that during the continuance period some clarity could come about between aff and the applicant. Craw vote to continue to get to a vote: ommissioner Cole - continue ommissioner McDaniel - continue hairperson Toerge - continue hairperson Toerge noted that the motion is to continue and to take the input from the !cord and the straw votes and incorporate them into a modified staff report and a odified resolution at September 8th. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn oes: None bsent: None bstain: None BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that City Council held an adjourr regular meeting that started at 4 on the Comprehensive Sign Code Update < Sign Design Guidelines manual. There were some requests for minor changes < this item will be heard again Tuesday the 23rd. The City Council was provided v an update of the Local Coastal Program. The Council held another adjourr meeting on August 11th on the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church expansion t was concluded at 1:30 a.m. The project was approved with a decrease additional gross floor area to 15,000 square feet; required the Church to provide student passes and added a condition prohibiting future increases in floor area. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developmen Committee - Commissioner Henn noted that they completed their deliberation or the Land Use Element recommendations. Ms. Temple noted that the schedule foi review is to be compressed; the meeting dates have not been set yet; however there will be two adjourned meetings during the month of December. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Committee - no meeting. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/18/2005 Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal P Certification Committee - Ms. Temple then gave an overview of the City Coun( meeting on the LCP, mirroring the GPAC recommendations as modified by Planning Commission. Discussion followed. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee Commissioner Eaton noted no meeting nor has anyone heard from staff on tl review of the terms from the consultant. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Chairperson Toerge noted that the adjourned meetings are a 4 p.m. He then brought up the issue of the vent pipes on the Chevron and the bridge on the McDonald's site and asked if something can be done about them. Discussion followed. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. Project status - none. ) Requests for excused absences - Ms. Temple noted she will not be at the Page 17 of 17 I ADJOURNMENT: 10:45 o.m. Adiourned to meetino of Auoust 30. 2005 IADJOURNMENTI CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \081805.htm 09/23/2005