The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Minutes 11-3-2005Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes S November 3, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Ir L 4 Page 1 of 35 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Commissioner Tucker was recused and appeared on the dais at 9:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Larry Lawrence, contract planning consultant David Lepo, contract planning consultant UBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 28, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 20, 2005. Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve the minutes as amended. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS UBJECT: Bayside Residential Planned Community (PA2004 -072) ITEM NO.2 919 Bayside Drive PA2004 -072 he project involves the redevelopment of the Newport Marina Apartment complex Recommended ocated at 919 Bayside Drive. The existing 64 -unit apartment complex, located on for Approval approximately 3.92 acres, will be demolished and replaced with a 17 -unit, gated file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 idential community. The tentative tract map proposes to establish 17 individua idential lots for custom home construction, 1 common recreational lot with possibly d and shade structure, 2 landscape /open space lots. Private streets are proposed. F uest to re -zone the site from MFR (Multi - Family Residential) to PC (Planner nmunity) is sought, which is accompanied with Planned Community Developmen n text that will establish development and use standards for the proposed project. Coastal Residential Development Permit is required to ensure compliance with 1 wernment Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) and the Housing Element of the Gene an. The project includes the demolition of existing structures, grading, installation lities, private streets, landscaping, site lighting, site walls, storm water improvemer blic access easements and upgrades to the public right of way adjacent to t :)iect site. David Lepo of Hogle Ireland, contract planner, gave an overview of the staff rep oting that this item was first heard in August. During that hearing, the Planni :ommission raised several issues and asked staff for a review. One of the issu oncerned the subdivision of water surface in the bay. The City Attorney advised st tat those properties that were on the surface of the water included originally in t ubdivision Map could not be included in the Map and could not be subdivided, a ,ere to be taken out of the area that was ultimately included in the Tentative Tn lap. As a result of that determination, the land area and the water area were reduc t the point that the Development Overlay that had been proposed for this particu roperty reduced the lot area for the development to comply with the maximum 40% rea coverage that applies in the Planned Residential Development Overlay Zone. T nderlying land use designation is multi - family residential and the overlay was going p applied to the zoning to allow for the development of single family homes. With tf etermination, and absent the Planned Residential Development Overlay, st included the best procedure was to prepare a Planned Community Text and chan ie zoning on that particular site to Planned Community, leaving the underlying la se designation in the General Plan as multi - family residential. Therefore, we are he might with a proposed Planned Community Text and a proposed Zoning Amendme t change the land use designation to Planned Community. With that the Plann esidential Development Overlay goes away as does the Use Permit that was requir �r development pursuant to the Planned Residential District. uing, he noted: . The Planned Community text includes development standards and conditions approval that address the issues raised at the last meeting. Those issues are: . Land Use designation and zoning of multiple family - the concern was that tl might be an attempt to develop more than one unit on each of the residential being created by the Tentative Tract Map. . Concern with the MFR zoning - somebody might try to develop three stories up to 35 feet in height. Staff has included a development code section in the text and conditions of approval in the PC text that clearly state one unit for e of the residential lots not to exceed 28 feet in height. . Concern that setback between the new property line wall at Bayside Drive not adequate. Staff has included conditions and standards in the PC text require a minimum of four foot setback between the right -of -way at Bayside Page 2 of 35 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm. 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 and the new property line wall that would allow for a minimum of 4 feet landscape area then the wall and then 10 feet of yard on the private property s of the Bayside wall. The right -of -way beyond the sidewalk on the private prop side of Bayside Drive varies from 1 -2 feet to 6 feet, so the affect will be that tt will be between 5 1/2 and 10 feet of actual landscape setback between the b of the sidewalk at Bayside and the new property line wall. . Concern with the setback of the private driveway serving all the residences. Staf has proposed that where there is a single story element adjacent to the driveway a minimum setback of 5 feet be provided; where there is a two -story element, 10 foot setback be provided. That is included in the development standards o' the PC Text. Concern with sidewalks adjacent to the private street within the tract. Staff determined that since this is a private, gated community, the sidewalks would be necessary. Conditions are included in the PC text. Other conditions of approval deal with access to the water and easements the floating dockway. Landscaping was a consideration, particularly the piece of property that adjoinE this site on the n/w corner of Bayside that does not belong to the property owner it belongs to the City. The decision was the Planning Director shall have the right to approve a landscape plan for this property including having the Homeowner: Association maintain that property. This is included in the conditions of approva in the PC text. . Concern of noise and noxious effects from the boat yard across the channel ha been addressed in the provision that requires the applicant to submit a form to provided to the lessee of the lot informing them of those concerns. . There will be no dedication of lots F and G on the surface of the water to the City. . Design amenities that the applicant has asked be included are indicated it staff report and deal with fences, hedges, walls, arbors, trellises, fire places barbecues. . The action asked for tonight is for approval of the Negative Declaration revised copies of the first two pages (distributed) resulting in reference to Planned Residential Development rather than the PC text; the Tentative l Map, the Code Amendment changing the zoning of the site to PC Plar Community and adopting a Planned Community Text; a Coastal Reside Development; no traffic analysis will be required as this resulting project will t less traffic impact to this site. nmissioner Cole asked why should the Planning Commission consider the this site. Lepo answered that the Planned Community text allows for a mix of uses withi site. It allows the City to make certain that those different uses are compatible wit another in this development. This site is to be re- developed with single famil es to replace an apartment building and the use of the PC text is to make sure it i Irated with what is there now including the condos to the east, single family home Page 3 of 35 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 4 of 35 10 the west, and the commercial across the street. You have the opportunity to use the PC text to make sure that the access to the waterfront is maintained and enhanced with ome of the conditions of approval. He then noted other areas where a similar process IC occurred. Hawkins asked what the smallest parcel is that the PC text has ied to? Campbell noted the smallest size was 4 acres and this is 3.92 acres. imissioner Hawkins asked about the analyses of the land use impacts of the pr( in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and are the changes reflected in the revi louts? The project as proposed now will have impacts due to the change in ng going from multi - family to Planned Community, is there an analysis of that? r. Lepo answered the physical changes associated with this development w ialyzed as well as consistency with plans. We have noted that the underty Bneral Plan Land Use designation of multi - family does included single family uses e proposed here. Therefore, this plan is consistent with the General Plan and the xt does allow development of single family homes. As far as policy document a an documents, it is consistent with that change in the front. Physical impa mociated with physical changes are no different than what was analyzed. ssioner Hawkins asked about the change in the Project concerning the and how those changes were or were not reflected in the Mitigated Negi ition for the Project. Lepo noted this can be adjusted for technical accuracy. Campbell noted: . The land use section mentions the PRD Overlay in the initial study and we cai make the change to agree with the project description. Referencing a handoul he continued. . The marina was permitted in 1973 as a commercial marina with parking. . Subsequent addition to the apartments in the early 70's eliminated that p and the City conditioned the Parcel Map that created those additional unit: that the marina would only be used by the Upland properties (project site, Condominiums and the Shark Island yacht club). . If this was to be continued as a commercial marina, parking would have to provided. . The original draft conditions maintained that this marina would be operated by those Upland properties. . Staff has changed their position on this matter and with the applicant's approval we are requiring that the slips in front of this project site be used only for th< residents of this project and discontinue the policy of sharing with the other tw< properties. Change to the condition has been made to specifically require that as reflected in amended condition 22. This restriction is to be noted on the map an( file : / /H:\Plancomm\20051110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 5 of 35 in the CC and R's and in the Planned Community Text. Public access - The PC text in condition 34 requires the applicant to execute agreement that ensures public access as identified be maintained permanently well as an irrevocable offer to dedicate a public access easement. T dedication will be on the property that they actually control as the exisl walkway is on property owned by the Irvine Company. If the access is elimina in the future because it is now on somebody else's property, we would then h< this offer to dedicate and the easement that could be moved landward of Irvine Company property onto the applicant's property. Should the access acr the Irvine Company submerged land be eliminated, then we could require it to relocated six feet closer to the bulkhead creating a new floating walkway at t location and then ensure that access across the docks is still maintained. l offer of dedication will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit < prior to recordation of the map. The applicant is required to obtain a new Harbor Permit. The historic transfers this particular permit has been discontinuance or 'murky'. So, we want to cle, this up with a new permit in the applicant's name which then would be transferre to the Homeowner's Association upon its creation so that the Homeowner Association controls the Harbor Permit and then the rights to use the docks wou be transferred with the sale of the individual leaseholds. The residents will be tt only ones able to use those slips and therefore it will be a private marina. . He then noted condition 10 has a changed reference to the improvements on docks. . Condition 12 has a reference as to who owns those improvements as by the applicant. Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted the term 'landward' shows direction. The 18 feet between the bulkhead line and the actual physical bulkhead that is wa d the submerged land is owned by the underlying owner and is under the control applicant. What this does is repositions that walkway onto the land that 1 plicant and the property owner control. If The Irvine Company decides that in i ure the docks can not be tied into the submerged land, which we don't expect ppen, then the applicant would be required to move the floating walkway six fE iser to the bulkhead to be used for public access. person Toerge noted that the map shows an existing bulkhead at the If the floating walkway was moved 'landward', it would be on the land. Campbell explained the tract boundary runs along the bulkhead because staff want to subdivide those submerged lands and make them part of leasehold e of these lots. He then discussed the boundaries. Aaron Harp noted that on the map it is referred to in two ways. It is referred to US Bulkhead line and next to that a notation referencing existing bulkhead Ii -h runs along side where the floating walkway is now. Campbell noted a change will be made to clarify as the intent refers to the head line. Discussion continued. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 6 of 35 Mr. Harp noted the reason for this condition is to resolve the issue of the fact that th alkway is currently not on the proponent's property, it is on a third party's who has the rights. This offer is done in case of the loss of the right to have it on the third pa operty, then they could shift it over. iissioner Eaton asked about the enhancements to the existing walkway and are covered; precedence for free - standing fireplaces. Lepo noted if those are the improvements that are required, then that plan to be reviewed and any changes to conditions will be made. Campbell noted the free - standing fireplaces issue would require a Modificatioi rmit in most cases because a fireplace would be higher than three and a half feet. Zoning Administrator could not come up with any current permitted free standinc places in bulkhead locations. Free - standing barbecues have been done, but not ! t high chimneys. imissioner Hawkins noted the slip provision and the walkway provision �lematic and presented a scenario. He suggested that there is a better way to in the conditions such as requiring the applicant to go ahead and get that easem the existing walkway so that you don't have this potential problem. Harp answered that if the Irvine Company revoked the right to have the waikwa would probably also revoke the right to have the slips. The main intent of tt Jition is to ensure that the public has access to walk along, not so much as ass the slips. Typically, we don't make a condition where a third party approval Bssary. A condition could be edited that the offer to dedicate, or obtain, easemen eby giving the option of one or the other, that way you are not conditioning it on I party. ling, Commissioner Hawkins asked what sort of agreement is there now for use of the slips. Is there a written agreement? 1r. Campbell answered that there is not necessarily an agreement but the City in t 'O's as a condition of the Parcel Map that is underlying this piece of property arrang iat be done. So, we are requiring it to be that way. Staff does not know if there is rivate agreement between the entities. The adjacent Cove Condominium has a ve imilar provision with its Tract Map that the Coves and the Yacht Club get to use wt front of them as a shared arrangement. That was required of that development 972. When they added on to this project, they took away the parking that w lanned for the commercial marina so they recognized there was not parking. Th gain extended the same kind of shared relationship that was started with the first b roperties (Coves and Shark Island Yacht Club) to encompass all three properti ecause there is one Harbor Permittee which is The Irvine Company at the time; tt ias the arrangement of the City. Harp noted he concurs with the analysis. McDermott of Government Solutions, representing the applicant, noted ig contained within a PowerPoint presentation: . An aerial of the project site depicting the property line as mapping the land ownership; however, the area controlled goes out 18 feet seaward of the existing file: 1/H: \Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/2112005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 7 of 35 bulkhead. The US bulkhead is seaward 18 feet of the existing bulkhead. This control was granted to the applicant through a Grant Deed from The Irvine Company. The submerged land portion is not subdivided and that is why the property line is shown on the land portion of the site and not out 18 feet. . The project consists of replacing the existing apartments with custom home and the bayfront public walkway. We are ensuring that public access is prov and enhanced. . In the event that this were to be removed and the walkway was moved, then would allow for some additional water area that would allow for slips of a slighl different configuration. That would have to go through the City and the Coast Commission in order to occur. We understand that. . If has been confirmed that the triangular piece of land at the end of the walkway owned by the applicant. The walkway will be straightened out allowing i landscaping and a sign that enhances the availability of the public walkway. It v also provide for ADA access. . The existing walkway will be enhanced by the remounting of lighting along tl existing handrails and the removal of the cleats that allow for the side ties. V will construct an additional hand rail so there will be handrails on both sides with clear access of 6 feet along with the handicap access ramps. . She noted a submitted letter indicating the dock walkway meeting the intent requirements of the Coastal Act, the Subdivision Map Act, the Califo Constitution as well as the City's Local Coastal Plan. . Two exhibits showing grade elevations of the proposed homes on the Pr Bay Front and the North Bay Front facing Balboa Island were discussed. . An exhibit showing the vehicular turning areas on lots 9 and 15 was discussed. . A Harbor Permit requires the boat slips to be operated as a residential marl and restricted to these lots. We accept that condition and understand it. T Permit will be transferred to the Homeowners' Association with the provision maintenance and permanent public access. . The site plan depicting the gating at the entrance with public access along entire site was discussed. nmissioner Eaton noted the concern of more open space between Bayside C the homes to be outside of the walls as opposed to behind the walls. If nmission agrees to have 10 feet outside the wall and allow a 5 foot setback be wall, would that be agreeable? McDermott answered that they had agree to a 10 foot setback behind the wall, Commission had determined at the last meeting, and also we would have imum of 4 feet along the street. We have found out subsequently that where r assumed the property line was immediately behind the existing sidewalk side we found that the City's property line varied and we had between 2 and 6 R ind the sidewalk before the property line. What we discussed with staff is that dd have an agreement that would allow us to landscape the City's property file: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \110305.hhn 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 8 of 35 unction with our property and add 4 feet to that. It would result in between 2 and of existing area that can be landscaped adding 4 feet to that so it would I +een 6 and 10 feet of landscape area along that frontage. Allowing the 10 fo ack for the property owner would set the homes further away from Bayside Dril that is what we would prefer. in Toerge asked about the heights of the pads and if the conditions with those. McDermott answered the text in the PC refers to these conditions. She noted language describes the existing conditions so that they would be replicated with development. She offered to clarify the language if it would be helpful. Campbell noted the Tentative Maps show pad elevations and they are within tens the existing elevations. The interior pad elevations are not included. Referring m 9 on handwritten page 30, it was decided that this language will be re- worked dude the existing conditions and the interior lot pad elevations. Cole asked about the landscape on the parkway on Bayside Drive. Campbell noted that we will add a provision about the landscape in the conditions. Henn asked about the floating walkway and the docks. Is association responsible for the maintenance of the walkway and McDermott answered that is correct. )mmissioner Henn noted that if The Irvine Company decides there can not be ilkway over their property I clearly understand the concept of moving the walkway feet, but, doesn't that raise perhaps an untenable burden on the homeowne sociation to have to move the walkway and the docks because they are responsit the maintenance of the docks and the walkway? It seems the solution as propos es not make sense and I would propose to add an 'or' to that the applicant wot ek to get an easement from The Irvine Company to maintain the current positioni the walkway and the docks. McDermott noted this could be a burden on the homeowners association. T is we have various documents that have given us the right to this. We think t ice of losing that right from The Irvine Company because of the way they ha ted those rights, is minimal. However, the City wanted a fail safe and as a result we felt we could live with the condition as it was written. To the extent we y to re -do the Harbor Permit and possible relocation of docks would be done irate action. Harp noted they have a significant argument that they have the right to maintain (way as is. What we were looking for was a condition that basically the City d have to be involved with rights issues. imissioner Henn noted that if their rights do seem to be substantially, but pert absolutely defined, it seems reasonably like it wouldn't be a big leap for �ment to be granted. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 9 of 35 Mr. Harp answered that it may have been the intent for The Irvine Company to give up he rights to it so it may not be difficult for them to obtain the easement but there is that restriction as far as posing obligations where a third party needs to consent to it an at is why we didn't leave it as just an easement alone. Hawkins, referring to condition 12, asked who will own McDermott noted their request was to add language, 'leased or owned' because ownership condition and lessee condition. Campbell noted we can use the language that is suggested. missioner Hawkins noted he was in favor of that as some of the utilities can :d by separate companies. He wants it to be clear that the ownership is not as the lease is held by the HOA and there will be no liability to the City. rson Toerge noted his notes from the last meeting (with a straw vote) show ti access was to be widened concurrent with an offer of dedication of land as of compromise. He asked why there wasn't a dedication of land and tl I is for 6 feet widening. McDermott noted that the width of the dock was based on the Coastal Commiss erence that structures not be added to increase the shadow that goes over :r which would effect the life of the plant material andlor the setting of the wild lives in the water. Our thought was that if we could effectively increase it oving the obstructions that perhaps that met the intent of what the Commission v ing for. So, we added to the safety and to the width without actually widening <, which would then necessitate a separate Coastal Development Permit for b Harbor Resources and the Coastal Commission. It was our proposal in the hol would meet with what you were asking for, but ,it clearly did not increase aical reasons for those reasons. tinuing, she noted that she did not understand that the straw vote indicated ig support for a dedication of land. When we worked with staff and the C rney's office there was a sense that provided we strengthen the access, that may met the intent of what the Commission was saying. Perhaps you need to seek tt fication, but that is the way I read it. imissioner McDaniel noted the condition referring to minimal lighting. Ilection about the discussion on the widening would be to have some lighting it would be useable as opposed to just security. . McDermott answered that the intent was to make it so minimal as to be both s I attractive at night time. It is such the people along Balboa Island facing c perty, or people who live in proximity on our side, don't want a lot of lights do, re. The intent was to place them on the dock railing in such a way that they woi out of the way from a walking standpoint but provide the appropriate amount t. It is clearly the intent to make it safe and appropriate for those purposes. We c -k with staff to make sure that happens. comment was opened. file: //H:\Planeomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 10 of 35 IPublic comment was closed. I Toerge then identified key topics for purposes of organizing the 1. lateral access - land or floating 2. setbacks 3. landscape plan and architectural guidelines 4. turn- around designs for lots 9, 15 and 3 5. include in the PC Development Regulations the disposition of Lot A 6. pad elevations 7. FAR and how to calculate 8. improvements allowed in the setback areas 9. condition 4 regarding drainage on the property Hawkins noted: 1. Lighting study that is approved by the City. 2. Ownership or lease verbiage in condition 12. Toerge addressed the first issue, lateral access: . The issue of lateral access is whether it is provided on land or on the floating access and whether the floating access is adequate and meets the requirements of the Coastal Act. He then cited from the Coastal Commission summary of stafl report Chapter 3, 43.3.1.1 -11. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate an easement for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easemen shall extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landwara to a fixed point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection o sand with toe or top of revetment, vertical face of seawall, drioline of deck, or to of bluff). This tells me the access has to be on land, regardless of what other people have suggested. He then discussed the possibility of redevelopment o the subject and adjacent properties. He disagreed with the applicant's assertion that there is a remote chance that the Cove condominium development would ever be redeveloped. He countered that the Cove Condominium development will certainly be redeveloped at some point in the future because 'ever' is a long time. He pointed out that just 10 short years ago the thought that the subject project, which contemplates the demolition of 65 high end rental units to be replaced with 17 custom home sites, was at that time considered infeasible. Who is to say when the Coves and the Newport beach Yacht Club will be redeveloped, enabling a continuous land based bay front walkway from Bayside Drive to the Marine Avenue bridge? He then referenced an exhibit depicting the lateral coastal access easements throughout the City, sever of which currently end in dead ends, but one day will connect to one another. This body is responsible for planning and file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 11 of 35 this chairman is attempting to do that with this by requiring this easement across the land enabling it to connect with other land based bay front easements that wil be developed in the future. Staff then showed the exhibit that was explained an( discussed. In conclusion, he noted it is the Commission's responsibility for the benefit of the community to follow the Code and to maintain this lateral access or the land despite for it's potential in the short term, to look somewhat disjointed. There are some people who don't want to walk down a ramp to use the access. (he gave examples). His objection to the floating access is that it is not consisten with our charge to uphold the requirements of the Coastal Act as they apply tc new development. As I recall the straw vote taken last time, the Commissior voted for 10 feet in width and an offer of dedication on the land so that some poin in time when future land access was available it could be built on the land. imissioner Henn noted his recollection of the straw vote did not include irement for a conditional dedication on the land for the walkway, but perhaps st verify that one way or the other. Harp noted it may be best to take another straw vote on this issue. mtinuing, Commissioner Henn noted that the floating walkway is a superior soluti( the location of a walkway on the land. If the walkway is located on the land with ad end at the far end, there will still be a ramp. The language in the Local Coast an may or may not be the same language. I am sure there will be a sentiment for ig time that we preserve and enhance public access to the shoreline and 1 agree it. As to the specific language that interprets that thought, that may change ov ie. For all of those reasons I am less concerned that the walkway be located :)vided for a dedication on land. immissioner McDaniel noted as a member of the Local Coastal Committee he ite aware of how much they have gone through to have access available to water f aryone here in Newport Beach. I am happy that we have the access so long as it it lit, the fact that it is no longer 10 feet wide, I can accept that. I just want it wii ough so that everyone can use it and enjoy that aspect. Whether it floats, landwa seaward, I don't care, it is access and adequate to me. I am happy with the way it i )mmissioner Cole noted his concurrence with comments of Commissioner McDaniel. its project provides significant access both vertical and lateral. The enhancement: oposed are good ones and will create an attractive walkway for the community. It is large burden to ask the applicant in effect to what would basically be a redesign o e entire plan when the alternative seems to be relatively reasonable and attractive. missioner Hawkins noted the previous comments. He stated that the City's C I Coastal Plan Section 3.1.1 -11 requires an offer to dedicate an easement c lateral access for all new shorefront development causing or contributint rse public access. What we have here is existing adequate public access are enhancing. I don't believe we can make those findings. I would be concer t requiring the access on land due to the proximity of the public acc )diately adjacent to a residential community. He affirmed he is in favor of ng walkway with the enhancements. imissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the other Commissioners. He added this project will have to go in front of the Coastal Commission and if pretation of their language is different than our interpretation, then the applic file : //H:1Plancomm12005t110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 12 of 35 Will have to deal with that. I I and slips. (mmissioner Cole affirmed with staff that the residents of the Cove Co mplex can not rent the slips associated with this project due to the limited parking and that anyone who is currently renting slips will have to move. imissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the irrevocable offer to dedicate (IOD) is access easement for a floating walkway landward. He suggested the followi( uage to comply with the suggested changes by the City Attorney: "The applica I record either an irrevocable offer to dedicate a public access easement for ing walkway landward of the bulkhead line (to be identified) or, an easement ov %xisting floating walkway." The alternative is important to have. Harp noted the language will be re- worked if the Commission allows for the opi an easement in the existing condition as opposed to the irrevocable offer 'person Toerge noted the two bulkhead lines need to be clearly identified and sated to prevent further confusion. agreed. Ack from Bayside. nissioner Eaton noted the following: Referring to the exhibit he stated that at one point the setback is zero at the west end and along the entirety of lot 1 on the east end it is actually 1 1/4 feet; whereas most of the project setback is 5 -6 feet total. Frontage along Bayside is important and he wants to have at least 10 feet between the City right -of -way and the property in front of the wall without N to require the houses to be moved further back. He suggested language, "Without requiring additional home setbacks requiring at least 10 feet of landscaping be provided between the back of sidewalk in front of the wall." Toerge asked about the disposition of the current City trees on site now. Campbell answered those trees will be removed to put in the Henn asked who is correct? The applicant stated that there was between 2 and of distance between the sidewalk and the property line; or, is Commissioner Eat( s. Temple noted Commissioner Eaton is correct in the sense that at exactly one poin he sidewalk and the property line are co- terminus and it is at the far western part of the property. For the greater portion of the property it is a minimum of 2 feet. Lot 1 easterly of the entrance appears to be 1.25 feet for that stretch. file: / /H: \Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 13 of 35 McDermott noted that 1.25 is accurate and that at the westerly end the way i their landscaping and the property line connect with the enhancement of t ;taping where the sign will go, that point where it reaches zero is expanded it we are going to be providing anyway. So, it is not zero at that point in effect. C >sal is 4 feet plus the 1.25 at the easterly end and then it gets larger as it go resulting in a total width of 9 -10 feet at some points. visions of the landscape being 10 feet from the sidewalk with 5 feet setb the homes. Following the discussion a straw vote was to approve as proposed. the landscape plans and the architectural design scheme. lowing a discussion, the straw vote was to designate the Planning Director review of the turn - around plans for lots 9 and 15. McDermott, referring to the exhibit, explained lot 9 at the southwesterly corner site configuration. Fing a discussion on the driveway lengths, turning radii, and distances it v that a condition is included whereby the Public Works Department will review it circulation and parking scheme that will be conducted by the applicant. Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted the reason the condition is there is >ure that the standards the City require are to be met. What is shown for the first y be suitable, but the one shown for the second lot is rather contorted as it is off r the garage door and makes the backing maneuver like an 's' curve. ion asked if the lot configuration had to change to accommodate this, come back to the Planning Commission? Campbell answered it would depend on the nature of the change. This lot could le wider to accommodate and it could be determined to be in substan formance and would not need to be brought back. However, if there was a lar nge to the plan, staff would make that judgment after review of the plan. >. McDermott added that they will be happy to work with the Traffic Engineer in resolve the issue. Commission agreed. t Toerge noted in the PC Development regulations for the use of lot A page 29 does not include lot A. Should it be included in this table for the use that is planned for? Campbell answered this can be done. It is referenced on handwritten page 29 Statistical Analysis that refers to lot A as a common recreation area and it :ribed in the project description that all the lettered lots are common and ided to accommodate common amenities and other improvements and are r Blopable for residences. We could do something if you want. It was determined r file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 14 of 35 Building pad elevations to be within 112 foot of existing grade. Commission was satisfied. floor area ratio issue. Campbell affirmed that the floor area is calculated by deducting from the gross is, the setbacks and then multiplying it times the FAR. The proposed FAR for act is 1.75. oner Eaton noted the language was not in the PC text, which becomes document. Lepo noted it was on handwritten page 29 in footnote 2. 2 -foot walls. Campbell answered the provision is the exception to the height of fences and w re the front wall of the house could extend perpendicular to the side property i the front wall of the house to the side property line a maximum of 12 feet. It is titectural feature the applicant wants to provide. Temple added that this type of feature has become very popular with side ances. The material used for these features would be R2 rated. and barbecues 4 feet in setbacks from side yards and /or ner Henn clarified that this also includes the ability to build a 10 -foot Staff clarified. He noted that would not be appropriate due to s McDaniel noted he could not support this. tirperson Toerge stated this should be subject to a modification permit. To blanket approval here is not the appropriate maneuver. r. Campbell noted that built -in barbecues are typically taller than the maximum heig id are fairly common with the outdoor living spaces people are providing. It is Ammon modification request and are permitted more often. The fireplaces are fferent matter. Staff is not comfortable with those either and feel that modificatic emits should be required. However, adding the low built in gas barbecues that a irly common, staff asks that this be included as they generally do not present ai merits. Toerge noted there is a mechanism for the fireplaces to be reviewed Henn suggested that any structure above five foot would require Campbell noted this can be established with the PC text regulation. T file: //H: \Piancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 could accommodate that and the typical barbecues meet that height. would be regulated. Temple noted this has come up during discussion with the Councilmembers. :tion has been given to staff, but much commentary has been given to allo ecues up to a limit height of 5 feet. wing a discussion on permanently installed aces will be dealt with separately through th e foot height with a four foot setback from mission agreed. 4 - on site drainage. barbecues, it was determined th modifications process and up to the property line would not. TI a drain pipe apparent at low tide water source is undetermined. Staff offered it n a storm drain and following a brief discussion noted that all requirements and W,c ality Control Board and NPDES regulations will be met so that no drainage will � the bay. ating access completion. ff noted, and the applicant agreed, that there will be a condition including langu< i time and prior to the certificate of occupancy. 12 suggested language change. on -site common area improvements such as parks, docks, entry gates and entry, site drainage sanitary sewer, water, and electrical systems shall be leased ned, operated and maintained by the HOA. missioner Hawkins noted his concern of the lighting on the floating dock and of idual residents that may create spill /glare problems across the bay. He asked 1 come up with a condition. Temple noted there is a condition of approval in the City's standard requirement: airing a Photometric Study to make sure that light spillage and glare are addressed. nmissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the environmental document. He asked Planning Commission agreed that land use analysis will include the change for tt text? The Commission agreed. Temple noted staff will prepare an addendum and have it completed for Cou Lepo noted the following changes during the Commission's discussion to :d in the motion: . Environmental document language will be edited on pages 26 and 27. . Changes on the handout materials: Conditions 10, 12, 22 and 34 changes will made. Page 15 of 35 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 16 of 35 1 . U.S. Bulkhead line determination. • Add /change /delete provisions where previously called for applicant to landscal and maintain the weed lot that is now part of the applicant's lot. • Add condition requiring applicant to landscape area at Bayside Drive on lots and D as maintained by the HOA. • Planning Director will review landscaping and architectural design guidelines. • Quantify condition requiring Public Works to approve the turn arounds for lots 3, and 15. • Pad elevation - language in PC text as in Tentative Tract Map. • Provision in PC text relative to barbecues within 4 feet of property line and up to feet in height.. No fireplaces. • Added condition requiring enhancements on dock in reference to the exhit regarding timing. • An irrevocable offer of dedication will be provided regarding the frontage area. ion was made by Commissioner McDaniel, using the recommended language with changes proposed by the Commission, to recommend approval of C( .ndment No. 2005 -007, Use Permit No. 205 -026m Tract Map No. 2004 -001 (T 15323) and Coastal Residential development No. 2005 -001 to the City Council. n Toerge noted that this is a quality project; however, the City has to follow the Coastal Act and given my interpretation of it, I won't the motion. sioner Henn asked if we are violating the terms of the Coastal Act by as proposed. r. Harp answered the language is added to the plan. The focus is whether or not the iw shorefront development is contributing or causing adverse public access impacts. ie determination could go either way. This will go to the Coastal Commission fo )proval /denial and they will require what access they deem appropriate if differen an Citv's determination. It is not a violation to proceed with this action. Toerge Tucker None Following a brief intermission the Commission resumed with Commissioner Tucker taking his place. John Walter Velardo (PA2004 -274) I ITEM NO. 3 3809 Channel Place PA2004 -274 file: //H:1Plancomm\200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 17 of 35 jest a Variance to the maximum allowable floor area and minimum required open space Approved ie construction of a 988 sq. ft. residence on a 1,034 sq. ft. lot. The application also ests a Modification Permit to allow the proposed residence to encroach within the front, and rear setbacks. Ir. Campbell gave an overview of the staff report noting that the property is presently eveloped with a two -car garage and the applicant wishes to construct a 2 -story :sidence with a 2 -car garage on the ground floor and it will be approximately 988 luare feet in total area. The variance is required due to the application of setbacks to ie subject property resulting in no buildable area. A modification for setbacks is also squired due to the fact that the lot has physical difficulties in facilitating construction of iy kind. There are reasonable arguments to both approve and deny the applications. Certificate of Compliance had been granted to this property as required by the ubdivision Map Act; however, it does not grant any particular development rights and does simply indicate that the lot can be financed and sold. What needs to be atermined, at this time, is the design and amount of square footage, and the location r the building that is appropriate for this lot, or is something smaller for this lot or aving the lot as is with the existing two -car garage as developed. Toerge asked about the Certificate of Compliance. Harp answered that a Certificate of Compliance is a remedy for properties that are nveyed in violation of the Map Act and in essence is a means to bring a property into mpliance with the Map Act. However, it is not an optional item for the City to issue. st because a Certificate of Compliance has been issued does not give them the right develop a property, or have a right to a building permit, it simply brings them into mpliance with the Map Act so that they can sell or lease the parcel. No development hts are given. missioner McDaniel asked about a letter received regarding water pipes under this erty connecting to another property. Campbell answered there is a water line under the garage itself that serves the scent property that is the portion of the larger lot that was subdivided off in 1960. A ate easement had been created with this transaction for the southerly three feet of lot. The project, as proposed to be redeveloped, would create the three foot )ack and maintain that water line free of obstructions. The project does adhere to private easements of 1960. imissioner Tucker asked about the lot and what can be done with it. We have a lot has effectively been created out of something that was not legal to begin with, now eone has come forward asking for a variance to build on this legal lot. Isn't that oui stion that something can be built on it before we worry about what it is? How did it )me legal, assuming it is zoned? Are you saying you wouldn't be able to build on it r. Campbell answered that if there was a project that could be built on this lot without variance, or a setback modification, we would be issuing a permit for that structure. Du can build on it, but in this case, a variance and modification permit are required. Temple noted that there currently is a two -car garage on the property. That %lopment, while it doesn't comply with the setback requirements or the floor area s just as the proposed home and new garage does not, it does exist and doesn't file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 18 of 35 eet a building permit in order to stay in existence. In and of itself it does represent a able economic use of the property and can be rented to anyone in the neighborhood provide supplemental parking, and /or sold to one of the bayfront property owners id used to support that bayfront development through an off -site parking agreement id allow the actual bayfront structure to be expanded in floor area. There are other ays to use the property economically without building a house on it. ommissioner Toerge noted that if we didn't need a variance then somebody could )me in and apply for a building permit. The lot is a legal lot that we would have to sue a permit for it. s. Temple answered yes, but because of the absence of any buildable area today, if ey tore the existing garage down, they would need a variance for anything. ommissioner Tucker noted there are other lots in the City where the Districting Map )es one way and at the end of the block and the house is oriented another way you id up with zero building area as well. It is a legal lot and to me this is why you do iriances because you can end up with no building area on a legal lot and the question , what is reasonable? r. John Velardo, applicant, noted he has owned the property for 23 years. It has :en his dream to build a beach house on it for his family to use. They have hired an chitect and will be complying with the City's requirements and will be maintaining the ime footprint as the existing garages. There will be no larger dwelling than is there )w. At Commission inquiry, he noted he has read and understand the conditions of >proval. ommissioner Tucker noted an email from James Hazelton who contended that the Aiding of this house would somehow deny access to his garage. Would staff confirm e answer to the email. r. Campbell noted that the location of the structure is not within the private easement ea that is for the benefit of the adjacent property. Now, does the proposal create )me other impediment that the owner might feel, I don't know, but the building itself is rt in the easement area. The two garages (referring to the one proposed and the one i the abutting property) come at 90 degrees to each other, so the only time they ould conflict is if they were to be used at the same time. r. Campbell added a condition relative to the interior dimension of the garage needs be rectified as it is off by 6 inches. The plans will need to be revised to assure a inimum interior depth as required by the Municipal Code. ommissioner Hawkins asked what the current use of the garage is. r. Velardo answered the current use is storage, no vehicles are involved. iblic comment was opened. argie Kirstein, property owner of 505 and 505 1/2 38th Street, referring to the vicinity ap, stated her properties are the ones most affected by this project. She noted her )position to this project: . The setbacks are extreme and do not allow for any kind of air space. file: //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 19 of 35 • The density, which originally was one lot, will now have three units on the original R2. • This lot does not meet the 1,200 square foot minimum, and, at one point this development comes within 12 inches of the property tine and sidewalk. • There is a right to develop the property, but not to just any standard the owner wants. • The garage space is currently rented. Prince, resident and homeowner, noted the following: • Both he and his brother support this application. • The island as a whole will benefit from this upgrade. is comment was closed. iissioner Cole asked about the third finding for a variance, if this is a granting of a d privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. The area of approximately 988 square feet that is below the floor to land area ratio :d in the vicinity, is that correct? Campbell noted staff looked at other properties in the area and calculated the floor i to lot area ratio of those houses as a way to compare the amount of floor area ig requested. What is proposed is proportionally lower and would support the ing that the approval is not the granting of a special privilege to the property owner. iissioner Cole asked if this was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of intial property rights of the applicant. This has been operating for 20 some odd as a garage with the same basic use, is that correct? I am trying to make the 1s that are important to grant the variance. Campbell noted this garage has been there since 1960 with the same basic use has never changed. airperson Toerge referring to condition 7 says that, ....... the garage shall remain iilable for parking of vehicles at all times....' There is very little storage in the house 4, and I think that condition should be enhanced to, '....shall only remain available the parking of operable and legally registered vehicles at all times...' Velardo agreed that would be acceptable. Tucker noted: • Variance requests are usually received to redo a structure. • It is necessary for a substantial property right. • How this came into existence, they are all over town, but compared to other variances, this one certainly falls within that category. • The question is, is it too much house for the space involved? • It passes the test that we typically apply. otion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the variance request and the modification permit for PA2004 -274 with the conditions attached with the changes of he minimum interior depth of the garage is per the Municipal Code and to have condition 7 stipulate that it is operable, registered vehicles being parked in that garage. file: //f1APlancomm \2005 \1 10305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 20 of 35 :ommissioner Eaton noted we have had a number of applications where the back end! of lots have been quartered off. This lot is different from those as they have been done iefore the Map Act took affect so they were grandfathered and therefore, not illegal at tto time of'cutting'. This lot is one of the tiniest lots the Commission has seen and is a �iangular and therefore less useable. It is further encumbered by two different :asements. My concern is that if we validate what has occurred here, that someone oes out and cuts of illegally their lot, then someone (a subsequent) buyer applies for a ,ertificate of Compliance, which makes it legal to transfer or at least finance or lease. Vhy wouldn't this be a precedent to someone else looking to do a similar transaction? would hate to encourage that scenario and therefore I do not support this application. imissioner McDaniel note he agrees with the previous comments. He added that .r variances have been granted on properties that had a house already on it and were applying for some type of parity to make it something useable. This one is rent where it has always been a garage and I think they have viable economic use this does not take away anything that they had before. I think this would set a ,edent and therefore am not in support of this application. It is a congested area it is my opinion that the garage will be a living space, with a ping pong table, then a etc. I don't think it will be used for parking in this congested area. >sioner Tucker asked if somebody decided to pare off their lot and sell and it to somebody else, would we have to issue a Certificate of Compliance under version of the Subdivision Map Act? Harp answered was answered yes. Campbell added that if there was a project to develop with that scenario, then staff Id condition that Certificate of Compliance with all current standards of the division Code. r. Harp added that if there was a violation of the Subdivision Map Act and the owner sked for a Certificate of Compliance, the City would have to give it to them. Whether not you have to let them develop, you don't. Basically you do not have to give them variance or a building permit. However, you condition the project to comply with the ubdivision Map Act. There are other penalties with doing it that are not tied to the ertificate of Compliance. Because this is an undersized lot, they need a variance :cause right now they can not build anything on it. Whether you give them that, it is >ur discretion. It is not a'takings' issue because they are already using the lot for a irage that has a viable economic use. followed. iairperson Toerge noted that there are some extraordinary and exceptional 'cumstances here. In terms of the substantial property rights, it is zoned residential, i not zoned for "garage ". In order to enjoy that substantial property right, allowing the plicant to build a house for residential purposes seems to be consistent with that. I t consistent with the Code and does not damage anybody or creates any safety >ues. He is support of the motion. imissioner Cole noted he agrees with the Chairman and is in support of the ication. Henn noted we do not have the perpetrator before us, I am sympathetic file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 21 of 35 the current owner's situation. 1 visited the site and I don't believe the proposed plan inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. >mmissioner Tucker asked what year the Map Act was adopted. Harp answered that it was 1971 when it was actually codified, but it goes back to 1800's. r. Campbell added that the City established subdivision standards and in 1959 the ode was changed to require parcel maps reviewed by the Commission if the lots that ;re suggested didn't meet the minimum parcel size, which this lot does not. This rision would have required a map in 1959 if the division happened in 1960. )mmissioner Hawkins noted that the finding on the certificate of compliance say that u issue the certificate but the Planning Director states that the above described real Dperty does not comply with the applicable provisions, nevertheless, pursuant to the rbdivision Map Act what we are creating is an identifiable parcel that we can track. ie arguments presented tonight are very important, but this parcel is too small and : wport Island has a host of problems that this project would exacerbate and so he n not si innnrt tha mntinn Yes: ole, Toerge, Tucker and Henn Noes: Eaton, McDaniel and Hawkins bsent: None bstain: None BJECT: Brookfield Homes (PA2004 -251) ITEM NO.4 1301 Quail PA2005 -251 ookfield Homes plans to construct 86 multi - family residential condominium units Continued to :hin 7 buildings that will be 45 feet in height with floor plans ranging from 900 -1,950 December 8, uare feet on a 3.7 -acre site located at the southeast corner of the intersection of 2005 ruce street and Quail Street in the Airport Area. A General Plan Amendment is )posed that would change the land use designation of the property from Retail �rvice Commercial to Multi - Family Residential. An amendment of the Newport Place finned Community is sought to change the use of the site from a 304 unit extended iy hotel to multi - family housing. The changes to the Planned Community district lulations will establish use and development regulations for the proposed ndominium project. A tentative tract Map is also sought that would subdivide the to establish 86 condominium units. Lawrence, City's consultant case planner for this project, gave an overview of report, noting: . Project consists of 7 buildings up to 45 high within a 'U' shape with garage located partially below grade. The applicant is asking for Commission comments and questions and then continuance to November 17 for further review and a forwarding of recommendation to the City Council. . The project will be changed from a retail and service commercial to a residential designation. file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 22 of 35 . The zoning amendment would add provisions for residential development to the� Newport Place PC regulations. These residential standards were derived by staff from the submitted site plan as shown on the wall. II . The changes would include from a hotel to a multi - family residential, reducing 1 building height from 60 to 45 feet, and establishing development standards accommodate the project as submitted. Reduction in building height and ove use will have positive benefits in terms of building mass and traffic generation. . The setbacks from Quail Street and Spruce Street average about 13 feet. setbacks may not be enough to provide visual relief and adequate lar buffering. The interior of the project is taken up by paving and building cl which does not leave ample room for landscaping. . The 217 space garage and other parking spaces provided on site, meet the Zoning Code numerical standards. Those spaces include 72 tandem garage spaces. If the spaces provided do not satisfy that demand in actual usage, there is no permitted on- street parking on surrounding streets to absorb the overflow. Therefore, if there is overflow, parking facilities for adjacent office developmen may be impacted. . To address these concerns, In August of 2005, the applicant commissioned parking study for the project by the IBI Group. That study concluded that bas, on the requirements set forth by the City of Newport Beach, this project v supply sufficient parking to meet the estimated demand generated by resider and guests. . He noted that in addition to the benefits of the project listed in the report, applicant has submitted arguments in favor of the project and are attached to report as exhibit 3. . The central issue of this project is the land use. Is it appropriate and desirable establish residential land use at the proposed location? That issued is address by the pros and cons contained within the staff report. . Project design is secondary to the land use issue. If appropriate, the arch design and setbacks if acceptable, warrant approval. . The opportunity to provide in -fill housing opportunities near a major er center and to improve the job housing balance in the area is a powerful in favor of the project. • Because of the concentration of office and commercial uses, the area is heav impacted by peak hour traffic at present. The change in land use would result less peak hour traffic generation than the existing hotel designation on tl property. • Potential problems are inherent in establishing a residential designation on of parcel surrounded by office and commercial development without a coordina plan for a residential development in the airport area. . Staff asks the Commission for public input and deliberate on the analysis continue this item to November 17th to allow further consideration of the pr file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 23 of 35 and the forwarding of a recommendation to the City Council. Campbell added: . Staff prepared and placed a memo about the traffic study. We discovered that we used the wrong trip generation rates for the study prepared for the project. It ove predicted a.m. traffic and under predicted p.m. traffic (less than a dozen trips). We prepared an analysis and arrived at the same conclusion that there would be no impact to traffic. . There is a set of CC and R's for Newport Place, which presently prohibit this la use in this area. The applicant would need to seek and obtain an amendment those CC and R's, which is the group owners would all have to agree to (70 %). . Staff believes the central focus for tonight is the land use if appropriate then on to the design and other technical points. Henn asked: . Is it premature to be discussing this project as we are in the midst and in advanced stage of considering a General Plan update, which includes this as one of the critical study areas for land use? iairperson Toerge answered that we have had a project such as this that is 'outside the box'. For instance we had a preliminary presentation with the Lexus Dealershil )jest and other relatively complicated projects in an effort to give the applicant ant iff some direction as to how we are leaning so they do not pursue a path and spent kff and applicant time pursuing a path that the Commission does not agree with. ey are appropriate for that reason. issioner McDaniel noted that if this did not happen then the item gets Tucker asked: One of the things to be covered at the next General Plan Update land t session will be the airport area. Why shouldn't we wait until the policy decision housing in the airport is made? • He asked for a color /materials board, a marking of elevations and a copy of the roof plan. • He then asked why Spruce Street is a four land street. Lawrence said he would provide the exhibits requested at the next meeting. Edmonston answered that Spruce Street was planned to go over the freeway and the Spruce Street that is now blocked off. wing, Commissioner Tucker noted the prohibition against street have one lane there to accommodate street parking and be quite cc file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 24 of 35 Mr. Edmonston answered the concept at that time of development was no on -stree parking and that was the standard in terms of actual demand. It could be explored and is one of the issues being looked at in the General Plan update as a residential use that uld accommodate changes. to the streetscapes, whether parking or wide parkways, Temple added that if an abandonment or lane reduction might be appropriate, then f could look at the Circulation Element with the thought of an amendment to ommodate this process. nmissioner Tucker noted: • Tandem parking has always been an issue for the Planning Commission. • The applicant needs to explain why this item should be determined prior to the General Plan update; would this be the development plan the applicant would set forth if there was no Green Light. . Has the Fire Department looked at the internal street circulation? He answered yes. . The wall along Quail Street looks to be very close to the units as well. What the wall look like? nmissioner Eaton asked if the TPO traffic study needs to be approved and, if so, th emission needs to see the study. What would the City and/or the CC and R uire if this parcel was developed in accordance with its current designation as hotel r. Lawrence answered that the current designation of hotel using the front setback is minimum of 17 1/2 feet average 30 feet, the corner lot side is a minimum of 14 1/2 et average 27 feet, and the interior side would be a minimum 10 feet. The average auld be 30 feet for the front, which would be Quail, possibly Spruce, and for the Quail itside, the some at almost 30 feet. r. Phillip Bettencourt, speaking for the applicant, noted the following: • This application includes a General Plan Amendment and zone change to convert the vacant, industrial site. • The site covers approximately 3.7 acres and includes affordable housing. • There will be easy access to recreation, businesses, shopping and freeways. • Traffic impacts are less than significant with modes mitigation. • Airport noise contours - we are beyond the 65 CNEL Contour Zone although air conditioning for all buildings is recommended and accepted by the applicant. . We are consistent with the John Wayne air loop and we are waiting for receipt our final FAA clearance. Bartlett of Brookfield Homes, noted the following: file: //H: \P1ancomm \2005 \I 10305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 25 of 35 . This project is an opportunity for the City to see a transformation of residential land use into the airport area. He gave a brief description of his company. . The Quail and Spruce Streets elevations are an important factor in siting th buildings close to the street and will contribute to the street scene that will maturing over the years. . Referring to an exhibit, he noted the importance of the buildings orienting the streets. . Setbacks and vertical and horizontal separation from the right -of -way appear to into the context of the site. . We have a materials board that include stucco, wood siding, brick and roofing. . He noted the garage and tandem parking that provide for 217 spaces, of which are tandem garage spaces within the same unit, and 167 covered spaces additional flex space on garage level to be used for storage, home office or w areas. . He then explained the building unit diagrams on the various levels. . Referring to the site plan he noted the gate access /autocourt access /pedestrian access. . He then referred to the common park area. . 17 of the 86 units are proposed for affordable housing to moderate income and is a critical element in the consideration. . This site is designated as suitable for residential development. . He then enumerated residential uses within commercial uses in the City. . He then noted the proximity to commercial and freeway systems. . Benefits of the project are smart growth and new urban strategies, reduction traffic, this is a first step in mixed use for the airport area as well as the affordal housing aspect. . Our next steps are to respond to your concerns. We have some items with Airport Land Commission and the FAA that will be dealt with as well as concerns needing to be mitigate from the Negative Declaration as well concerns from the Council considerations. . There are pros and cons to this project, but this project allows for a high de project at 23 units per acre that is consistent with the threshold of the Green Initiative, has no traffic impacts, no noise impacts, close to infrastructure services. This is a modest step in the right direction for mixed use in the ai area. file : //H: \Plancomm \2005\110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 26 of 35 . Would we propose a bigger project if there was no Green Light? I don't think yo ul could get a quality, bigger project here on this site for sale without increasing the density and sacrificing what you want to do in a 'for sale' project. Foley, President of Brookfield Homes, noted: • Market demand for housing - lower maintenance housing closer to places of interest and travel are high in demand. • The growing sector of young professionals who want to live closer to their work. • Population growths along with job creation creates demand for housing. • This project presents an opportunity for high quality convenient housing close to places of work and benefit the community. Comment was opened. ibriel Klanian, resident, noted his support of the project as it is will be quiet at nigh ien the airport shuts down and the street is not highly traveled. If the buildings are nstructed with sound proofing, the air - conditioning will be suitable to keep the noise. �ople such as myself do not want the maintenance of a yard and this would be quite itable. Owen, noted his support of this project due to the proximity of the airport amenities. Minter of Los Angeles and speaking for Brookfield noted they have receiv in support of the home ownership prospect. He distributed the letters not its such as proximity of home to work; ownership possibilities, and creation without using expensive land. n Light, one of the owners at the property at 1401 Quail Street, noted his opposition the property: • The only exit from this project is directly across from his property. • No on- street parking so overflow parking will be onto his parking lot. • Impact of trash - we have commercial trash containers on site and there will be illegal dumping. . We have single story building and if we chose to develop the property into a mi story project, which is allowed, this sets up a situation where there will be homeowners complaining that the project doesn't fit in the area. Now, we will precluded from developing it within the original guidelines due to these homeowners coming up with problems of shadow, parking, etc. . He referred to a letter sent to the Commission and asked that these issues addressed. comment was closed. file : //H. \P1ancomm120051110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 27 of 35 Commissioner Eaton asked if all the garage spaces were part of the condo sale to th units and do some of the units only have one car garages, etc.? Bartlett answered: . 5 units have a single car garage with approximately 250 square feet of flex on the same floor. There is an assigned second space that is uncovered ac or as close to that unit as possible. . In the twelve unit building there are 9 of the same type of units that have garage spaces, although they are separate but covered. . 36 interior spaces are tandem. . There will be a homeowner's association that will enforce the use of the ga spaces due to the high density of this project. irperson Toerge then read the rules for extension of hours regarding new age s being introduced after 10:30. A vote was taken to extend the time for the on the agenda. -r Eaton asked if the City is facing any deadlines under the Act? Temple answered no, this is a legislative act and is not subject to the amlinino Act. Eaton noted his concerns: • This application needs to be viewed in the context of at least the recommen policies in the airport area land use General Plan update element. • We may want to wait for the full Roma study which deals with how residential fit in to the airport area. • Setbacks - parking- allocation of open space - noise on balconies on the Br Street North, may be problematic.' rmissioner Hawkins stated he agrees with the previous concerns adding: • Planning where this fits with the existing plan and the Roma study; • CC and R's for the PC text; . This application may be premature; . If this project is approved, what happens with the Green Light issues. Temple noted the complete charter section 423 analysis is on page 7 and 8. Cole noted: file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11 121 12005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 28 of 35 • Providing in -fill housing is a positive thing. • Land use issue needs to be discussed. • Parking is a concern. • The design looks good. nmissioner Hawkins asked how many trips are available for other developmen ler the Charter Section 423 analysis. Temple answered that is on page 8 in the second chart that shows the 1lopment that has been approved. Campbell noted the project would take 86 units out of the 100 trip threshold. V, Id then track 80% of those 86 for the next ten years against any other general plE :ndments requesting residential units in the airport area. The existing land use of room hotel and this project generates less traffic than that therefore the n case is zero. irperson Toerge noted: . Need to look at the affect of the no- street parking and the allocation of parking. . Noise contours from all sources and potential allowable uses on adjac commercial properties should be considered in the design of the project on locations. . Traffic saving amenities may be offset from its distance from schools, parks readily available grocer shopping and the like. . Setbacks are a concern and he would like to see the ratio between the curre setbacks and allowable building heights compared to the setbacks and heights the proposed structure. . The process for the General Plan update is important. . The Traffic Phasing Ordinance is important and needs to be reviewed. nmissioner Tucker noted his concurrence with all previous Commissioners' .ements noting that the land use is a threshold issue and it may not be just the nge of the use but the intensity of the use as well. He would like more information what the project will look like with materials board, colors, elevations, wall detail and )s already on the site. nmissioner McDaniel, noted: • He is please with the affordable housing aspect of the project • Concerned with the tandem parking issue. file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 . Concern of the neighbors need to be addressed, hopefully prior to the meeting. Henn noted: We need to have a substantially better understanding of where the City heading with the General Plan in this study area. imissioner Tucker asked that the City Attorney's office have the right to review 'ove the CC and R's on the property. The CC and R documents should grant to the right of enforcement of the parking provisions. )Ilowing a brief discussion on timing of this project along with deliberations on nd use in the airport area, circulation and mobility policies of the General Plan upc was agreed that the first meeting in December would be the better time to hear was made Henn None None ns, Lennar Homes (PA2004 -169) 900 Newport Center Drive iar Homes proposes to construct 79 residential condominiums on a 4.25 acre site presen :loped with tennis courts operated by the adjacent Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. T icant proposes to construct three buildings that are approximately 65 feet in height. T ested applications would change the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan la designations from commercial to Multiple Family Residential. The existing APF zoning proposed to be changed to PC (Planned Community) and a Planned Commun alopment Plan text that would establish use and development regulations is propose smentation of the project also requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasi nance, Tentative Parcel and Tract Maps for subdivision purposes, and a Coas dential Development Permit regarding the provision of affordable housing in accordan the Zoning Code and Housing Element of the General Plan. Tucker recused himself from deliberation on this item. Rosalinh Ung gave an overview of the staff report, noting: consists of 79 condominium units with 8 different floor plan options parking structures. General Plan amendment/LCP Land Use Plan - the change from APF to M Family Residential is necessary because the proposed residential uses are permitted in the APF designation. The MFR land use designation is appropriate for the project and will compatible with the surrounding uses. . The Planned Community Development Plan Text Adoption is a request to Page 29 of 35 ITEM NO. 5 PA2004 -169 Recommended for approval file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 the subject property from APF to the PC District and waiver of 10 -acre minims land area requirement for Planned Community District as the subject property approximately 4.25 acres in size. . Tentative Parcel Map is requested to sub - divide the property from the Hotel complex. The subsequent Tract Map is proposed for the cond ownership. . The Traffic Study has been prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinan and concluded that project related traffic does not cause an unacceptable level service at the studied intersections. . The Coastal Residential Development Permit is required as the project inc 16 units for affordable housing in accordance with the Municipal Code. applicant proposes to locate these units off -site within the City limits. . A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to evaluate the project v traditional zoning of multiple family residential followed by a thirty day revi period from July 15th to August 15th of this year. Since then it has been determined the most appropriate zoning designation for property would be Planned Community. An addendum has been prepared address the change of the zoning designation and is attached to the document consideration. . Staff believes the findings for th additional residential opportunities Center. s project can be made and that it comparable with surrounding area of rson Toerge asked if the new condominiums would absorb any of the allocation. He was answered no. Dustin Fuller of David Evans and Associates, responsible for the iments. noted: The project will be exporting about 40,000 cubic yards of material, which eque to approximately 80 truck trips per day over a 36 day period, which broken do equals 11 -12 truck trips per hour. The total ADT added to the project will minimum and will not affect traffic impacts. The air quality analysis includes mitigation measures that would also covering the free board on the export material and require cleaning of the as the trucks exit. We will be adding language in assuming a 30 mile round trip for the fill site as tl maximum. The applicant will be looking for something closer. Based on a 30 mi round trip with 80 truck trips we would put a number on the trips. 'Dudr demolition and excavation daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than cumulative 2400 miles per day hauling materials from the site to and fro . the dumping site.' Another mitigation measure to be added to addresses a ha truck route. 'Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the projec the applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the propose travel route for all trucks, the distance traveled and how many daily tnrc trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles travelc Page 30 of 35 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 31 of 35 to below 2400 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips shall not exceed 2400 miles during demolition and excavation activities. Harp asked that 'review and approval by the City to be included in both sures. ,son Toerge, referring to page 4 of the Errata, questioned the accuracy of coverage of 100% less setback represented in the chart. Temple explained that appears to be allowing coverage to the buildable area of airperson Toerge asked if the construction works parking was addressed in the EIR? was answered, no. Fuller noted that generally during construction, the workers park on the site. ever, there is no formal analysis. Temple stated this is not a matter of environmental review, rather it is a matter Building Department and the Public Works Department as the grading plan ,oved and the project building permits are approved. If there is a thought thi it be a parking problem, we would ask the contractor to identify how that would caged so there would not be on- street impacts. sing, Chairperson Toerge noted there is a discussion on what to do when leave the site. Considering the water quality issues, could we specify ng is the means of cleaning the street and disallow hosing down the streets. Temple answered yes. >erson Toerge, referring to page 346 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the housing stock and vacancy percentage. Temple answered there is a very high vacancy rate because of the high number ind homes; turnover in the rental stock, and that is what the Census tells us. alee Newman, Principal of Government Solutions, representing the applicant, ni the Marriott Hotel has been going through an extensive renovation. As part of rt they seek to acquire a Residential Development on the property adjacent to >I on land utilized as tennis courts. This would provide an opportunity to bring i sale' homes in the Newport Center. She then introduced her team members. ad that Lennar has reviewed all the conditions in the staff report and mitiga isures and are in agreement to all. White of Government Solutions, noted the following during a . Aerial photo of the site location. As part of the Marriott renovation it became apparent that the tennis courts no longer being used. I . The proposed project is 4.25 acre site with 79 luxury condominiums. f ite : //H:1Plancomm1200 511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 32 of 35 . The proposed project will be going through the Coastal Commission for their] f determination following approval of the applications. • This is a unique residential opportunity in Newport Center. • We are requesting that we have a maximum height of 65 feet while we allowed up to 375 in the high rise district. • The FAR on the site is 1.9; which includes the 100% subterranean garage. • We have 201 spaces provided, 198 required, which is 2 spaces per resident 112 space per guest. . The guest spaces are equally distributed throughout the garages to coordinate the units they are intended to serve and are not grouped in one specific area. . The Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated in June of this year reviewing a number of areas such as air quality and no significant impacts were identified as a result of the project. . The surrounding neighbors would be the Colony Apartments across the the Marriott on one side, and the country club on the other side. . We are having on -going discussions with the country club on coordination, sale disclosures and CC and R's protect both the residents and the golf course. fin Buchta, MVE, speaking for the applicant, noted the following on the project site: • Site is constrained on the Santa Barbara edge by 15 -20 feet of grade fall to tt golf course edge. • The building will be stepped up with a 2 and 3 story Type 5 construction over or level of a parking garage. . The architecture is Mediterranean style with smooth stucco detailing, surrounds on the windows, wrought iron detailing on railings and Juliet and Mediterranean inspired roof details with built up fascias. . The Santa Barbara edge has the pedestrian linkages to Fashion Island entries to the buildings. There are wide expanses of glass and expanded c at the lower level. . He then explained some of the various unit layouts and floor plans. White continued: . This project has been in the planning and design phase for two years. . It has received review and approval of The Irvine Company. . It is compatible with the surrounding uses. file : //H:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 33 of 35 . The site has two entrances off Santa Barbara for both residents and guests. . There are two entrances off the promenade where both residents and guests park. . There are several access points from the units where residents and guests egress to Fashion Island. • She then noted exhibits views taken from a third story building and how the buildings will look along Santa Barbara, as well as from the golf course. • They have received many inquiries as to potential buyers. • This is a 4.25 acre site with nearly 2 acres of open space. Commission inquiry, Ms. White noted the applicant has agreed to a condition that ;y will locate 16 units of affordable housing somewhere in the City of Newport ach. The agreement will be in place approved by the City Attorney by the issuance the certificate of occupancy. Eaton asked about the parking designation of visitor parking; Buchta, referring to the garage plan, showed the visitor parking designations. ris White added that residents' parking will be behind gates and that the CC and I to be crafted in such a way that restrict residents to only park in those spaces as they are not able to lease those spaces out and that guest parking is specific, ked and will be designated as 48 or 72 hour stipulation for guest parking. Gu) ,ing will not be behind the gates, residents' parking will be gated. The parki Is will be clearly marked with what building a driver is going to and spaces a Is will have signage or something on the pillars. Guests will have some type ne security box to be buzzed up into the building. Cole asked what the feature that separates the golf course from White answered that the building itself in a lot of the places acts as a fence; where building is open there will be a fence between the golf course and the property. )ending on what the edge looks like, some of those units are 3-4 feet above grade it is so they likely won't need a fence, but, in other places the golf course hm ressed their desire to have a fence. We are working on something that will be ;nable to both Lennar and the golf course and nice for the residents. The building: approximately 15 feet back from the property line. Commission inquiry, Ms. White noted: They will be working on sales disclosures and CC and R's with regard to errant golf ball and the safety rules. . The architects are looking at special types of window materials. . The rotunda effect are end units and allow for floor -to ceiling windows in the ends file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 units at that location. There is no common room as the residents will have the use of the Marriott. comment was closed. Toerge asked: • Clarified the terminology used in the draft resolution. • PC regulations - segregate or include a breakdown of the livable floor area an the parking square footage so that it is clearly shown why they are over the FAR. • Condition 39 looks to be describing a problem but not a condition. • Condition 81 - idling of construction vehicles for 5 minutes only then they are t be shut off. Temple answered that the FAR reflects the total of the building and we estal suggested FAR in the Planned Community text to support the proposed project. Ung noted that the condition was drafted such that the applicant has the option %r re- locate or move it further away from that. It was agreed for condition 81. imissioner Henn clarified in the agreement for the affordable housing, those L be identified and available by the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for Temple answered staff would want this at a minimum to be assured that they ally in place before the City would allow occupancy. Hawkins noted this should be made a condition. Harp noted that this will be incorporated into the agreement and add it to ioner Hawkins noted condition 15. The parking plan needs review of the Public Works Department and City Traffic Engineer. Edmonston answered that condition 46 covers review by the Traffic Engineer. Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge recommend approval of General amendment No. 2004 -005, Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment No. 21 )01, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003, Tentative Parcel Map ?005 -014, Tentative tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, ,oastal Residential Development No. 2005 -004 to the City Council to the City Coi and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration OA2004 -169 subject to the find Eaton, H None Tucker None Cole, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Page 34 of 35 file : //H:1Plancomm12 00511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 F- L 4 Page 35 of 35 4 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 DDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - none provided due to late hour. ) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none provided due to late hour ) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none provided due to late hour Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Certification Committee - none provided due to late hour ) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee - non provided due to late hour. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Cole discussed the meeting that was held with the City Attorney, Chairperson Toerge, Jeff Goldfarb of Rutan and Tucker and Building Director Jay Elbettar regarding the Narconon intensification use and the ramifications of both Federal and State legislation that govern these facilities. ) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. Project status - none provided due to late hour. 1) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Cole will be late at the next meeting and Chairperson Toerge will be leaving early. ADJOURNMENT: 12:15 a.m. ADJOURNMENT BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 4 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005