Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2006Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 19 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn - all present STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Patricia Temple, Advisor Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant and Planning Commission Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Hawkins congratulated the Commission and staff for their work on completing he General Plan Update for the City, and Commissioner Henn for his election to he City Council. Ms. Temple introduced Mr. Lepo who is the interim Planning Director and has taken over the responsibility of the Planning Department. Chairperson Cole noted this is Commissioner Henn's last meeting as a Commissioner. He thanked him for his vision of the City and the sharing of his business acumen. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on November 10, 2006. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 2, 2006. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Approved Peotter to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, and Toerge Noes: None Abstain: Henn ITEM NO.2 SUBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485) 2920 Newport Boulevard Continued to The Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpub 12/07/2006 pursuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City in 1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. City has received several Page 1 of 19 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 plaints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission uate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the conditic ;r which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commiss require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions oval. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary cation of the Use Permit is not being considered at this time. Temple reported that this item is to be continued to December 7, 2006. was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by ;I to continue this item to December 7, 2006. None n: None ECT: Newport Bay Marina (PA2001 -210) 2300 Newport Boulevard Plan Review, Use Permit, Modification Permit and Vesting Tentative Tr, to allow the construction of a mixed -use development on a 2.4 acre s ed north of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. T ct consists of the demolition of all structures on site and the construction )ximately 36,000 square feet of commercial uses and 27 dwelling un tominiums). Eleven three -story buildings are planned to be built over .rranean parking garage. The reconstruction /reconfiguration of the existi lead, boatways and docks is also planned. The Site Plan Review applicati 1 authorize the entire project and the Vesting Tentative Tract map wot it a subdivision map to allow for the residential units to be individually so Use Permit would establish a building height limit of up to 35 feet and t fication Permit would allow portions of the proposed buildings to encroa i the 5 -foot front yard setback. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCI 071144) including mitigation measures was submitted to and reviewed by t ling Commission. Cunningham, contract planner for the City, noted the following: This item was continued from October 5th. In response to concerns expressed by the Commission, the applicant made these changes: All structures have been relocated outside o' the front yard (Newport Blvd setback thereby eliminating the need for a modification. The areas between buildings F and G, H and I have been elimine resulting in an additional six feet along the northern property line. That feet results in the ability to place a delivery area between building K northerly property line. A condition has been added that the space modified to allow delivery vehicles to gain access and egress from space so there will not be multiple turn movements. The residential component along the deck level has been eliminated replaced with commercial and parking spaces. Subterranean garage has been re- designed. PA2001 -210 Approved Page 2 of 19 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Commercial floor area has been increased slightly by 250 square feet a residential floor area has been decreased by 3,330 square feet. The to number of proposed dwellings remains the same as the units have be re- designed. The paseo area between buildings C and D has been widened additional landscaping. The total landscaping throughout the site has been increased. Ar. Campbell, referencing a sketch, added that the building height ranges in area are 35 feet, 17 feet, 21 1/2 feet, 25 feet, 19 1/2 feet, 35 feet, 22 feet, 281 9 feet, 43 feet (on site) and 27 112 feet (on site). He confirmed that those buil ever the height limit set forth in the Specific Plan pre -date adoption of the Spe McDaniel noted that it appears the average is in the 20 foot range. r. Campbell added that a required finding that discretionary approval of at ,tease in building height would not result in an abrupt change of scale betweet Ijacent structures may be made in this case because of the horizontal separatiot �tween the proposed structure and adjacent structures which have heights of 3; at and 17 feet, respectively. Chairperson Cole asked if there are low building: Ijacent to the 28th Street Marina. The response was that there is no building of ith Street and the shipyard is across the street. North of that building are : !ries of two story buildings along Lafayette Street around 25 - 26 feet. scussion continued. Commissioner Toerge added there is a significan Terence between this project and the 28th Street Marina project. Unlike tha irrent case, the 28th Street Marina project is two buildings with residential unit: !t back a substantial distance from the street. The project now before the )mmission is a series of buildings with facades of all floors rising in the sam( ane from the street edge . The 28th Street Marina project has a staggered too tttern and the structures are not simply squares but rather angle back from th( -eet. The product type is significantly different in that the residential units an nsolidated into two buildings instead of 7 or 8 buildings. This issue is not jus ie of building height, but rather one of height of the buildings at the perimeter o e project site. One of the proposed buildings exceeds the building height limi id is in the middle of the site and I find no problem with that one. It is the heigh id adjacency at the perimeter of the property and the vertical nature of the oposed building that causes the abrupt scale change, not just the height. Then a trade off and the Code supports the idea of making buildings higher so that wE in gain more view corridor. In the 28th St. Marina there is a 50 foot wide corrido at widens to 100 feet. This project has a much narrower corridor and narrow; own towards the bay instead of widening out so that it restricts the view and ✓en the height, doesn't represent an appropriate the trade off. I am looking fo eater view corridors. I don't think the project does that. It is only fair to compar( a two projects in a more complete fashion than the just the height of the highes II Cunningham added: The Commission also asked for a Parking Management Plan and Construction Parking Management Plan. The applicant has supplied the and they have been reviewed by staff and are contained in your packets. There was a request for clarification on the marina parking which is Page 3 of 19 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /P1nAgendas /2006 /mnl1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 4 of 19 lin the staff report. A buyer notification form has been developed by the applicant and i contained in the packet. Staff would like to see more detail (on this forrr at the time the project is developed and that it be more generic and cover wider range such as potential boat operation and/or additional restaurants. Some of the issues yet to be discussed are the buffering issue on the northerly property line adjacent to Woody's, re- design of the subterranear parking with triple tandem parking which staff recommends be eliminated the use of the 19 -slip area has been clarified and is included in the staff report; the southerly ramp from the deck level to the arcade area stays a: one way; and, a second resolution with underline and strikeout is in thf packet with changes to conditions. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions. iI McDermott of Government Solutions, representing the applicant, introdu staff and noted the following changes to the project in response to :erns expressed by the Commissioners at their last meeting as well ges made in response to the concerns of neighboring property owners: All structures have been relocated outside of the front yard (Newport Boulevard) setback. All residential uses were eliminated from the main deck level and have been replaced by commercial uses. The structures on the bay side of the property were consolidated to increase the separation at the westerly ( Woody's Wharf) property line. Building K adjacent to Woody's has been modified with the removal of all windows on northerly side and the building has been shifted 6 feet for a buffer of 13 feet and an 8 -foot masonry wall is now proposed and a loading zone for bldg A has been added. An additional condition is proposed to read "An 8 -foot high block wall with 4- foot high glass panel on top consistent with the architectural design of the project to be provided along the northerly property line to provide screening between the Woody's Wharf Restaurant and the proposed mixed uses consistent with condition 72 which requires adequate site distances." An additional loading space was added in the western portion of the project on the deck level. Additional parking spaces were added to both the subterranean parking structure and the parking deck. Landscaping enhancements along the bay front and slipway. There are eight buildings with two units per building for a total of 16 dwelling units. Building C office has been redesigned to pull the stairway back away from the right -of -way to have pedestrian landing area located on -site and out of the public right -of -way. http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Bridge elevation at Newport Boulevard is at 8 feet with an increase of 2 feet up to the deck area. The railing is designed to be vertical tubular steel. Discussion then focused on the following areas of concern: Landscaping and architectural articulation of the proposed 8 -foot wall on the westerly side of the project. The width of the view corridor, especially on the bay side of the property. The timing of preparation of the detailed Construction Management and the Parking Management Plans. Width of the sidewalks is 10 feet. The second and third stories set back 2 feet on the front of the building facing Newport Boulevard. otant City Attorney asked if there was a condition related to filling the de of the bridge with tables and chairs, etc. such that you won't really have corridor. Is there any type of restriction related to this? r. Campbell answered there isn't a condition that would limit that. McDermott continued: The rendering for the bridge area is shown as outside the view corridor part of the easement that we have to provide. The parking has been revised in the subterranean level with an increase number of spaces. The number of spaces that exceed the Coy requirement is 24. All the residential units have garages. Retail office parking includes 16 commercial carports and 152 stalls. Marina parking is 15 stalls for the 19 slips and is provided in tl subterranean parking and so marked and enforced. All deck level parking consist of garages and parking for commercial uses in carports. The subterranean parking has been redesigned and allows for very go( circulation. She then noted where the parking attendant placement coy be. The view corridor consists of 5,327 square feet, the proposed expan view corridor will now be 13,204 square feet to be protected by easement that perhaps would allow for tables and chairs. View corridors were then discussed as were the pedestrian and car across the bridge. ner Hawkins asked if the bridge was an integral part of the and what the proposal was for Slip 19 and Condition 67 regai berthing. - McDermott answered it would be difficult as they would end up with Page 5 of 19 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 6 of 19 eparate projects without access across the bridge. She then referred to the sit plan and discussed ingress /egress and fire access. She then discussed th an of the slipway and the ability to have the berthing capability. ;ion continued on berthing types, keeping the view corridor opened condition(s). McDermott continued: The Statement of Overriding Conditions in Exhibit B regarding cult resources states the buildings are in good condition. We suggest using term "poor." Condition 14 - clarified that the noise ordinance standard should be mixed use not for multi - family. The mixed use standard is 60 dBA betty the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Condition 46 - requirement that elevators be gumey - accommodating. ' would like to clarify that the commercial elevators will be gum accommodating but would prefer that elevators that only go the residen floors be residential elevators. According to the Code, elevators required for certain commercial areas over a certain square foota Because of the size of the square footage added into the 2nd and floors on building K, building areas are below the threshold that requires elevator. Therefore, there will be no commercial elevator because handicap access is not required for that small of a space. Temple noted it is not necessary for the Commission to designate specific s of elevators; the Codes will be applied. We can, therefore, eliminate lition 46 as the Fire and Building Codes dictate these uses. inuing, Ms. McDermott noted: Condition 67 - limiting Slip 19 berthing operations will need to be discussed. Conditions 51 and 66 - refer to the Construction Traffic Management Plan and to the Parking Management Plan which have been submitted and the applicant offers to bring these back for your review and ultimate approval. She then noted the parking attendant locations on the exhibit. There either be booths or a gate system. ssion continued on the easement, the recordation and orientation of � or. Staff recommended that this recordation be conditioned along with Map. Malak, architect, noted: The configuration gives more opportunities for views. The prior we( shaped configuration is a view from a small area and he referred to exhibit. The rectangular configuration allows for more opportunities for views and an expansion. continued on the view corridor along with the ten -foot easement on http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 7 of 19 waterway and access. issioner Toerge noted: The Specific Plan stipulates that the property has to provide a view co and part of the nexus for allowing the height is an effort to create the corridor. The existence of the existing view corridor is irrelevant. The consideration is an effective view corridor. He then compared this to other projects within the City. Referencing the exhibit, he noted the configurations. continued on view corridor, pedestrian access, signs, parking nmissioner Toerge noted that this site cannot be developed without a U mit. There are a multitude of trade -offs in this proposed project and it can eloped in a significantly different way to reflect some of his concerns. The a number of places throughout the City that give you FAR entitlement that y 't attain when you are obligated to meet the current Code. This may, in fact, of them. While the project may be under the FAR maximum limitation, it it meet the requirements of development standards and guidelines in order ;ive approval, and in some cases, that means you can not get to the maxims Z or density. The entitlement of the property is subject to all applicat idards and codes, not simply the maximum floor area ratio and densities. . McDermott noted that the entitlement allows for 43 units and t ) osing to do 27 units so there are fewer residential units than would be the mixed use designation. imissioner Henn noted we should consider a balanced view of this where icant requests a project that is less (intense) in some respects. imissioner McDaniel noted he is in favor of not having the 19th slip be a be due to the discussion on the view corridor. It is a valuable asset to the City that view corridor without a boat in the way. We need to keep this o missioner Hawkins suggested having this slip for loading and not having ing at all. He indicated his appreciation that the applicant has made gas based on the Commission's concerns. He then asked about the c corridors gaining footage. imissioner Henn noted his concern of having available space for boaters t using the bay to tie up for a short periods of time to patronize a shop Ken McKently, architect, referencing the exhibit, discussed the orientation buildings, elimination of windows, and narrowing paseos as to extend i th) of the view corridor by approximately 6 feet. continued on view corridors and paseos. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 McDermott noted that the applicant is requesting that sale of small boats Ned so that there might be small boats that are stored here in some resp nected to the marine uses that would be encouraged in those commer continued on a possible height restriction. comment was opened. Steinbrecker, local resident, noted: 30 -year resident of the City. 3 -story height limit of the buildings on the street is a shock for people to see Is a 35 -foot wall along Newport Boulevard really what you want to see? This is a massive facade and recommends that it be staggered back iron the street. This development will put pressure on the City when future come in with their project. Three -story buildings will change things and be detrimental to the feel of area. She suggested staggering the roof height. Sarventi, partner of Woody's Wharf, noted: Having residences next to their establishment is problematic. Following discussions with the proponent, they (proponent) have offered put buffers on that side of the project as well as the sound wall and I offer to maintain that wall with no windows on that side of the buildi and beefed -up those disclosures. They have offered to bring in their no consultants to attenuate noise inside our restaurant. We feel better ab( this development. The buildings along that area are in poor shape and a development such this is a positive thing for the City. The concerns raised in the letter from their attorney have been met and feel much better about this proposed project. Traffic and parking and noise complaints coming from the development their biggest concerns. missioner Hawkins suggested a condition be added related to the uation in Woody's Wharf. ner McDaniel noted that Woody's Wharf also has the responsibility noise and traffic on their property for the benefit of other neighbors Page 8 of 19 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 9 of 19 Oim Wasco, representing the Crab Cooker, noted: He noted that considerable consideration has been given to Woody's in the form of increased setback, sight and sound wall, no windows their establishment and removal of residential next to that wall. Referring to the elevation with the Crab Cooker on it, he noted that have zero lot lines and have residences looking straight down. They concerned with the mitigation done for Woody's. He suggests that a consideration of not having balconies on their side of project and possible more than a zero lot line. missioner Hawkins noted that the Crab Cooker was represented at the la :ing and no real concerns were noted other than the stability of the comm( Woody's is a different type of operation than the Cooker. Odors may be ern with the open walkway and perhaps there may be some way to wo id that. Perhaps the applicant can work with the Crab Cooker to addre, concerns. iissioner Henn noted the issue of the abruptness of the height cha raised and asked Mr. Wasco how troubled he was by the height en the Crab Cooker and the higher building. Wasco noted if this is within the Code then it is the landowner's right ;lop his property as such. He noted that another view corridor can >idered that leads back to the bay by the area of the Crab Cooker. Griffith, representing Mr. Rubian, owner of the Crab Cooker, noted: They suggest that in the balcony area sound glass be installed to de smoke, odor and noise. The Construction Management Plan should not allow staging in the an area as it will be problematic for their delivery trucks and patrons. On the disclosure to the public, it would be appropriate to get input both Woody's Wharf and them before it would be adopted. :ussion followed on the disclosure, protection, input and approval by ming Director and notification to the Planning Commission. Campbell then noted a minor change to condition 51. d Pappas from Woody's Wharf noted their concern about residential and :rcial uses. He noted his appreciation for the applicant and the work being ;ad. comment closed. issioner Toerge noted: Notice requirement to residence buyer - Condition 64 should reference buyers and owners and not lessees. The last sentence needs to be re- worded. Notice should be given at the time a purchase agreement is executed and not at the time a deed is executed. This way it is up front http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 not after the fact. The notice needs to be re- worded and should be a notice to not just the buyer but to subsequent buyers. Existing uses will change over time that fact needs to be reflected in the verbiage. the site plan he continued noting his concerns: The largest retail building on the project has no adjacent loading area. All parking for this retail building is in the garage and there is no parking and there should be some. Dissatisfied with the overall site plan and questioned if it meets the intent the Specific Plan and the Codes that we have. Appreciates the changes to the subterranean parking as presented which makes it far more reasonable to use. There should be an ingress /egress on the southerly lane to create access into the deck level to give residents and visitors a more reasoi alternative to get in and out of the site. Asked for and received an explanation of the locations of trash throughout the project by Mr. Malak. Absha Anabar, of ETCO Investments, noted: Trash enclosures have been addressed and the site is designed so that al office, retail and commercial uses will be provided with professiona janitorial services. All of these units will have this janitorial service that will bring the trash d to the parking structures or to various locations on site. Referring to site plan, he pointed out the various locations. All residential units will have curb pick -up according to City standards. Commissioner Toerge noted further concerns: Coastal access issues: 919 Bayside - access 8 feet unrestricted; 28th Marina - 9 -10 feet unrestricted Six feet for this project is too narrow to provide reasonable access along bulkhead and not consistent with the projects that have been cited. Pedestrian access needs to be provided on the bridge and large enough people to circulate safely. 19th Street slip - allowing permanent access impedes the view easem and there needs to be a definition between temporary and permanent there is no dispute. Parking - no surface or deck level parking for the multitude of commer and retail facilities that are going to be here; this is a serious flaw of plan. Page 10 of 19 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl l- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 11 of 19 rking Management Plan (PMP) and parking layout plan go hand in hand. T in is not really clear as it references stations where people might come in to p gates. These need to be firmly established and referenced on the PMP that 1 a the specifics of the physical development. This project does not do this yet. A complete PMP needs to be reviewed by the Planning Commission needs to be prepared in conjunction with the site plan. Deck level pa is important as an attraction element for potential customers. He then discussed potential enhancements for the subterranean facility. The 35 foot wall on the newer plan may lessen the noise impact for Buildi K; it makes the property less compatible with the adjacent property which open. He then noted several abrupt height changes on the property li which he feels compromises the compatibility issue The 8 -foot wall on the property line would need some specific approval. encouraged that the wall as it moves toward the street step d somewhat as there is an abruptness of an 8 -foot tall with a 4 -foot g panel on top. The sound attenuation needs to be addressed on Newport Boulevarc according to the EIR and along the property line by the Crab Cooker. Double -paned windows or other measures need to be implementer throughout the whole project as this is an integration of commercial an( residential uses. There should be more than one ingress point to the decl level of the project. The southerly drive to the deck level at 22nd Stree and Arcade should allow ingress and egress. There is a requirement to have a view corridor. The effectiveness of view corridor is relevant to the redevelopment of this entire site. proposal to have boats taller than the bridge seems to obstruct the and defeats the purpose of the view corridor. The Construction Management Plan (CMP) contains a lot of variables. does represent a positive effort by the owner /development. However, doesn't measure up to the detail that I want to see as it relates to satisfyi the requirements of the EIR. McDermott noted that they can bring the Construction Management Plan Parking Management Plan back to the Commission. The idea of n, muation is appropriate and they are willing to provide the glass walls over ib Cooker and intend to meet all'of the noise requirements. They agree to v a step down wall by Woody's Wharf. Noting the exhibit, she identified retail is adjacent to the buildings in addition to parking below grade. ommissioner Hawkins noted a correction on the draft resolution for the Tract Map paragraph 11 which talks about archeological and historic resources. Following brief discussion it was suggested to add, "....to the extent possible." hairperson Cole referenced the following issues: uilding height request: ommissioner Eaton - findings can be made. We will be seeing more 35 -foot high http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /nml 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 12 of 19 in the future. nissioner Henn - agrees with these comments adding this increase in allow for more view corridor. nmissioner McDaniel - wall next to Woody's Wharf is a concern. The Id be shorter as it gets to the water. He suggests some sort of articulation a flat wall. nissioner Eaton suggested a condition regarding articulation and utilization cted windows subject to the approval of the Planning Director and the sar on the 8foot plus 4foot wall as it approaches Newport Boulevard. agreed this could be done and conditioned. imissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the view corridor with the additional as a benefit. i Cole noted consensus on the height and adding a condition on on Building K and staff will decide how it drops down. continued. k Sarventi noted that the 8 -foot wall was suggested as a means to block the e. tinuing with the list, Chairman Cole noted: Residential use on the deck level has been addressed. Delivery service vehicles access has been addressed. Edmonston noted that there is no established City criteria on the proximity of ling spaces and where they are provided in some of the older commercial is. We try to place them where they are most useful for the majority of nesses. The problem may be if you have delivery drivers who are in a rush, will park where it is convenient for them. However, we get few complaints on imissioner Hawkins noted there should be no parking on the bridge. tinuing with the list, Chairman Cole noted: Parking /Construction Management Plan - is it City protocol to require these at this stage of an application for our review? Campbell answered not usually; however, with projects of this size that whole site with excavation, we have required them up front for review. iitions have been made that these are subject to review by the Pla ctor and City Engineer. Alowing a discussion on a possible public hearing for the review of instruction Management Plan, it was decided to amend Condition 51 to t is back for review by the Planning Commission. The Parking Management res not necessarily need to be publicly noticed. http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 13 of 19 Edmonston noted that the Parking Management Plan as presented is iplete. nmissioner Toerge noted the PMP and CMP provided by :a previous appli Our Lady Queen of Angels proposed project was reviewed in -depth by fining Commission. He went on to list the deficiencies in this proposal. imissioner Peotter noted this is a proposal for a shopping center that sting all the requirements per Code. They are not proposing that there be p� ,ing now, and if they do, they will need to come back and have it reviewed satisfaction of the City Engineer. Most of the issues that may come up will finical in nature and not public in nature and staff can handle it. sioner Eaton noted his agreement with previous comments. d that Condition 66 have an added noticing requirement and that is appealable. Henn noted his agreement. nissioner McDaniel noted the concerns of the Crab Cooker proprietor. to know what is going on especially in the arcade area and how it will in continued on parking resulting in possible changes to the site plan. issioner Hawkins noted that if there is a design change in the site plan, if such change wouldn't have to come back for review. Campbell answered it would unless the Planning Director felt it was tantial conformance with the Conditions of Approval. If the driveways chan ings change or are not within staffs comfort level, changes would be brou for review. Cole noted consensus as follows; Condition 66 with the added language that we provide notice to owners and that the decision of the City Traffic Engineer and Planr are appealable to the Commission. The Planning Commission agreed. parking issues - consensus was met. :r on Crab Cooker side, full height glass on balcony level - consensus as condition. in Arcade Street - Condition 51 covers this; consensus to include won g poor performance pursuant to the PMP will be further reviewed by put on disclosure language - subject to City Attorney approval referenced mdition 64. There was consensus to add content and change "lease' to "dee id provide notice at time purchase contract is executed. Noticing will be done thin 300 feet. Discussion continued. iscaping issues - Commissioner Hawkins noted it should not restrict the vii dor. Staff suggested memorializing the view corridor as presented by t icant tonight including specifics. The consensus was that landscape plan is http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /nml 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 14 of 19 be reviewed by staff and incorporated within the easement referenced in Condition 11. w corridor - reducing the walkways down to 6 feet to allow an additional 4 the right hand side of the slipway. There was consensus to require this. - joint ingress and egress on the south side of the property instead of just Henn noted he prefers one -way egress. >mmissioner Toerge noted the restriction of left hand turn into the cut ration. The only way someone coming down the peninsula can access this to drive down 22nd Street and make a U -turn. stant City Attorney Harp added that there is a no parking area in the t of way and ultimately a decision will have to be made whether to allow and possibly increase parking there. Referencing the site plan, this identified. r. Edmonston added that the City Council can make the decision if that could i entry area, or if the overall benefit would suggest having additional parking. ;cussion continued on Encroachment Permit requirement, limited parking in :a, entry way access point, no loss of parking in the public right -of way, surd parking on site, access to water benefit, aesthetics of the arcade area, ety. Consensus was to keep as proposed on the current plan. front walkway issue - Mr. McKently, architect for the project, noted that Id make the sidewalk wider, 8 feet for sidewalk with 2 feet for landscape. noted this would be an aesthetic call for the Planning Commission. 8 ; well. 2 feet can work for landscaping. owing discussion, the consensus was for the wider walkway at 8 feet with for landscaping along the bay. The walkway will be widened on the side bridge to 6 feet for pedestrian access. wells in the deck going down into the subterranean parking - Mr. McKently tact for the project, noted there are two concerns: they might lose stalls an( are taking landscaping from the top and moving it below. There are some ;s where this can be done and not affect the parking count. We are open tc attenuation - needs to be done throughout the project site. This ad in Condition 61. Commissioners agreed. Campbell noted Condition 14 should reflect the standards in the a; 45 dBA for interior noise and 60 dBA for exterior noise. 19 - Used drop off people at the shops. The height needs to be tempered overnight parking. The bridge height is 4 112 feet above the dock. No m I used by Duffy boats and gondoliers only. Campbell noted that the dredged depth in the slip will be shallow, roughly At low tide you may be able to park a Duffy and nothing else. You are n http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/P]nAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 going to be able to get a large boat in there. I discussion, it was decided that Slip 19 be used for two -hour berthing 4 feet above the deck. Campbell added a condition that the garages be unobstructed and used ing only with no storage. There are at least 8 to 10 more conditions :her 8 -10 being amended. He does not have the language for all of these jested that these be brought back at the next meeting for review if emission would like. Cole noted that would be acceptable. Anabar of ETCO noted that they are in agreement with all of the >. Temple noted that a condition needs to be added that the public access ne be signed from all public right -of -way entries. The proponent agreed to that. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commis s to approve Use Permit No. 2001 -038, Site Plan Review No. 2001 t Beach Tract Map No. 2004 -003 and certification of the Environn Report as presented tonight subject to all the findings and cond 3 those to be affirmed by the Commission at the next meeting. nmissioner Toerge noted the accommodations requested in the application complexity of the project. He noted he would not be in support of the pre to the abrupt scale of the box -like structures, poor parking distribution fo . imercial uses and lack of a secondary ingress /egress point at 22nd Street. irperson Cole noted that the applicant has addressed the major concerns Commission; this is a type of project that meets the intent of the McFadd are Specific Plan for a mixed -use development; we had very little put Toerge None BJECT: Thirty First Street, LLC (PA200E 407, 409, 411 & 413 31 st Street Permit to establish a height limit of 31 -feet, exceeding the base height limit eet, for the construction of four mixed -use buildings and approval of mercial floor area ratio (FAR) less than the minimum 0.25 FAR required 1 ;d -use development projects. In addition, the applicant is requesting t oval of a Modification Permit to allow parking spaces to encroach within t t and rear setbacks and a lot line adjustment to adjust the interior prope s of four lots into four equally -sized parcels. Temple reported that this item is to be continued to December 7, 2006. was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by None None PA2006 -031 Continued to 12/07/2006 Page 15 of 19 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 16 of 19 SUBJECT: 500 -540 SupeioCAveer (PA2006 -113) ITEM 6-0113 Use Permit to allow the conversion of 97,000 square feet of research and Continue to ielopment (R &D) /general office use to medical office use. The project includes 12/07/2006 demolition of one of the existing buildings and the construction of an additional king structure that exceeds the maximum building bulk limitation for the site. ditionally, approval of a Traffic Study is being requested pursuant to the City o wport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Temple reported that this item is to be continued to December 7, 2006. was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by el to continue this item to December 7, 2006. None None Code Amendment 2006 -007 (PA2006 -211) ITEM No. 6 Day Care Regulations I PA2006 -211 ould Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amendedRecommende revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children andl approval )se for adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards? Jerson Cole noted that this item would be heard first as a member of has requested. ssioner Henn noted he would abstain from discussion and vote on as he had not participated in the initial meeting on this subject. Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting This item had been heard at the public hearing on October 19th. This is a set of regulations dealing with large family child care homes and intended to allow the City to avail itself of the land use controls permitt, under State Law. Staff was directed to return with this item with an off - street parking standa which in our report deals with the standards in the Institute Transportation Engineers publication Parking Generation a representative standards for parking from other communities. The staff report includes a recommendation that the off street park standard be set as two off - street parking spaces and a drop -off and pick area approved by the City's Traffic Engineer and that a driveway could used for this purpose. This is in addition to any required off - street park for the actual dwelling unit on the property. comment was opened. Garrett, local resident, noted: He lives next to a day care center. http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 17 of 19 I. Concerned with lighting with flood lights in a residential area. Concerned also with the noise and traffic issues related to this use as well. He asked that something be added to the current Municipal Code regards to lighting in a residential neighborhood. Commission inquiry, he added: Pick -up and drop -off occur at a red - painted curb in front and there are cars waiting in line. We have 3 -foot setbacks. At times he has to use ear protection in order to rest during the day because it is so loud with the children playing outside in the front yard. The front yard is fenced. blic comment was closed. . Alford noted that there are no current standards for residential lighting and it is re of a common standard regarding shielding direction away for commercial :as. State preemptions limit us to controls dealing with issues of concentration i spacing, traffic, parking and noise. Effects of light impacts may not fall within se categories. Our noise control standard would limit the overall operation to hours between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. and outdoor activities between hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., so this might provide some relief from the lighting. suggested that this issue be addressed in a general standard for residential :a dealing with light and glare. Temple added that perhaps the designation for outdoor lighting of swir s and tennis courts might be applicable. She noted that the State preer restrict this application and staff will, therefore, work with the City Atto e and present findings at the Council meeting, if the Commission wishes. Alford added that the proposed standards have added language that the igs be essentially residential in character. The care provider residen ndard states that this use is clearly residential in use and character a idental and secondary to the use of the property as a residence. The Zoni -ninistrator, in reviewing these future use permits, can use this as a way strolling lighting and some other types of activities that might deviate from idential character of the area. Commission request, Ms. Temple read Section 20.60.050 entitled hting. Peotter asked about the employee parking. Alford noted the survey was taken on a number of day care facilities erent settings and are not the small ones in residential neighborhoods and t'. y are the larger commercial facilities as the number of children indicates, w average of 85. He noted there are no set staffing requirements and can oper i a single care provider. It would be problematic to try and enforce a stand; t could change over time by adding /removing employees, adding /removing nber of children. http: / /www. city .newport- boach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Discussion continued on review processes. Chairperson Cole noted we could recommend approval of this item to the City Council and request that staff add additional language regarding lighting restrictions. Commissioner Hawkins noted that perhaps another standard relating to residential lighting needs to be inserted in the Code. The staff report needs to include this consideration. Assistant City Attorney Harp noted his agreement that there may be general standards in the code that need to be altered and that general regulations tha apply. Motion made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to recommend approval to the City Council by adopting the resolution and staff is directed to do further research regarding residential lighting for these and all residential facilities. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Abstain: Henn ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted the City Council considered an approved the Marine Charter Land Use Parking Regulations; the Group Residential Facilities Code Amendment; continued the Big Canyon Country Club General Plan Amendment until January 9th at the request of the applicant as there was concern over the pending EIR litigation and the appeal for Our Lady Queen of Angels expansion was denied. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no report. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coasta Committee - no meeting. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Peotter would like to see the meetings organized better and suggested that there be an annual Zone Code clean -up. Discussion ensued and this item will be brought back in January. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Project status - none. g. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Henn has been elected t the City Council, therefore, this is his last meeting he will be attending. Following a brief discussion, it was decided to start the next meeting a 5:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 p.m. JADJOURNMENT Page 18 of 19 http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/2006 /nml 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 19 of 19 ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnl 1- 16- 06.htm 06/23/2008