Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAERIE - 201-205 & 207 Carnation Ave & Bayside PlacCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 19, 2008 Agenda Item 7 SUBJECT: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place • General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 • Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 • Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) • Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President CONTACT: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 icampbelllna city.newport- beach.ca.us INTRODUCTION On February 21, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1751 recommending City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of an 8 -unit, condominium building located at the comer of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The applicant subsequently decided to include reconstruction of the existing boat docks in the Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than preparing a separate document later. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been revised accordingly. Additionally, the applicant has refined the plans for the proposed condominium structure and several additional encroachments within setbacks are requested that require the reconsideration of the Modification Permit request. 1) Hold a public hearing; and, 2) Consider the revised draft MND; and, 3) Adopt the attached draft resolution recommending City Council adoption of the MND and approval of the project (Exhibit #1). AERIE (PA 2005 -196) June 19, 2008 Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION The revised project (attached) conforms to the predominant line of existing development as established by the City Council on August 14, 2007 and is consistent with the plans s previously considered by the Planning Commission at the February 21, 2008 meeting. The applicant has made several interior and exterior project refinements and has addressed several minor corrections requested by the City's Traffic Engineer related to enhancing vehicle access and maneuvering since the project was last considered by the Commission. Addressing the Traffic Engineer's requirement led to the conversion of 1 guest parking space located at the street level to motorcycle or bicycle parking. The project continues to provide parking in excess of the minimum requirement. Other significant changes are: 1) Modification Permit The Commission may recall that several balconies that faced Bayside Place were required to be modified so as to not encroach within the required side yard setback as they exceeded the 6 -foot height limitation from natural grade. These proposed encroachments were discovered after the public notice was given and the Commission could not consider them and the applicant choose against a delay to allow for proper notice. The Commission took action on the project and eliminated the encroachments. The applicant requests that the features be considered at this time. Several decks and a stair landing were located within the required side yard abutting 215 Carnation that were not highlighted as requiring a Modification Permit and the applicant has made several changes to the plan in this area. For these two reasons, as well as the need to increase the height of protective guardrails within the required front yard setback along Carnation Avenue, the Modification Permit request needs to be reconsidered. a) Guardrails are necessary to protect pedestrians from falling from the public sidewalk along Carnation Avenue over the proposed retaining wall located at the back of the sidewalk. The Zoning Code limits the height of structures within the required front yard to 36 inches and the recent change to the Building Code now requires 42 -inch high guardrails. Strict application of the Zoning Code would eliminate the guardrail and, therefore, necessitate the elimination of the below grade retaining walls within the required front yard, which provide light and ventilation to the lower levels. Guardrails such as these are uncommon within required front yards as excavation and retaining walls leaving a potential fall hazard are not typical practices. The project could be redesigned to place the retaining wall and guardrail outside the setback but the increased height is solely due to a change in the Building Code. The proposed railing will be open in design allowing visibility through it thereby maintaining a more open character. AERIE (PA 2005 -196) June 19, 2008 Page 3 of 5 b) The plans recommended for approval on February 21, 2008, included four decks, a stair landing and stairs that would encroach within the 10' -7" side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation Avenue. The stairs and landing are part of the mandatory exiting of the various portions of the building they connect to for safety reasons. Unroofed decks or platforms including necessary guardrails are allowed in required side yards provided they are less than 6 feet above natural grade. The revised plan has two expanded decks, a new deck in a new location and two deck areas eliminated. On the third level (Unit 7), one deck is proposed in an identical location when compared to the prior plan. It is wider but no closer to the property line than the prior plan (7' -6 "). The stair landing for this unit is in the same position as previously proposed and is also slightly larger while maintaining a 5 feet to the property line consistent with the prior plan. A larger deck that connected to the decks on the Bayside Place elevation has been eliminated On the fourth level (Unit 8), a new 6'x 9' deck is proposed with the other two decks remaining largely the same when compared to the prior plan. A small extension that previously was connected to the access stairway has been eliminated from the required side yard. Each of the decks and landings range between 7 to 12 feet in width and are between 4 and 6 feet in depth and, therefore, are of limited use. Two are no closer than 5 feet to the property line and the remaining are no closer than 7'- 6° to the property line. The upper level decks would be approximately 15 feet above natural grade and when the protective railings are included, total height is approximately 20 feet above natural grade. Privacy might be an issue to the abutting neighbor, but on balance, the revised plan has less deck area in the required side yard setback than the prior plan and the deck area eliminated from the plan was in closer proximity to the decks in the rear yard of the of the abutting residence. In summary, the revised deck configuration impacts the privacy and views of the abutting neighbor less than the prior plan. c) Three balconies and one at -grade walkway encroach into the 10' -7" side yard between the project and Bayside Place. Again, unroofed decks or platforms including necessary guardrails are allowed in side yards provided they are less than 6 feet above natural grade. The walkway is on the first level, two balconies are on the second level and one balcony is on the third level and each are roughly no closer than 7 feet to the property line abutting Bayside Place. These features do not encroach within a public view from Begonia Park or other vantage points to the west. They will encroach within private views from residences on Carnation to the north. The majority of the view to the west and southwest from these residents will not be impacted. The abutting residences along Bayside Place should not be impacted due to the change in grade (the encroachments are well above the homes on Bayside AERIE (PA 2005 -196) June 19, 2008 Page 4 of 5 Place), separation (the encroachments are separated from the homes on Bayside Place by the private roadway), and the fact that the houses on Bayside Place are oriented away from the project with views toward Newport Bay. Staff believes that the required findings for approval of the revised Modification Permit can be made and they are found in the attached draft resolution recommending project approval. 2) Replacement docks The applicant has included a specially designed dock system that would accommodate up to 8 boats; one boat slip for each unit. The old dock system accommodated 3 boats and was in a state of disrepair such that the applicant was ordered to remove it as it was a safety hazard. The new dock system would have a concrete wave attenuator to enhance safety given that the location of this site near the entrance to the harbor makes it subject to heightened wave action during certain swell conditions. Expanded boating facilities are a permitted use of tidelands and are allowed pursuant to the Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) provided the impact of the proposed facility can be mitigated. Leasing of the proposed new docks to individuals not residing in the project would require that the docks be classified as a marina requiring on -site parking beyond that provided in the proposed project. Staff recommends applying a condition to prohibit the leasing of the slips to non - residents. Chris Miller, Manager of Harbor Resources, is in agreement with this limitation and intends to attach a similar prohibition to permits or leases for the proposed docks. The docks are not within the purview of the Planning Commission, but rather that of the Harbor Resources Division and Harbor Commission. The Planning Commission's consideration of the docks is limited to the potential environmental effects that are evaluated in the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Keeton Kreitzer Consulting revised the MND to reflect the expanded project that includes the dock system. The analysis provided for the residential portion of the project was updated and improved and mitigation measures have changed from the prior document. An analysis of the potential impacts of the expanded boating facility is also presented. Mitigation measures related to dock construction have been included given that there is an eel grass bed located in close proximity to the proposed docks. No effect to sand transport is anticipated based upon engineering analysis prepared by Nobel Consultants, Inc. In summary, the analysis suggests that the revised project including the new docks will not create a significant impact to the environment provided all mitigation measures are AERIE (PA 2005 -196) June 19, 2008 Page 5 of 5 applied and implemented. The comment period for the MND expires on June 17, 2008. Two comment letters has been received to date. The first letter was from the State of California Native American Heritage Commission indicating that consultation with Native American groups is necessary. Consultation was requested earlier pursuant to SB18 and no response was received. A second letter was received from the adjacent property owner, John and Kathleen McIntosh. They express the opinion that the project is not consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Additionally, they express their belief that the project, including the proposed dock system, will create a significant impact to coastal and marine resources and that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. The comments are not accompanied with substantial evidence to support a fair argument that an environmental impact would result with project implementation. Staff will provide any additional comments received at the hearing. Sluff Vegetation In late January or early February of this year, the vegetation on the bluff was trimmed and/or removed. In response to this issue, the applicant has had an extensive survey prepared by Robert Mitchell, a licensed landscape architect, which is included in the project plans. Based upon this surrey, most of what was altered was non - native plantings and native species that were trimmed appear to be recovering well. Pursuant to CLUP policy, removal of non - native and invasive species is required. Replanting with drought tolerant, non - invasive and native species appropriate for the coastal bluff environment is required and conditions have been applied to require this. Prepared by: Jwc James Campbell, Sefnior Planner EXHIBITS Submitted by: David Lepo, Plannin irector 1. Draft Resolution for project approval 2. Excerpt of minutes from February 21, 2008, Planning Commission meeting 3. Resolution No. 1751 4. Planning Commission staff report dated February 21, 2008 5. Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6. Correspondence received 7. Revised floor plans (separate roll of plans)