Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/2017 - Planning Commission NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS— 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017 REGULAR MEETING—6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER—The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Peter Zak, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Raymond Lawler, Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: None. Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; City Attorney Aaron Harp; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba;Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan;Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle;Administrative Support Technician Patricia Bynum IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher complimented the videos of Planning Commission meetings, butfinding and operating the videos was difficult. He had mentioned to the City Council that it had not reviewed the Planning Commission's stipend in 27 years. He suggested the Planning Commission seek the City Attorney's advice regarding a recent California Supreme Court ruling concerning government communications on personal devices and email accounts. He was unsure whether the Planning Commission findings were consistent with the General Plan policies related to preserving and enhancing harbor-related uses,where appropriate. City Attorney Harp reported the California Supreme Court issued a decision stating that emails and text messages from personal accounts could be public record if messages concerned the public's business. He has consistently advised Commissioners to use City email accounts when conducting the public's business. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23,2017 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to approve the minutes of February 23, 2017 with Jim Mosher's corrections. AYES: Koetting,Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren,Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Kramer, Lawler ABSENT: None VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 WOLVERTON DUPLEX VARIANCE(PA2016-159) Site Location: 602 and 602'/2 Iris Avenue Associate Planner Zdeba described the location of the property and noted the area as generally residential developed with duplexes and condominiums. The applicant requested variances to exceed the height limits for both flat and sloped roofs; to encroach into required setback areas with raised walkways and related 1 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03/09/2017 improvements; and to encroach into the required setback for third-floor area at the rear of the property. He discussed the proposed layout as it related to the topography on the lot and noted the site plan showed a grade differential of approximately six feet from Iris Avenue to the center of the lot and then approximately 14 feet to the alley. The first floor was sunken with access to Iris Avenue on grade, while the second floor accessed the alley on grade at the rear of the property. The structure was 29 feet in height at the alley and 24 feet at Iris Avenue. On the south elevation, the structure exceeded the flat-roof height limit by approximately 4 feet 7 inches due to the dip in grade at the worst case. On the north elevation, the structure exceeded the height limit by approximately 6 feet 8 inches at the worst case. Staff recommended changes to site fencing for an open design and included conditions of approval to ensure that element was incorporated. He noted the neighbor to the north suggested the railing be set back approximately six feet to increase the privacy for the adjacent neighbors at the roof deck level. He stated that staff believed the findings sufficiently address the requests for variance. Specifically, the project was consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, and the residential design criteria. No special privilege was granted with the variance in that it maintained parity with other R-2 properties that were flat lots and in the vicinity. Staff recommended the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, find the project exempt from CEQA, and adopt a Resolution of Approval. Associate Planner Zdeba stated there were concerns regarding a storm drainpipe and drainage impacts to the property but that those types of concerns are generally addressed during plan check. He added that the Planning Commission could require a condition of approval to ensure those concerns were addressed appropriately. Stan Andrade, project architect, advised that a variance was the only means to constructing a reasonable structure on the property. He noted the applicant was prepared to fill the gulley in compliance with all requirements and the elevated pathways allowed access to and across the property.The basement was a by- product of needing to fill the gulley. Rick Wolverton, applicant, stated he had developed his current home and bought the subject project site with the idea of it being his final home. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's request,Associate Planner Zdeba reviewed the height cross-section.The south elevation demonstrated the southerly grade elevation and the corresponding height limitations. At the front, the proposed structure would appear to comply with the flat height limit of 24 feet from existing grade. He noted the roof deck railing was subject to the 24-foot height limit, but exceeded it by approximately 4-5 feet as the lot sloped downward. Towards the middle of the lot, the structure was close to the 29-foot height limit for a sloped roof. At the rear, the structure exceeded the height limit by approximately 3-4 feet from grade. From the rear, however, he noted the structure would appear to be 29 feet. He clarified that using the established grade plane view, the height would be taken at the side property lines, and the maximum height limit would be measured from the gulley, which is not representative of the general topography of the lot. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Associate Planner Zdeba indicated the variance for the wall in the side yard would include the allowance to exceed six feet in height. He added that staff recommended a fence with an open design to allow the passage of light and air into neighboring properties. At the alley, the retaining wall and fence would be close to six feet in height. The intent was for the fence to be the minimum possible height. Condition of Approval No. 6 required the open design for the fence. Commissioner Hillgren noted the unusual topography of the property. In response to his questions, Associate Planner Zdeba reported the main floor was level with Iris Avenue. The intent was to allow direct access to the main living level. The garage on the alley would follow the topography such that it is higher than the first floor, but directly accessible and even with the alley elevation. A flat roof is any roof structure with less than a 3/12 pitch. The applicant presented sloping roofs 3/12 or greater for portions of the structure. The 29-foot height limit would apply to the ridge of the roof. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Associate Planner Zdeba advised that a three-foot setback was required by Code for this particular lot. In response to a question about requiring a sidewalk across the front of the property, City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated the City generally imposed a condition for a sidewalk improvement across the frontage if it was a continuation of a sidewalk on adjacent properties. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Mr.Andrade advised that the top floor was necessary to provide the desired amount of usable space. The proposed project was consistent with the overall nature of duplexes 2 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03/09/2017 located in Corona del Mar. Mr.Andrade was unsure of the applicant's plan for the property with respect to any potential condominium conversion but he could own both units.The garage would drop slightly from the grade of the alley. The drawings did not show landscaping because of past criticism that it masked the architecture. The common area would have retractable doors. The upper level would have a balcony with wood siding. Commissioners reported no interaction with the applicant. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Ron Yeo, neighbor, stated the project would impact him in terms of loss of light and privacy but that was the nature of Corona del Mar. His key objection was the potential for flooding. If the existing storm drain was blocked, it would flood his property. He could agree to a condition of approval to resolve floodplain issues. He had no objection to the height of the structure. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Yeo felt pulling back the upper rail at the roof would provide more privacy and have less visual impact. Mr. Andrade consulted with the applicant and agreed to pulling back the glass rail protecting the roof deck a few feet. Jim Mosher, resident, questioned Finding A, in that testimony indicated many other properties in the area had problems similar to those of the proposed site and whether all other properties with similar problems were granted variances. He was confused by measurements for the height limit and use of a plane as stated in the Code versus the zigzag line shown in the presentation. Associate Planner Zdeba explained in most cases the grade plane was intended to simplify the general slope of a lot. The problem arose when the plane oversimplified the slope of a lot as in the proposed site. Applying the plane methodology would not be representative of the existing grades on the property, would not account for the existing gulley, and would result in a project that was not equitable with other properties in the area. Measuring strictly by the sloping diagram would not create a flat pad for the different levels of the building. Tonya Sampson Nicholson, resident, advised that the gulley made it practically impossible to design a home without a variance.The whole street was impacted by the gulley which made developing a lot very challenging. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Mr. Andrade appreciated Mr. Yeo's concerns about drainage. He would address drainage in construction documents. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Mr.Andrade indicated the building height could be 24 or 29 feet from the average grade line if the lot was flat. Using a flat roof instead of taller sloping roofs would push the building so far down it could not accommodate the desired usable space. Also, a flat roof would cause the building to exceed the 24-foot height limit by a greater amount than it would with a sloping roof. If the lot was flat at the alley level, the building would be within the height requirement. He was pleased to achieve the height limit from the perspectives of the street and the alley. Commissioner Dunlap noted the lack of information in City records about the drainpipe. The applicant or architect had mentioned that they were not responsible for the drainage of neighbors'properties. He suggested adding a condition of approval that the drainage issue would be dealt with and that the applicant could not cap the drainpipe during excavation. Secretary Zak expressed confusion with calculation of the building heights and further expressed concern about the Planning Commission setting a precedent for granting variances. He stated it was not the City's responsibility to resolve natural constraints so that a project could achieve maximum floor area. In response to his question regarding height measurement, Associate Planner Zdeba advised that there were two main methods to establish grade. All heights were measured from an established grade. If the slope of the lot was five percent or less, the average of the four corner elevations determined a baseline, and measurements were taken from the baseline. For a lot with slope greater than five percent, the convoluted diagram was used to create a grade plane that was supposed to represent the lot. Points are generally taken from five evenly spaced 3of6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03/09/2017 sections throughout the property. Interpolation between each of those points result in a point at any elevation on the lot.The second method oversimplified the grade for the subject property and did not capture the existing grade of the property. Also, the Director could establish the grade. Given the sensitivity of development and projects such as the proposed project, it was more appropriate to apply the variance to ensure the public received notice and all interested parties were allowed to speak. With regard to setting precedent, City Attorney Harp explained that each variance was viewed on its own set of circumstances.The current proposal would not set a precedent for other cases. Secretary Zak remarked that if the plane method was applied to the project, the variance would be greater than what was shown. He was concerned about setting a precedent in the way the Planning Commission viewed the grade and measured the height. Commissioner Lawler remarked that he was not concerned about the heights of the structure because the public was not concerned. In response to Commissioner Lawler's question regarding drainage and the potential existing storm drain pipe, Associate Planner Zdeba reported staff had spoken extensively with the Chief Building Official and Principal Plan Check Engineer. Both stated they would require the project property to address drainage from the northern properties and both understood the complications of obstructing a natural drainage course. Drainage would have to be addressed as part of the project. He suggested condition of approval language of"Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall adequately address the existing water course and potential storm drain pipe from the northerly properties in compliance with all applicable requirements." Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 of the CEQA Guidelines; and adopt Resolution No. 2050 approving Variance No. VA2016-004 with the addition of a condition of approval regarding drainage as stated by staff and a requirement for the railing at the roof deck be set back a minimum of two additional feet. Commissioner Lawler remarked that the applicant and architect did a good job of addressing the challenging topography of the site.While he understood Secretary Zak's concerns, he did not think height was an issue. Mr.Wolverton expressed his willingness to work with neighbors and the City and agreed to moving the railing two feet back. He wanted the variances in order to construct his home on the lot. Commissioner Hillgren was pleased to learn the Planning Commission would not be setting a precedent.Adjacent properties had not objected to the project based on it blocking views. Alternate Motion made by Secretary Zak and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting. Secretary Zak wanted to review a diagram utilizing a plane to measure heights before the Planning Commission made a decision on the project. Alternate Motion Vote: AYES: Koetting, Zak NOES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler,Weigand ABSTAIN: Kramer ABSENT: None Commissioner Dunlap remarked that a property with this type of topography was unique. He did not wish to set a precedent for granting variances, but these circumstances would probably exist on Iris Avenue only. In reply to Associate Planner Zdeba's question,Commissioner Lawler clarified that the railing on the northerly side only should be set back two feet. 4 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03/09/2017 Motion Vote: AYES: Kramer, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler,Weigand NOES: Koetting ABSTAIN: Zak ABSENT: None VIII. CURRENT BUSINESS ITEM NO.3 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL STATUS REPORT(PA2007-195) Site Location: Citywide Assistant Planner Whelan explained the purpose of the report as an annual requirement to report on the continuous implementation of General Plan implementation programs and more specifically housing element programs to the State Office of Planning and Research and the State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD). She explained that many of the programs involve continuous actions and this reports on the implementation activity for each calendar year. Assistant Planner Whelan summarized the progress of affordable housing projects awarded affordable housing funds in 2015.The Newport Shores project for low-income seniors and veterans was in the plan check phase and had been awarded a Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Construction plans included rehabilitation of the existing apartment complex and converting 12 existing units into six low-income veteran units and six low-income senior units. Staff anticipated completion and leasing would occur in 2017.The Senior Home Assistance Repair Program with Habitat for Humanity Orange County funded two projects. One project in West Newport helped repair seniors' homes and was near completion. The second project, which was in the initial inspection phase, was located in the Santa Ana Heights neighborhood and provided exterior cleanup to address Code Enforcement issues.The Seaview Lutheran Plaza project,an existing 100-unit senior low-income project on Pacific View Drive, was in the plan check phase for upgrades to existing bathrooms. Construction would begin in the next few months. Loan documents for the remaining $800,000 to upgrade kitchens were currently being drafted. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Assistant Planner Whelan advised that the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which was no longer in effect, required every multifamily housing project to contain some percentage of affordable housing.For the 2014-2021 Housing Element,the City received a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNS)of five units, of which the City had already provided two units for the above-moderate income RHNA. In the Housing Element,the City is required to demonstrate where those RHNA units could be constructed, and they are not required to be actually constructed.With respect to a streamlined,fast-track development review process, staff worked with the Building Division to provide expedited review during the plan check process and to fast-track plan check for the Seaview Lutheran, Newport Shores, and Senior Home Repair projects. Staff met with project applicants at the front counter and issued permits over the counter.Applicants realized they received a streamlined and fast-tracked process.With respect to Program 2.2.5,staff identified sites as opportunity and potential housing sites in the General Plan update. Deputy Director Wisneski remarked that Vice Chair Koetting's references came from the 2006 General Plan and the 2014-2021 Housing Element Update. With respect to the City approving rezoning when requested by property owners (Program 3.2.1), City Attorney Harp agreed "shall" was a strong word.Vice Chair Koetting suggested the update state"recommend"rather than"shall."Commissioner Hillgren felt the language was good because,when a developer agreed to construct housing,the City had a responsibility. City Attorney Harp added that the language stated "when appropriate,"which provided some flexibility. Jim Mosher suggested changes to the Annual Status Report be highlighted each year.The Fair Share Traffic fee, shown as pending,was put on hold years ago.He could not locate the tracking tables required by the 2006 General Plan in the GIS system. Deputy Director Wisneski reported 90 percent of the status report contained new information. For the following year, staff would highlight changes. Staff had completed the land use database and was preparing a user-friendly version for the City's website. The database showed the square foot limit per the General Plan, existing development, and remaining growth that could occur. 5 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03/09/2017 Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to forward the General Plan Annual Status Report to City Council for review and authorize submittal to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD). AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Zak, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand. NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 4 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO. 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Director Wisneski advised that two items were on the agenda for the Planning Commission's next meeting. Upcoming City Council items were listed in the report. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Deputy Director Wisneski reported the applicant for Uptown Newport was seeking an amendment to the Master Site Development Permit to relocate some commercial uses to a different location within the site. ITEM NO. 6 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION,ACTION,OR REPORT None. ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Chair Kramer approved Commissioner Hillgren's request for an absence on March 23, 2017. X. ADJOURNMENT—7:57 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, March 3, 2017, at 2:57 p.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on Friday, March 3, 2017, at 2:39 p.m. Vr , ir PeterZak, Secretary 6of6