Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Draft Minutes_08-17-2017NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 2017 REGULAR MEETING — 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Kleiman III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Erik Weigand, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Lee Lowrey ABSENT: Vice Chair Zak, Commissioner Kramer Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Judis; Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; Deputy City Attorney Kyle Bevan; Police Civilian Investigator Wendy Joe; Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland; Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle; Administrative Support Technician Patrick Achis IV. PUBLIC COMMENT Peggy Palmer, Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile, reported the Revitalization Plan submitted by PlaceWorks is not realistic because it is in direct conflict with Maritime Village. The Strategic Vision and Design Framework plan submitted in October 2000 has the parameters that should be included in the City's General Plan Update. Both the bayfront and inland parcels formerly known as the Ardell property should be incorporated in the City's General Plan update. The Coalition will continue to work with the Planning Commission and reach out to Council Members to discuss concerns and ideas. In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Ms. Palmer explained that the stakeholders are property owners on Pacific Coast Highway. The Coalition is composed of approximately 2,000 stakeholders who are property owners, local merchants, and residents. Jim Mosher advised that the City Council received and adopted changes to City Council Policies. Revised Policies continue to affirm that the Planning Commission is free to recommend changes to policies or laws. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to review 28 Policies and make recommendations. The City Council revised ten Policies under the heading of Planning without consulting the Planning Commission. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES VD Deputy Director Wisneski reported that the applicant requested Item Number 5 be tabled. The applicant intends to continue monitoring parking conditions and working with tenants. Item Number 5 will likely return to the Planning Commission in October. Motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to continue Item Number 5, Lido Marina Village Parking Management Plan Amendment, to a date to be determined. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Kramer ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2017 Recommended Action: Approve and file Chair Koetting announced this item is continued. 1 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO.2 MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2017 Recommend Action: Approve and file Chair Koetting requested Mr. Mosher's changes be incorporated into the minutes. 08/17/2017 Motion made by Secretary Weigand and seconded by Chair Koetting to approve the draft minutes of the July 20, 2017, meeting with Mr. Mosher's changes. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Kramer VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 102 EAST OCEAN FRONT ALTERNATIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION (PA2017-099) Site Location: 102 East Ocean Front Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland reported the subject property is located on the Peninsula at the division of West Ocean Front and East Ocean Front and is oriented towards the beach. The residence currently encroaches into the rear and side setbacks. The structure is considered nonconforming because it encroaches into the setbacks and because it has a one -car garage. Pursuant to the Zoning Code, the Director may redefine the location of front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties, specifically in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area is not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity. The site has a 10 -foot rear setback, and the applicant is requesting a five foot rear setback. In determining whether the proposed rear setback is appropriate, staff analyzed compatibility of the proposed setback and the resulting true floor area ratio (FAR). In terms of compatibility, there would be an aggregate eight foot setback between the subject property and the adjacent property. The typical setback is six feet. The site currently has a FAR of 1.1; the bulk of the properties in the area have a FAR of approximately 1.3. With a rear setback of five feet, the subject property would have a FAR of 1.24. The front and side setbacks would remain the same. Staff believes the proposed setbacks would not result in more floor area than neighboring lots with typical configurations. Other lots of similar configuration and located on street ends have received modification permits and other approvals to allow for encroachments into setbacks. Staff believes the alternative rear setback is compatible with the surrounding area. No new structures would be allowed to encroach into setbacks. The applicant could demolish the existing structure and build a new residence, which would be required to conform with all Code requirements, or the applicant could remodel or do a significantly limited addition. The applicant could choose either option subject to the 10 -foot setback without Commission approval. Staff received several comments from nearby neighbors regarding design, existing nonconformities, and street parking. If the residence were reconstructed, it would have to comply with the Code -required two -car garage, which would result in the loss of at least one street parking space regardless of the rear setback requirement. Staff finds the proposed five foot setback compatible with setbacks and floor area ratios of nearby properties. Staff recommends approval. In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Assistant Planner Westmoreland explained that the subject structure would be eight feet from the adjacent structure with the five foot setback at the rear of 102 East Ocean Front. Chair Koetting requested the applicant show the orientation of the new structure, particularly the driveway with the two -car garage. In answer to Secretary Weigand's query, Assistant Planner Westmoreland advised that Public Works did not consider diagonal parking to allow replacement of the lost street parking space. With or without diagonal parking, one parking space will be lost. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Assistant Planner Westmoreland indicated the setback does refer to the buildable footprint. The Code currently allows eave or overhang encroachments into the setback up to 30 inches as long as 24 inches to the property line is maintained. The wall would be subject to the five foot requirement. The minimum distance between the new structure at number 102 and the roofline 2 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/17/2017 of number 104 would be at least two feet on the subject property and the existing distance at the rear of number 104. Commissioner Dunlap expressed concern about the Commission approving a five foot setback, and then the residence design including a fireplace, which could encroach another foot. Deputy Director Wisneski agreed that the Zoning Code allows certain encroachments into setbacks; however three foot setbacks on side yards are common. In answer to Commissioner Dunlap's queries, Assistant Planner Westmoreland stated the building height could be up to 24 feet for flat elements and 29 feet for a pitched roof. The entrance used most by the residents is located by the garage. All the setbacks would remain the same regardless of the orientation of the structure. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing Jeff Sumich, applicant, reported that the project will be a single-family, two-story residence with a flat -roof at a height of 24 feet. He plans to articulate the facade with stone and glass and wood. There will be no encroachments between numbers 102 and 104 in order to maintain privacy. In reply to Chair Koetting's question, Mr. Sumich advised that the size and number of windows and doors on the side facing number 104 would be minimal in order to maintain privacy. Chair Koetting encouraged him to add elements to the wall for interest. Jim Mosher noted that the Director could have approved the project without a hearing. He questioned whether an application for a modification permit would be more appropriate. If the application were a variance or an amendment to the setback map, it would require findings that are more specific. Chair Koetting explained that the applicant proposes to maintain the 10 -foot setback along the front, along Ocean Front. The rear of the property is adjacent to number 104, where the applicant proposes a five foot setback; the setback is currently at zero feet. The setback along Island Avenue is three feet. Those are standard setbacks. Deputy Director Wisneski relayed that the Planning Commission approximately five years ago determined it wanted to review this type of application as it changes a standard and to provide neighbors with notice of the proposed change. Mr. Mosher interpreted the Code section as redefining the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas. Staff interpreted the section as changing the depth of the setback from 10 feet to five feet rather than the actual location of the rear setback. In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiries, Deputy Director Wisneski reported the property owner has not dedicated any funds to designing the project because they are waiting on the setback determination. The Planning Commission is responsible for determining the setbacks, not for approving the design of a single- family home. The Planning Commission's role in this hearing is to determine whether the setback is consistent with setbacks in the neighborhood. Commissioner Kleiman stated there should have been some discussion and consensus among neighbors about the project. In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Assistant Planner Westmoreland clarified that the red striping extends approximately 10 feet in length to allow drivers to maneuver vehicles. Public Works may need to remove some red paint in order to create a standard parking space. David Tostenson, 104 Island Avenue, did not object to the proposed five foot setback; however, he did object to the loss of parking. Cars park at the curve in the curb whether or not it is painted red. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Secretary Weigand suggested continuing the item to allow Public Works to review diagonal parking along the street. The public is disadvantaged by the loss of the parking space. While he preferred not to continue the item, he wished to ensure all options were considered. He was not comfortable with supporting the project without consideration of diagonal parking to prevent the loss of a parking space. 3 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/17/2017 Commissioner Dunlap remarked that technically no parking space was being lost because the applicant proposed a second garage parking space. Deputy Director Wisneski advised that loss of the parking space would occur with or without the setback change because of the two -car garage requirement. Staff could request Public Works look at diagonal parking as part of the plan check process for the project. Motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to adopt Resolution No. 2064. approving Staff Approval for an Alternative Setback Determination No. SA2016-004. Pursuant to Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres' request, Commissioner Dunlap amended the motion to include finding the project exempt from CEQA. Commissioner Lowrey accepted the amendment. Amended Motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to adopt Resolution No. 2064. approving Staff Approval for an Alternative Setback Determination No. SA2017-004; and to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines—Class 5. Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. AYES: Koetting, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey NOES: Weigand ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Kramer ITEM NO. 4 VILLAS FASHION ISLAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (PA2017-128) Site Location: 4200 San Joaquin Plaza Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager reported the project is located in the San Joaquin subarea of the North Newport Center Planned Community. The complex is undergoing work but is partially occupied. The property is surrounded primarily by commercial and public uses with residential uses to the north. In January 2017, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit, which allows a cafe and cocktail lounge on the property with a Type 57 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license. There are no late hours associated with the approval. The applicant requests removal of two conditions included in the original use permit. The applicant wishes to provide live entertainment for residents and guests and to use an outdoor sound system throughout the property. Live entertainment would be provided in the larger common spaces of the development. The applicant requests flexibility in location to allow entertainment such as stilt walkers, jugglers, and magicians, to move about the property. Staff recommends approval with additional conditions of limiting entertainment to residents and guests only, requiring approval of a special event permit for a dance floor, not allowing late hours, and locating live entertainment primarily in noted areas. The draft resolution contains 12 conditions of approval from the Fire Division to address safety and compliance with the California Fire Code. In reply to Chair Koetting's questions, Assistant Planner Crager advised that the applicant did not intend to utilize tents for events. The Fire Department included conditions regarding tents should the applicant consider them in the future. Initially, the applicant will have quite a few events of this type to promote the property. Condition of Approval 52 is carried forward from the previous use permit. An event serving alcohol separate from the cafe and lounge after 9 p.m. would require a different ABC license and a special event permit. In answer to Secretary Weigand's query, Assistant City Attorney Torres advised that staff struggled with language to prevent events from being open to the public. A prospective tenant would probably fall under guests of management. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiries, Assistant Planner Crager indicated the applicant's intent was to provide background music using live entertainment. However, the applicant would have to comply with occupancy requirements. Director Jurjis clarified that the concern is assembly within structures. Large assemblies in a public area is less of a concern. Commissioner Dunlap understood the need for escape routes from a building or large structure in the event of a fire. His concern is the number of people gathering for these events, but he would defer to the Director's judgment. 4 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/17/2017 In answer to Chair Koetting's queries, Assistant Planner Crager indicated the applicant could allow a wedding with 200 guests and live music with a special event permit. Commissioner Kleiman and Secretary Weigand reported they met with the applicant for a site visit. Other Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Michael Ayaz, attorney for the applicant, noted the applicant communicates regularly with staff regarding events. Weddings would be outside the normal scope and would require a special event permit, as dancing is not allowed under the conditions of approval. The applicant attempted to provide a broad definition of entertainment. The main area of entertainment will be the pool area, great rooms, and private dining room. The applicant contacts Ms. Crager when many of the events are proposed. A Type 57 license limits activities to residents and guests. Any other event would require a catering license and a special event permit. The applicant will continue its contact with Planning and Police staff regarding events. In reply to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Mr. Ayaz reported tenants support this type of events. Live entertainment will be an addendum to the charter, and the applicant will advise incoming tenants that there will be live entertainment. The applicant does not want to anger tenants with live entertainment; therefore, live entertainment will be subdued. In answer to Chair Koetting's question, Assistant Planner Crager indicated notice was sent to some Big Canyon properties, but staff received no correspondence from them. Jim Mosher commented that he did not see any conditions that define the scope and nature of entertainment and did not understand why some of the conditions were removed among the different iterations of the resolution. Assistant Planner Crager explained that 10 p.m. was part of the original application. The City defines late hours as beginning at 11 p.m. For an application that does not include late hours, staff provides flexibilityfor the applicant to operate to 11 p.m. The Police Department does not have an issue with 11 p.m. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Motion made by Secretary Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to adopt Resolution No. 2065 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-017; and to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. Commissioner Kleiman requested an amendment to change the hour to 10 p.m. In response to Secretary Weigand's question, Deputy Director Wisneski stated Conditions 41 and 42 allow alcohol service until 11 p.m. in the lounge and 9 p.m. at the pool area. As proposed, live entertainment would end at 11 p.m. Secretary Weigand did not agree to amend the motion as he felt the applicant would police noise. Assistant Planner Crager added that the applicant prefers 11 p.m. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Zak, Kramer ITEM NO. 5 LIDO MARINA VILLAGE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (PA2017-135) Site Location: 3636 Newport Boulevard, 3418.3428 Via Lido, 3434 and 3444 Via Lido, and 3400-3450 Via Oporto This item was tabled to a future meeting. 5of6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/17/2017 VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on City Council Items Director Jurjis introduced himself and shared biographical information. The Planning staff is a great team and will provide the Commission with the information it needs to reach decisions. Deputy Director Wisneski announced the cancellation of the September 7 meeting. In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Deputy Director Wisneski reported staff is in the early stages of preparing to update the General Plan. The public process will begin in early 2018. Prior to that, staff will develop the scope of work, select the consultant, and form the General Plan Advisory Committee. In answer to Commissioner Dunlap's query, Deputy Director Wisneski advised that staff would be heavily involved with the committee. The General Plan team will be comprised of herself, Jim Campbell, and Ben Zdeba. The consultant will facilitate committee discussions. The City Clerk will advertise the committee to the community; the community will submit applications; and the City Council will appoint members to the committee. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's question, Deputy Director Wisneski recommended one or more Commissioners be part of the Advisory Committee. In reply to Secretary Weigand's request, Deputy Director Wisneski agreed to include an update on the General Plan process over the coming months. Secretary Weigand expressed interest in involving the community as much as possible to ensure support for and adoption of the General Plan. ITEM NO. 8 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT None. ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None. IX. ADJOURNMENT — 7:43 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, August 11, 2017, at 12:30 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, August 11, 2017, at 12:50 p.m. Peter Koetting, Chairman Erik Weigand, Secretary 6of6 Planning Commission - October 5, 2017 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of August 17, 2017 October 5, 2017, Planning Commission Item 2 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2017 Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in strikeout underline format. Page 3, paragraph 6: "Jim Mosher noted that the proposed resolution implies the Director could have approved the project without a hearing. He questioned whether an application for a modification permit would be more appropriate." Page 3, paragraph 8, last sentence: "Staff interpreted the section as ehanging allowinq the Director to change the depth of the setback from 10 feet to five feet rather than just the actual location of the rear setback." [Note: To explain the preceding two suggested changes to the discussion of what was presented as the Planning Commission "approving Staff Approval," the code section cited in the resolution and in its attached "Determination of Alternative Front Setback" exhibit as justifying approval of August 17's Item 3 is NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) ("Setback Regulations and Exceptions — Alternative Setback Area Location"): "In cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. The reorientation of setback areas is not applicable to the Bluff Overlay District." That section clearly gives the Director authority, under limited circumstances, to redefine which property lines are subject to the code -required front, side and rear setback amounts. It equally clearly does not give the Director any authority to modify the required magnitude of the setbacks associated with the names "front," "side" and "rear." That point is underscored by NBMC Section 20.52.050.B.2, which allows the Zoning Administrator, subject to a public hearing and making certain findings, to allow encroachments into the code -required setback to exceed standards for encroachments by up to 10% through an application for a modification permit. Any larger change would appear to require a variance or a code revision. Those would seem extraordinary procedural burdens to impose on property owners if the Director actually has the power to reduce the code -imposed setbacks by any amount without a hearing or any required findings. The procedural peculiarity of this item is further underscored by comparison with Item 4 on the Commission's July 6, 2017, agenda, in which the Commission was told it needed to recommend "Amendments to the Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program to correct setbacks for eight properties on Lido Isle." The code changes were subsequently processed by the City Council Planning Commission - October 5, 2017 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of August 17, 2017 as Item 23 on September 12 and Item 3 on September 26. The need for those code amendments becomes difficult to fathom if, as the Commission seems to have been told on August 17, changing the setback maps for 102 East Oceanfront (both municipal and coastal) is not really necessary, because a different number can be substituted whenever the Director (or Commission) finds the new number "consistent" with the neighborhood. In an attempt to further understand this, the most liberal interpretation of NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) would be that the code -required setbacks are intended primarily to impose a certain amount of total required open space "area" around the structures allowed on a property and Section 20.30.110(C) was intended to give the Director some latitude, when appropriate, to change individual setback widths so as to "relocate" the required open space as long as the total open space area is maintained. But even under that somewhat fanciful interpretation, this particular item doesn't compute: without reorienting anything, this approval simply, and rather arbitrarily, reduces the magnitude of one required setback ("rear"), with no compensating increase in any other, thereby reducing the total open space required around the proposed structure. It is my belief this reduction in the size of the code -imposed rear setback should have required a variance or (if the grounds for a variance in this case are too hard to find) a code amendment to revise the maps to show the exceptional rear setbacks for this and other similarly situtated properties.]