Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190926_ZA_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 09/26/2019 Page 2 of 6 The Zoning Administrator made minor changes to the language in the Facts in Support of Findings A.2. and A.3 of the Resolution. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 3 Stupin Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-033 (PA2019-100) Site Location: 3312-3318, 3322, 3324 Via Lido Council District 1 Liz Westmoreland, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the project had been previously scheduled for an earlier date, but was rescheduled for today’s meeting in order to provide sufficient noticing. Ms. Westmoreland provided a project overview including background on past approvals for the subject site. An additional street parking space will be provided as part of the project. The Implementation Plan allows the development of a single-family residence, and there is no minimum density identified by the General Plan, Implementation Plan, or Zoning Code. If the Coastal Land Use Plan density range were applied on a lot by lot basis instead of on a larger scale, the lot would never be able to achieve that density since the site is limited to three dwelling units which is a 15 du/ac limit. Staff stated that public comments on the project had been received. Staff read minor changes to the resolution into the public record in an effort to provide more clarity and disclose the possibility of additional hazards related to sea level rise. Staff stated that the bulkhead can be raised in the future if sea level rise is greater than identified in the coastal hazards report. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. David Mello, on behalf of Land Sea Homes, expressed concerns related to the height and compatibility of the proposed structure and how this area was not included into the Lido Villas Planned Community and associated guidelines. Applicant Anne Fox, on behalf of the owner, stated that she had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. She stated that the house is intended to serve as their primary residence and the family’s home. She provided background on the subject site. Another member of the public, Nancy Scarborough, commented on the project expressing concerns regarding the use of RM zoning for a single-family residence and the reduction in density on the site. Charles Klobe expressed his concerns regarding development of single-family residences in the RM Zone and loss of housing units. Judy Cole commented on the project, stating that she lives next door to the project and is concerned about the use of RM height standards for a single-family residence as well as compatibility with neighboring buildings. She was concerned about the requirement to remove and reconstruct the existing docks in the bay. A member of the public, June, stated that she represents one of the owners in the Lido Villas homes across from the proposed project and that the proposed building would block their views. She expressed concerns regarding the size of the residence. Jim Mosher provided comments, stating that the review of the coastal development permit is based on the Coastal Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan. He described the history of the area. He expressed concerns about the construction of a single-family residence in the RM coastal zone instead of multiple units. He referenced the comment letter from the Coastal Commission. He stated that the single-family use is allowed but not by right in the zone and questioned the jurisdictional boundary. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 09/26/2019 Page 3 of 6 The Zoning Administrator stated that the Implementation Plan certified by the Coastal Commission allows a single-family residence in the RM zoning district. Because of a recently filed appeal of a similar CDP application, this project might be appealed to the Coastal Commission as well. The Zoning Administrator expressed the belief that the project is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Plan. He asked the applicant if the docks would be modified to comply with current Harbor regulations. The applicant referenced the condition of the resolution that requires them to obtain a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission to modify the docks to meet the code. The Zoning Administrator asked if the applicant would be able to flood proof the home to the mid-to high level sea level rise projection, in consistent with what the Coastal Commission has been requiring. The bulkhead would remain the same as proposed. The architect accepted the additional condition of approval. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. The Zoning Administrator and Ms. Westmoreland provided some additional comments in response to the public. The Zoning Administrator approved the project. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 4 Bethel and Ridge Demolition and Subdivision Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-024 and Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008 (PA2019-085) Site Location: 365 Via Lido Soud, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 Council District 1 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the requests include a tentative parcel map and coastal development permit to subdivide the property into two separate parcels. The coastal development permit request also includes the demolition of an existing four-unit residential structure and waiver of the minimum lot width and area standard associated with the proposed subdivision. No new construction is proposed as a part of this project. He explained the project’s consistency with Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.8.1-3 and Implementation Plan Section 21.30.025 regarding subdivisions located in potentially hazardous areas. A coastal hazards report concluded that the parcels would be safe from geologic and other hazards for a minimum of 75 years and that no shoreline protective devices exist and that future development is not reliant upon future shoreline protection for the economic life of the structure (75 years). Conditions of approval have been added requiring the waiver of future shoreline protection. Mr. Murillo also presented revisions to Facts 1, 2, and 3 of Finding Q in the draft resolution. The Zoning Administrator requested that Fact 2 of Finding L also be clarified to list the address range of the referenced block face used in the zoning code consistency analysis. Applicant Shawna Schaffner of CAA Planning, on behalf of the property owners, stated that she had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator also clarified for the record that he has considered alternatives to the variance request, primarily leaving the lot as a larger 70-foot wide parcel, which results in a lot width that is less comparable to adjacent lots in block. The reduction in width is compatible and consistent with surrounding lot widths within the same RM block as well as the broader neighborhood that is primarily comprised of 30-foot wide lots. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher had the following comments: 1) questioned the use of the Class 32 (In-Fill) CEQA exemption and recommended the use of a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption for the demolition; 2) inquired about the future project and plans for the proposed lots; 3) questioned the need for the subdivision and possible