Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20130808_PC_MinutesNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/8/13 Page 2 of 6 Commissioner Ameri commented on the inclusion of Ex-Parte communications noting the differences between boards and the Commission. He did not believe that Ex-Parte communications apply equally to the bodies. He suggested that they may be included as a courtesy but not required. Chair Hillgren closed the public comments portion of the meeting. VI. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - None VII. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 2013 Recommended Action: Approve and file Vice Chair Tucker acknowledged corrections to the minutes submitted by Mr. Mosher. Interested parties were invited to address the Planning Commission on this item. Jim Mosher highlighted a quotation from former Chair Toerge and noted that the names of former Commissioners were misspelled. There being no others wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Hillgren closed the public comments for this item. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Ameri and carried (5 – 1 – 1), to approve the minutes of June 20, 2013, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: Kramer ABSENT: Lawler VIII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 TANNIR RESIDENCE (PA2013-110) Site Location: 3235 Ocean Boulevard Chair Hillgren explained the public hearing process. Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung presented details of the report including a description of the project, location, surrounding properties, existing conditions, elevations, improvements to the public right-of-way, new vehicular access, area of encroachment, impacts to adjacent properties, site plan, details of the variance request and compatibility with the neighborhood. She addressed CEQA exemptions and recommendations as stated in the report. Commissioner Brown commented on the design of the proposed stairway and Ms. Ung affirmed that the new design will improve the view from the Bluff. Commissioner Tucker suggested that the applicant defer his presentation until public comment is received. In reply to an inquiry from Chair Hillgren, Ms. Ung described the development areas and their development allowances provided by the Bluff Overlay Zone. Interested parties were invited to address the Planning Commission on this item. Brion Jeannette, architect, offered to respond to questions and reported that the intent is to expand on the open space and expand the area of Bluff protection. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/8/13 Page 3 of 6 Mark Luers spoke on behalf of his mother who lives on the east side of the project. He felt that the statement that the house will be built using the same footprint as the existing house is misleading and wondered regarding the impacts of the project on his mother's views and privacy. Jim Mosher spoke regarding the project needing to be reviewed by the Coastal Commission and questioned whether the project is consistent with the Coastal Act. He addressed the purpose for granting variances, wondered if it is being done in a consistent way and commented on the computation of the lot size and square footage based on the sloping site. Additionally, he referenced typographical errors within the resolution. Chair Hillgren requested that Mr. Mosher submit corrections to the resolution to staff after the meeting. Vice Chair Tucker stated that the City does not protect private views. He noted that the variance requested in this case has no impact on views or privacy, but rather deals only with an underground front yard setback encroachment and the height of a portion of a stairway. Brion Jeannette, architect, highlighted elements in the design and explained efforts to protect neighboring views. He felt that the project will improve public views and stated that the project meets the provisions of the Coastal Act. He added that the square footage is sixty-five (65%) percent of what would be allowed under the current Zoning Code. He addressed consistency with the predominant line of existing development. There being no others wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Hillgren closed the public comments for this item. Motion made by Vice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Myers and carried (6 – 0 – 1), to adopt a resolution approving Variance No. VA2013-004 and finding the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 with changes to Condition of Approval No. 16, deleting the requirement of approval by the Orange County Health Department. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Lawler ITEM NO. 4 SCHULEIN PARKING USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (PA2013-090) Site Location: 2828 East Coast Highway Associate Planner Fern Nueno presented details of the report including a description of the project, location, lot area, existing conditions, anticipated use, closing of the curb cut, bicycle parking, architectural design, establishment of a parking management plan, compatibility with the neighborhood, and consistency with the Zoning Code standards and General Plan policies. She addressed policies that allow nonconforming buildings to be reconstructed with the same amount of parking, and details of the variance, noting that it would allow for a more usable area to maximize parking. Ms. Nueno noted review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer and recommendations as listed in the report. Discussion followed regarding the area with the existing retaining wall, removal of an existing pole sign, and compliance with sign standards. Regarding the potential for awning signs, Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill reported that the Code provides for either a wall sign or an awning sign. Vice Chair Tucker expressed concerns that awnings are often not maintained and in this case areas for wall signs are available. Ms. Mulvihill initially reported that she would like to review the sign code, but felt that because awning signs are allowed in the Code, sign location is not supported as a condition of approval for this application.