Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/2007"Planning Commission Minutes 03/0812007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 15 "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren - all resent STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Hawkins noted and apologized that the agenda did not have Commissioner Hillgren's name on it and corrected that omission. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on March 2, 2007. HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 2, 2007. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Peotter to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Hawkins noted that Mr. Jeannette, in regards to the AERIE project, indicated that he would be re- circulating the Environmental document. Staff noted that this was correct and has been incorporated into the minutes. Ayes: I Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: None ITEM NO.2 OBJECT: Balboa Inn LLC (PA2006 -270) PA2006 -270 105 Main Street Continued to Request to amend Use Permit No. 3158 to allow live entertainment and dancing in 04/05/2007 association with the existing restaurant use. Additionally, a waiver of the parking requirements related to the introduction of live entertainment is also requested. The property is located at 105 Main Street and is within the Retail and Service Commercial designation of the Central Balboa Specific Plan (SP-8) District. Mr. Lepo reported that staff is requesting that this item be continued to the nex meeting as there is additional work that needs to be done regarding Coastal Commission matters as well as noise analysis. Page 1 of 15 "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/08/2007 Page 2 of 15 Public comment was opened. is comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissione Peotter to continue this item to April 5, 2007. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Thirtieth St. Architects, Inc. (PA2005 -158) ITEM NO. 3 2961 Cliff Drive PA2005 -158 guest to subdivide an existing single - family residential lot, creating two single General Plan ily residential lots. Land Use Policy 4.2 of the Land Use Element of the Citys Amendment was reral Plan prohibits new residential subdivisions that would result in additional not ;fling units unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan. The recommended for )erty is 33,193 square feet in size and is currently developed with a single consideration by ily residence. City Council and the Parcel Map Lepo noted: was denied • The main focus of this project is the General Plan Amendment am suggested that the Planning Commission discuss that matter first. Once the matter is determined, then the rest of the specifics can be addressed. • He referenced and read the General Plan Land Use Policy, 4.2, that says General Plan Amendment is needed in order to subdivide an existing lot ti allow for another dwelling unit. • The procedural matter is a tracking requirement associated with Green Ligh Charter Section 423. With a General Plan Amendment, staff would know ti include additional units in the tracking table for the purposes of seeing i cumulative additional units in the statistical area would, over a period c time, trigger analysis and potential vote pursuant to Green Light. • This project is of great concern to the people in the neighborhood. • Because this is a legislative act, the Planning Commission can say no am not have to give in -depth findings, such as for a use permit. • The old General Plan had similar language, but what is important now fo this project and for the residents here is that the Planning Commission ma, determine that this project should not be approved because there is for much development, or that it would be destroying bluffs or hillsides, whicl are germane to their decision. • You need to know what the concerns of the residents are, and the salien issues upon which to base your decision, whether to recommend tht General Plan Amendment or just say no to it. • The City Council Policy allows the property owner to apply for a Genera Plan Amendment. If one is approved, one can subdivide the lot. • The Planning Commission needs to address the issue of the Land Use Policy and then go to the next step to address design and lot configuration. • Looking at potential public view considerations and grading on the lot, it mad be preferable to approve the subdivision and allow the two lots with one house on each lot, have each house be smaller than the alternative of no approving the subdivision, in which case, the applicant can come forware without a discretionary application without mandatory Planning Commissior review, and administratively submit plans for a much larger single famill home. • There is 57,000 square feet of home that could theoretically be built. file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/08/2007 Practically, could that happen? I don't think so. However; this could har as opposed to two smaller single - family dwellings. With approval of the General Plan Amendment and subsequent Parcel P the Planning Commission could obtain some concessions, possibly in to of design, that you would not have the opportunity to suggest or recomrr if there is no subdivision, and a request is submitted administratively for one big house on one big lot. irperson Cole clarified that the applicant could apply, through the Build artment, for up to 57,000 square foot home without discretionary approval Planning Commission. He asked if there were guidelines to grant a Gene i Amendment on the lot split. Lepo noted that in terms of approval, what exists in State Statute is that ting of the General Plan Amendment be in the public interest, it could be i walks or replacement of sidewalks. There is a concern of public view d be addressed by siting the homes such to give the largest open Teen them. We need to hear testimony, and staff needs direction from ning Commission if that is what you intend to do. ssioner Hawkins asked about the Belcourt subdivision application that the Planning Commission. When did this happen? Murillo noted the result of that application was that the Homeo ciation requested the Council to initiate a Planned Community ,idment to prohibit further subdivisions in that community. Harp noted the request was made to update the PC text to conform to eral Plan. issioner Hawkins noted that was prior to the certification of the new Gei He then asked for the number of single family residences in the City re 57, 000 square feet of actual building. Alford noted that Porte Bello and Cameo Shores have fairly large single dences as well as Pelican Point. ssioner Toerge asked about residents' letters referencing the issue bluff. Is this applicable on this location? r. Alford noted that the definition of bluff is a high bank or bold headland with oad precipitous, sometime rounded, cliff face, overlooking a plane or body ater. Coastal bluff is a bluff overlooking a beach or shoreline that is subject arine erosion. Most of this property has relatively gentle slopes and does n rectly overlook a shoreline or beach, it is separated from the coastline and n abject to erosion, therefore, the conclusion can be made that this is not a coast uff. The Coastal Land Use Plan recognizes that there are land forms on tl ige of Newport Mesa that involve rock outcroppings, or canyons, that add to tl sual quality of the coastal zones, so the policies dealing with the minimization ose and the scenic quality of the coastal zone have to be considered. It is staff )inion that this is not a coastal bluff. imissioner Hawkins suggested the Planning Commission split their analysis sc the threshold question of subdivision, or no subdivision, is reached first. If it is rmined that there is no subdivision, we do not need to take this issue further. u look at the conditions, they are tailored to the subdivision issue, and do no •ess specific issues that we typically see, i.e., the drainage issue. Page 3 of 15 "file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet iPlnAgendas120071mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03108/2007 Page 4 of 15 mmissioner Eaton noted that this specific policy was discussed extensively 'nit pickers' subcommittee of the General Plan Update Committee. 1 sons it came about was to continue those proscriptions that were already in y in a few selected areas, and the other was to be able to handle the count Green Light. It was decided that the most efficient way was to write neral Policy that would do both. It was intended to continue those proscriptie mdy in effect in the prior General Plan. He asked for the wording in the p neral Plan. r. Murillo noted that the statement that prohibited subdivisions was, 'Witt :atistical Area H -2, no subdivision, which would result in additional dwelling un permitted except for the site at 2919 Cliff Drive, which requires a minimum 000 square feet of buildable lot area for each parcel." There was no langua o to why the policy was adopted. iissioner Hillgren asked about the ability of the owner to build on the lot as . Are there any restrictions as to how far down the hill one could build? a limit as to what kinds of improvements could be made there? Lepo answered only as to the rear yard setback, which is 10 feet. The ovements would be limited to what is allowed in that single - family district. could have a guest house, but not lease it. ommissioner Hawkins questioned if the landowner would be allowed to driveway out to Avon Avenue. r. Lepo answered that Avon Avenue is unimproved on that side of Santa r. Brine added that the grades would be difficult and restricts Avon Avenue rough to Santa Ana Avenue. irperson Cole asked for consensus that, because of either the previous uage in the General Plan that might imply this lot would never be allowed tc a subdivision, or any other particular reasons of detriment to the community, not go any further and that the General Plan Amendment should not gc Lepo noted that even if there is consensus on the threshold limit, a ing is required. Hillgren asked about the exemption of 2919 Cliff Drive. Lepo answered that was the language in the old General Plan and that rum of 7,000 square feet was required. Alford added that language in the old General Plan was inserted someti the Land Use Element was adopted specifically to address the issue iibition on subdivision. That was typically how it was done in those statist is subject to that language. Exceptions were added through General P ondments. iscussion continued. 'man Cole noted that based upon the discussion, there appears to be basis the application and open the public hearing. " file: / /N:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas \20071mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/08/2007 Page 5 of 15 comment was opened. Loomis, architect with 30 Street Architects, representing the property owner., • Lot is over 33,000 square feet in size - with the split, the upper lot will be al 14,000 square feet and the lower lot is about 18,000 square feet. • Topographic map and Geotechnical Report and Hydrology Study have been submitted with the application. • Reason for request of lot split is because this is a corner lot that allows access for lower lot off Santa Ana. • Views of existing house. • Owner has installed stone planters and trees and wood fence with olive trees planted along the perimeter. • Proposed parcel map for lot split depicting the layout of the houses. • Both lots have access for turn - around on site. • Lower house will be built into the hill and have a turf roof. • Under the height limit and meets all development standards for both houses. • At Commission inquiry, he noted there will be substantial excavation. • Had workshop for neighbors about a year ago resulting in concerns about views; the owner re- designed the upper house and lowered the project to accommodate view. preservation as it is now 5 feet lower than originally proposed. • Public benefit from the lot split will be having two smaller houses rather than one potentially large house, which will be view preservation for the neighborhood with setbacks and open space separation, as well as the improvements to the sidewalk. Hawkins asked to see the location of the drainage easement. Loomis noted it is on the right side of the project. (opposite Santa Ana side). is shown on the grading plan and is part of the Hydrology Study that wa: :hed to the staff report. Loomis, at Commission inquiry, noted that staff requested that the houses gned and shown how they fit on the split lot and meet the City standards. I gn revision has not been seen by the neighbors until tonight. continued on the upper feature of a rotunda and walls. Cole asked if there was any view preservation ordinances for Lepo answered neither Cliff Drive nor Santa Ana Avenue are public r. Murillo noted an exhibit of square footage comparisons as requested Dmmissioner McDaniel. It compares the size of the homes along Cliff Drive, 1 e average size being a little over 5,000 square feet. comment was opened. Rush, local resident, noted: " file:// N:1 Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet \PlnAgendas120071mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/08/2007 Page 6 of 15 • A single sidewalk on Santa Ana Avenue may not constitute a significant public benefit resulting in the approval of this General Plan Amendment. • Numbers in statistical analysis in staff report deal with split and non -split lot numbers and are confusing; it is biased in favor of splitting the lot as opposed to not splitting; staff refers to two separate areas of Cliff Park; the right side is previously sub - divided and very small and dense; the right side is not sub - divided. • No record of permits for landscaping and fencing. • View street with development intensified on one side of the street; between the trees and new fence, there is significant obstruction of views along Santa Ana Avenue. :)mmissioner McDaniel noted that there are large homes already built in that ea. Someone is going to build something on this lot with the proper permits. ten if it is one lot, someone could put a 24 -foot high building in the middle and ke away all those views being discussed. Everyone else has built up there, who the difference with this proposal? r. Rush answered that this would set a precedent as you are amending the )wly- adopted General Plan and without significant public benefit. It is being built an area where there are constraints to connecting Avon Avenue and Santa Ana tenue, yet within 50 feet of that area there is a significant building being built into e side of the hill. Doesn't look like it has been thought out. :)mmissioner McDaniel noted that if the Planning Commission has to make a acision that impacts the community, they want to make it the best for Newport Bach. If the impact is significantly larger one way or the other, he would lean ward the decision with the lesser impact. r. Rush suggested looking at the lot splits on the other side of the park area, did ey work or not? J. Westphal, who resides across the street from the property in question, noted: • This lot split does not serve the City of Newport Beach, nor serve the neighborhood. • He had a view of the bay, which he no longer has due to the recently erected fence and trees. • There is a petition signed by 100 people who consider this a public viewing for the Bay and the Pacific. • The fence was built after the first hearing on this proposed project a year ago and 50 olive trees at least 12 feet in height, branch to branch, were planted. • It is not a great idea to amend the General Plan as this doesn't seem to benefit anyone except the applicant. It impacts the immediate neighborhood and it impacts me directly. >mmissioner McDaniel noted that is not a public view corridor and there is no ich thing as protecting private views. If you lived there, you would have the right build a fence and plant trees and wouldn't have to come to us to get permission. y question is, if this lot split does not go through with two houses being built :rhaps with conditions to make things are better in the community, he can build iatever he wants and leave the fences and trees up. Is one better than the other your estimation? Westphal recognized the concern. The neighboring houses on Cliff Avenue e on the upper portion of that geological structure or bluff and nothing is built " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120071mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/08/2007 Page 7 of 15 >wn below. Putting up those hedges is in direct violation of California Civil Code 4.1.4, which basically says you can't put up a structure specifically, maliciously annoy neighbors. The best way to go is to leave it as a single lot and not split it. a large home is put there, so be it. If it is split, what is to prevent two massive rmes from being put on each of the lots? These are just theoretical structures esented tonight. imissioner Toerge noted there may be an opportunity to get litions from the applicant that might improve the situation. Can you conditions on that site that might make you accept the lot split? Westphal noted the first thing that would improve it dramatically was removal huge wall that is an obstruction. I would say to get rid of the fence and trees. ild be hard pressed to find anything. There is a view there that the neighbo e had for many years. He asked for a reassurance that the fence and tres ild come down and that the height of those structures would basically presen view as it was before. irley Conger, resident of Corona del Mar, discussed a Subdivision Map of 1 signating this lot as a park, but later referred to as under private ownership. .ad that this land could be used as a park; high fence with trees along Santa snue should be removed so that the public view is restored; lot splits oidden in General Plan unless there is a public benefit. Coughlin, attorney, representing neighboring homeowners, referenced s that included letters sent to the Commission. He noted: . General Plan - prohibits lot split in the R -1 area. . Policies to preserve public views, charm of existing communities, build structures compatible with the character of existing neighborhood. • Building two "mansion- sized" houses is not compatible nor does complement the existing neighborhood. • Petitions signed by over 100 concerned residents in opposition. . Legal standard is the general welfare and the public interest. . Public interest could be that part of this lot be dedicated as a park. iissioner Peotter asked if this application should be for a four -lot split so would be the same size as those across the street. Does this keep -ter and charm of the neighborhood? Coughlin answered with the threshold limit of the General Plan, the answer '. No one else has built on two lots cut into a slope. continued on the probability of other subdivision requests for s it, integrity and policies of the General Plan, public benefit, it. etc. Davidsson, next door resident, noted his support for the application. Rodgers, resident, noted his opposition to the project as his view is i due to the erection of the fence and planting of the olive trees. He noted tisfaction with how the City has handled complaints regarding the fence and loss of views. ommissioner Hawkins noted that there is no requirement for the fence or ndscaping to be approved by the Planning Commission or the City. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03108/2007 Page 8 of 15 Lahijani, applicant, noted the issue is not about dividing the lot; is that someone has moved here and wants to build and utilize the lot. i Rodgers noted his opposition to the project for similar reasons as the view loss with the fence and trees. Nyre, resident, noted his opposition to the project stating the Coastal Land Plan forbids construction on a hillside in the coastal zone with retaining walls appurtenances that affect the view of the hill from the water, or the water from hill. This project lies within the coastal zone and the plan is specific as to what stitutes a bluff. There is a flowing stream 100 feet from the project and the ree of connectivity to that area must be considered. Why is this not a park? the City execute a Quit Claim Deed for this property? This project should be cted because it conflicts with the Coastal Plan and General Plan of Newport ch and has no public benefit. imissioner Eaton asked if the project drains into this stream? Brine noted he is not familiar with the drainage patterns on site. a Westphal, resident, noted her opposition to the project for similarly stated Lepo, at Commission inquiry, noted that there is no permit required for e or the trees; therefore, no basis for code enforcement exists. missioner Hawkins asked if the General Plan protects private views? Is ling in the Zoning Code that protects private views? Lepo answered that there are protections for designated public view corridc not for private. The General Plan identifies public view corridors and this is i area that is protected; however you could take into consideration the view tl sted prior to the erection of the fence and potentially, consistent with some policies, 20.2 Visual Resources, with conditions of project approval enhar view from Santa Ana Avenue. If there is no development approved, you hE opportunity to condition that development to enhance that view. cy Chocek, resident, noted her opposition to the project. This property h i an open natural area for such a long time. There has always been wildlife area and is part of the beauty of living in a City that has this open space. Lahijani, applicant, noted: • The fence and olive trees were put there to protect his children and dog well as provide privacy; it was not done to create any animosity. • We had a workshop for the neighbors to look at our plans and had asked f their input; a few comments were received and those were reflected in a r, design of the buildings to impact the neighbors as little as possible. • He wants to build a home that is tasteful, affords privacy, and is compatib within the neighborhood. • The neighbors do not want change; however, it is only a matter of time whE someone will build here whether it is me or someone else; this is currently 2,000 square foot home built in the 1940's. The neighbors have been givE the opportunity to look at the design and give their input; however, there h< been no dialogue. "file://N:\Apps\WESDATA\IntemetNPInAgendask2GO7\mnO3-08-07.htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 03/0812007 Page 9 of 15 imissioner McDaniel noted he understands about the safety and noise is to put a big fence with the large trees, the neighbors are upset with you. d have been handled differently. i Krotee, resident, noted the majority of the residents do not want this lot spli a General Plan Amendment. The public benefit of a sidewalk is not wanted is not a reason to overturn the General Plan. He then gave an overview of the hibition on the 2919 Cliff Drive application and the prohibition of subdivision. concluded by saying there is a loss of view and the General Plan needs to be ris Chocek, resident, noted his opposition to the project as public views acted, the stream on Avon, natural vegetation that has been removed, nai ography and steep bluff faces and grading, concrete pumped under F eet in order to maintain the stability of the bluff face, major portions of -cel would have to be excavated then re- packed and retained be istruction can begin. He asked for denial of this General Plan Amendment. Eaton asked about the issue of the concrete. and drain. Murillo answered that he had talked to the staff in Public Works and none m recall the stabilization of Santa Ana Avenue at that point. One of tl 3ineers did believe that at some point around 20 years ago, voids benea nta Ana Avenue had to be filled; however, he did not consider that portion of tl it -of -way to be unstable. He explained that voids are typical when there isture in the ground. The Geotechnical Study concluded that the developme the site is safe and suitable from a geotechnical standpoint. Regarding ti :am, I have not noticed it at the base of the hillside on my visits to the site. re been told that at the base of the view park on Cliff Drive there is an c inage ditch that does hold water and there may be some species of fis Yever, that is not connected to that site. Brine noted there are no storm drains immediately adjacent to this site. The nage flows from the property down to Avon Avenue and then to a storm drain. ilic comment was closed. nmissioner Toerge noted: • When we are faced with decisions to change rules after people have made their investment and positioned themselves in the neighborhood, it is difficult to make those kinds of changes without support from the neighborhood. • This is not an area that requires change in growth as an economic need to the neighborhood. • Aware of the frustration of the neighbors regarding the fencing and trees interfering with private and public views. • Given current development on site and the allowable development that could occur on site, there could be some voluntary conditions offered by the property owner to improve the situation. • Why that fence was built with those trees put so close together that block the views of those people that you need to compromise with was a tactical error; you have completely eroded the relationships and the climate for compromise necessary to bring about some kind of cooperative, genuine, neighborly solution. • He does not support the application. "file:HN:1 Apps1 WEBDATAIintemet \PlnAgendas120071mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/08/2007 Page 10 of 15 Commissioner McDaniel noted: I • This community was very vocal and involved with the General Plan that wac just passed. • He is not going to overrule what the citizens of Newport Beach just voted on. • This project does not fit any special need and, therefore, he is not supporting this application. nmissioner Hillgren noted: • This site by its nature seems to lend itself to be subdivided. • Unfortunately, it has been improved in a way to alienate the neighbors. • The neighbors are interested in having something back that, unfortunately, isn't something we can grant and give back the view; it is unfortunate that the planting of the trees is what took that away. • For us to be able to act, it requires development of the property. Without development, we can't make any positive impact on the neighborhood and that is a difficult place to be. • He is not in support of this application. nmissioner Eaton noted: • The General Plan language states that a lot split can only be done with an amendment. • He is not in support of the application and recommends that the Council make a decision to clarify if it is their intent to encourage amendments in cases where there were prior proscriptions. nmissioner Hawkins noted there has been no application other than this one. do take a vote, we should talk about our ideas in connection with this site to t ant that a General Plan Amendment could be granted by the City Council. Cole asked how this could be done. Lepo answered that if the Commission chooses to consider an ,ct to conditions, we would have to go back and work with the City and come up with an instrument for applying those conditions. ommissioner McDaniel noted that this issue is a General Plan Amendment or General Plan Amendment. 1 don't want to discuss what might be but this ever is pretty clear that there are at least 4 votes to deny this application. iissioner Toerge noted his agreement with Commissioner McDaniel. heavily on the stakeholders. This lot may be able to be subdivided but v ons, and those conditions need to be placed by the applicant a )ors. But the reality is that has not happened and I am not prepared e a compromise. iissioner Hawkins suggested that the project be lowered, especially on 1 parcel as well as some thought of an offer of dedication of the parcel ction with the view point. (Commissioner Peotter asked if the Parcel Map is the proper vehicle to establish) conditions of approval, or is it more of a development agreement that would be " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/08/2007 Page 11 of 15 r. Lepo answered that you cannot condition the Parcel Map in a way that we ntrol the envelope of the building. The desirability of a development agreem something staff would have to look into further as, right now, the City Attome ice does not feel this is appropriate. Since this is a legislative act, there are =it Streamlining Act constraints and you can continue The General P nendment request indefinitely.. n was made by Commissioner McDaniel, and seconded by Commissione e, to not recommend the General Plan Amendment 2005 -003 and deny I Map No. 2005 -135 (PA2005 -158). airman Cole noted that this is a tough decision. This situation could potential) worse and compromise would be desirable. Absent the history, this is a sonable request as it is a lot split that does not result in a greater density than scent lots, it is a unique corner lot with access, they are not asking to change land use designation, and it has been determined that it is not a coastal bluff. a potential "mansionization" is a valid concern but with the approval of a telopment, the Planning Commission can condition the project. He asked if this old be continued to allow time for the homeowner and neighbors to address their icerns. mmissioner Peotter noted his support of a continuation. Lahijani noted his support of a continuation and his desire for dialogue. mmissioner Toerge noted we continued this application a year ago, and look a at we got. He is not supportive of a continuation. The neighborhood, not staff, )uld work with the applicant. missioner Eaton noted the threshold for General Plan Amendment lot is a policy issue that needs to be determined by City Council. Lepo noted if this application is denied, it does not go on to City ss it is appealed either by the applicant or a member of the Council. lowing a discussion on the legislative nature of the General Plan Amendn cess and process by which applicant or a member of the City Council can this matter, substitute motion was made. stitute Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter, and seconded missioner Hawkins, to continue this item indefinitely to give the applicant )rtunity to meet with staff to come up with a development agreement or sc r form to further condition the progress. yes: Peotter and Cole Noes: Eaton, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren bstain: I None on the original motion. Peotter None McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren " file:// N:1 Apps1WEBDATAI IntemetlPlnAgendas120071mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/0812007 Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001 Coastal Land Use Plan Update (PA2007 -027) the Coastal Land Use Plan to reflect the location, type, densities, as of land uses established by the new Land Use Element and ate other new policies of General Plan. . Alford gave an overview of the staff report noting that this Amendment is par the General Plan Implementation Program and is intended to update the LCF iastal Land Use Plan to reflect the relevant policies of the new General Plan. rst of the changes are to the Land Use Section including a new land use :rarchy, changes in land use on specific properties, and a new set of land use licies. There are also changes to policies and narratives dealing with non nforming structures, Harbor and Bay Element policies that are incorporated in 1ous sections of the Land Use Plan, and Policies dealing with historic resource .. Alford then referenced a handout noting corrections and clarifications. Sectior 1.5 narrative, designation is to be MU -W; the second is clarification of Policy 1.5 -1 adding language so that the statement of the prohibition of free- standnnc sidential is limited to the MU -W areas in Lido Marina Village, Cannery Village ;Fadden Square, and Balboa Island. Additionally, there is revised language it draft resolution in Section 6 that cites specific State CEOA Guidelines. Iditionally, relative to the land use policies dealing with historic preservation, or ges 42 and 43, staff has determined that policies that 'encourage' preservatior d policies 4.5.2 -2, 4.5.2 -3 and 4.5.2 -4 should be eliminated as they are no cessary to implement this section of the Coastal Act; staff originally put them it supplement and enhance the existing policy section. ommissioner Hawkins noted his agreement with the proposals to eliminate 4.5.2 and 4.5.2 -4 but doesn't agree about 4.5.2 -3. He suggested keeping it in as i fers to "encourage" the placement of historical landmarks and not "require ". HE >plauded staffs effort. ommissioner Eaton asked about the clarification language in the last sentence of 1.5 -1. Alford noted this is similar to what is in the Land Use Element. We wanted ier clarify that we are not talking about the MU -W areas in Lido Peninsula a iner's Mile. nissioner Eaton suggested to add: " ....in the MU -W classification." at Staff agreed. ssioner Hawkins proposed to put it in the start of that last sentence so that read: "In the MU -W designation, free - standing residential shall not t ad in Lido Marina Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balbc so that it is clear that it applies to all those areas. It was agreed upon. Toerge asked if the Policy 2.1.5 -8 ratio is new. Alford answered "no ", it was in the old General Plan and is in the current LCP. Toerge asked why the Committee did not go through this? Alford noted this was presented at the first meeting of the committee and ITEM NO.4 PA2007 -027 Recommended for approval by City Council Page 12 of 15 " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\2007 \mn03 -08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 03/08/2007 had asked for direction on how to proceed; it was indicated that it did not need to come back for review. (He read the excerpt from the General Plan). Public comment was opened Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Peotter to recommend City Council approval of LCP Amendment No. 2007 -001 to update and amend the Coastal Land Use Plan to reflect the new General Plan Policies as modified. Commissioner Hawkins noted this should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendment Initiation ITEM NO. 5 end Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise Recommended property development regulations relating to permitted encroachments into for initiation required yards, setbacks and height limits of the B Overlay District, and requirements for the screening of mechanical equipment. Mr. Alford noted this is an initiation of an amendment to the Zoning Code that is intended to reduce the amount of applications for Modification Permits that deal with mechanical equipment, screening, and encroachments into alley setbacks in he West Newport area. This item can be brought back to you as one, or several, Code Amendments and these are of an urgent nature and cannot wait for the comprehensive re -write of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Hawkins asked if this was solely staff initiated, and by no one else? What does the B Overlay District imply? Mr. Lepo noted staff initiated the parts that we're going to take out that no routinely go to the Modification Permit and are routinely approved, as they are sighing down the plan check system and costing extra time. We want to gel hose out of there. We had a list from Council of things, such as screening the rooftop equipment, so we are putting those in as well. Mr. Alford noted the B Overlay District modifies a number of property development regulations such as setbacks and heights in various areas of the City, mostly in areas that have been annexed to the City near our border with Costa Mesa; but it also applies to certain areas in the bluff, although I don't think some of those will be subject to changes. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to adopt resolution initiating the amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Commissioner Eaton noted that his home falls within the B Overlay District, and asked the Assistant City Attorney if he therefore should recuse himself from this initiation. Mr. Harp responded that the safe thing to do would be to recuse himself. Page 13 of 15 ' file: / /N:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2007\mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 03/08/2007 Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren None BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up Mr. Lepo reported that the City Council held the second reading passed the Ordinance for Design Standards for Single- Family and T Family Dwelling Units; also, there was a hearing on an adjustment of Park In -lieu Fees that was continued due to the lateness of the hour and be heard at the next meeting; potential reinstatement of the parking in- fees, which has also been discussed by the Executive Committee of Economic Development Committee was considered in a workshop. Commissioner Hawkins noted the Executive Committee of the EDC wants include further discussion of parking proposals on their next agenda. The was also discussion at this meeting for the parking users to bear the fe and not have businesses provide parking. The EDC will be maki recommendations to the City Council that a study be conducted connection with this and that funding of consultants be approved. Commissioner Eaton noted that Development Agreements had be discussed and will be mandated in the General Plan in two areas and we be limited to legislative action, otherwise, Development Agreements may required under certain conditions and thresholds. The Zoning Code re -w was also discussed and one proposal from a conglomeration of t consultants was received. A sub - committee was established to intervi them on Monday the 12th. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would . like subsequent meeting Commissioner Hawkins noted that the study session that had bee presented to the City Council on the in -lieu parking fee and the parkir proposal should also be presented to the Commission, as these we prepared after Commission initiation. It would be helpful to have even as receive and file. Mr. Lepo noted that there is to be an outreach progra and the sequence will be decided by the EDC. Matters which a Planning_ Commissioner. may agenda for action and_staff report None. Project status Commissioner Eaton had requested information on dwelling units at Ora and Clay. An article from the Orange County Register on the dwelling u at Orange Avenue and Clay Street was distributed, this can not discussed as there is an on -going investigation by the City. "fi le:#N:\ Apps \W EBDATA \Internet \PlnAgendas \2007 \mn03- 08 -07. htm ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Page 14 of 15 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 03/08/2007 Page 15 of 15 Requests for excused absences Commissioner Eaton is excused from the next meeting of March 22nd. p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION "file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120071mn03- 08- 07.htm 06/20/2008