Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/2003Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. • • Page 1 of 9 file: //I:l appsl WEBDATA1Internet lPlnAgendas\mn06- 19.htm 07/29/2003 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - All present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation/Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Jull Ramirez, Department Assistant Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary SUBJECT: Minutes of June 5, 2003 ITEM NO.1 Minutes Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser and voted on, to approve the minutes of June 5, 2003. Approved SUBJECT: General Plan Initiation ITEM NO.2 Initiation of amendments to the General Plan (GPI 2003 -004) and the Zoning Code Amendment (CA2003 -006) relating to the annexation of West Santa Ana Approved Heights. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve the Consent Calendar. Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 13, 2003. ms* SUBJECT: Senk Residence (PA2003 -091) ITEM NO.3 file: //I:l appsl WEBDATA1Internet lPlnAgendas\mn06- 19.htm 07/29/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 207 Evening Canyon Page 2 of 9 PA2003 -091 • Appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2003 -038 for the construction Appeal was denied of a new, single - family dwelling with an entry trellis structure that will encroach 4 feet into the 15 -foot front yard setback and a second floor planter box to encroach 2 -feet 6- inches into the 15 -foot front yard setback. Ms. Temple gave a visual presentation noting the following: • Original request was for an encroachment into the front yard setback for a trellis -type structure that would encroach 6 feet into the 15 foot front yard setback. • The Modifications Committee considered the request and determined that findings for approval could be made if the structure was reduced to a total encroachment of 4 feet 6 inches. (referenced the site plan) • The Modifications Committee determined that the modification was minor in nature and the trellis and planter were limited to the entry and not across the entire width of the structure and that there is an increased setback between the residence and their neighbors. • The source of the appeal is representation from the Homeowners Association who say that encroachments are not allowed by their CC and • R's. • The Modifications Committee makes their decision based on the findings in the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and the presence of an objection by a homeowners association relating to their CC and R's is not part of the consideration. • CC and R's are private covenants and agreements between the property owners and their association. The City should not be, and is not, involved in the enforcement of those covenants. • Continuing, she noted additional views of the existing residence and noted that it may be demolished and replaced. • At Commission inquiry, she noted that modifications for these types of designs have become quite common. The designs are usually centered around some enhancement on the front entry. The Committee looks at these proportionally and allow less encroachment into a 15 feet setback than they would consider if the setback was 30 feet as there is an interest in making sure that the buildings do not come very close to the sidewalk or streetscape. Public comment was opened. •Alex Villalpando, of CJ Lights, Architects, spoke representing the Senks. stated that the site plan shows a proposed basketball court and swimming pool. file: //I:\ apps\ wEBDATA\ Internet\P1nAgendas \mn06- 19.htm 07/29/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 Page 3 of 9 Ms. Temple noted that a letter was received from Ms. Rudat, two letters from t Shore Cliffs Homeowners Association and one from the Emmons Company tI •relayed information pertaining to the review of the project by the architectw committee of the association. She distributed the letters for Commission review. Dave Rudat, 254 Evening Canyon, spoke as a member of the board of directors the Shore Cliffs Property Homeowners Association and noted the following: . The homeowners had been welcomed to the community and notified f they must conform to the CC and R's when they purchased their home t past year. . This modification for an encroachment is still a variance and should required to meet the test of a variance. . Any modification or variance granted has far reaching affect. . The Association was founded in 1951 in support of the conditions a restrictions that were recorded with the County Recorder in 1946 as part the development of this tract. . The restrictions established within this community need to be presen especially within a community that has well established CC and R's t have been legally recorded by the Secretary of State. • . The character of the community is at risk when the Modificatic Committee grants an encroachment into the front yard setback to somec who wants to enlarge a kitchen. . This granting is critical if it impairs the ocean view. Any encroachment s the stage for significant changes in the neighborhood character due to i cumulative effect of such encroachments. • Shore Cliffs does have a legally established set of CC and R's that identif a well established set back design that is specific for each lot. This v disregarded by the Modifications Committee during their review. . Purchasers are given a copy of the CC and Rs as part of the disclose requirements. . During the review by the architectural committee was clear that t encroachment was not acceptable and did not conform with the setback that lot and that the Senks would have to adjust their plans to conform w the setback and resubmit for review. . He noted that notices should be sent out to a 300 foot radius on these tyl of notification as noted in the Code. • . He then discussed findings for a variance and concluded by asking that modification be denied. file: //I:\ apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas\mn06- 19.htm 07/29/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 Chairperson Kiser noted that the Commission is not dealing with a variance.ur City Codes. The findings having to do with a variance are not the findings that •City needs to make for minor encroachments such as in this application. Neil the Modifications Committee or the Planning Commission will get into an anal,. of the CC and R's. That is a private document that is recorded for the mu benefit of the owners of the properties. They are not something that the ( interprets. It is irrelevant to the Modifications Committee whether something been reviewed by an architectural committee and approved or not as it is not to into consideration. The City's decisions are independent of that. missioner Gifford noted that in one of the letters submitted by the Short > Homeowners Association there was reference made to a trellis and deck. that a mis- statement or could this turn into a deck? eferring to the site plan, Ms. Temple answered that the design does not look as could become a deck as there is a door and the planter box is in the way. Costa, 216 Evening Canyon Road asked if the vertical height was a matter I speak about tonight. He was answered that only the decision on 1 ,achment is being discussed tonight. Mr. Costa noted that there are rules a ations within the community association. The 300 foot radius notificati d be adhered to reach more neighbors of the event. Tucker asked how the encroachment affects his property. • Mr. Costa noted that next to this property there is a private gate that every has a key to go down to Little Corona beach. Witnessing this encro getting closer to the street doesn't fit. Gifford asked if someone mis - stated that this was a trellis Temple answered that it appears that reference in the letter is the rear deck area. Villalpando clarified that the architect went through the modification has pulled the trellis back four feet as agreed. They eliminated the inns and he then offered exhibits for the Commissioners review. Kiser noted that there is a complete set of plans in the staff report. comment was closed. son Kiser noted his concern with the notification error in the Code item should be continued to give the notice. Commissioner Tucker noted that the same modification notices have been g •for years. There was no intent to change it and would go ahead and act on item tonight. Page 4 of 9 file: / /I:\ apps\ WEBDATA \Internet\P1nAgendas\mn06- 19.htm 07/29/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 Page 5 of 9 Chairperson Kiser then asked for a straw vote of whether to continue this item tc allow for additional notification. • Commissioner McDaniel noted that the homeowner associations are all aware o this and they have notified everybody that needed to be noticed about this issue. The association would have made it clear to anybody who needed to know an( supports acting on this meeting tonight. person Kiser noted that those disputing the Modifications Committ stand that if and when this comes back for a hearing, there is no right to absent either a City Ordinance, a deed restriction or an agreement betwei wners for a view easement. We do not consider the CC and R's. Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to continued this item to July 17th to allow for noticing to 300 feet. Ayes: Toerge, Kiser and Gifford Noes: McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Motion failed. Commissioner Tucker noted that it is not unusual for Codes to be less restrictive than CC and R documents. This proposal fits within the nature of modifications that the City sees routinely. It is these types of structures that are involved. There is some discussion at the Council level as to whether they want to continue with this same policy or not. We have a committee that handles these and doesn't see a need to overrule their decision. was made by Commissioner Tucker to deny the appeal of lion Permit No. 2003 -038 and affirm the decision of the Modifical issioner McDaniel noted that if this was noticed to the rest of the City, not be anything that would change his vote. vote: Concur with the Modifications Committee - McDaniel, Toerge, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich and Tucker Kiser None None Legere General Plan Amendment (PA2003 -099) ITEM NOA 813 East Balboa Boulevard I PA2003 -099 Request for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program to change d •land use designation on a single lot from Retail and Service Commercial to Tw Family Residential and a Code Amendment to change the zoning designation the subject property from Specific Plan No. 9 (RSC) to Specific Plan No. 8 (R -2). file: //I:\ apps \WEBDATA \Internet \P1nAgendas\mn06- 19.htm 07/29/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 (Public comment was opened. • Public comment was closed. • was made by Chairperson Kiser to recommend approval of the ions to the City Council by adopting the attached draft resolution for Plan Amendment 2003 -003, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. and Code Amendment No. 2003 -005. Page 6 of 9 Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker Noes• None Absent: None Abstain: None 1BJECT: Housing Element (PA2003 -130) ITEM NO.5 PA2003 -130 accordance with the State of California General Plan and Zoning Laws, the City Newport Beach has prepared a Draft Housing Element. The Element is an Continued to date and re- format of the existing Housing Element and includes updated 07/17/2003 gional Housing Needs Assessment figures as mandated by State Law. missioner Selich noted that he would like to see this item continued to meeting as he would like an opportunity to review this more thoroughly rstand it better. Commissioner McDaniel noted that if this is postponed, it will be a different of Commissioners and maybe they need to have an opportunity to look at it. nmissioner Tucker noted that he is ready to discuss this tonight and that he be in attendance the next two meetings. He then noted: • Meetings of June 2001 minutes were impressive and he appreciated background information. • Is the formatting of this element the same as anticipated for the Gen Plan, so that this fits in with the other plan? • Most of it is informational and then you get to the goals. It should have same formatting and look like the rest of the General Plan. Wood answered that the formatting of the proposed and existing Housir lent are different from the formatting of most of the other elements in tl -ral Plan. Some of the Housing Element formatting is driven by the thinl state law requires be covered and a desire to make it easy for the reviewers : Housing and Community Development Department, (HCD) to find d ;s they are looking for. We will have to update this again in 2005 and at th t we could easily put it in whatever format we used for the General Plan as to page 38, Commissioner Tucker asked for clarification on file: //I:\ apps \WEBDATA \Internet \P1nAgendas\mn06- 19.htm 07/29/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 relating to percentage of overpaying households enumerated in the 1990 Census current City population. Referring to page 8, he asked for clarification on Table •Housing Tenure; page 68, Housing Program 1.13 - enforcement preventi owners of rental housing from claiming depreciation, etc. and referring to page f 1.1.5 - regarding replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zo when housing is occupied by low and or moderate income households within 1 preceding 12 months. s. Wood noted that these issues will be clarified in the Element and reported the next meeting. Is. Clauson noted that the provisions of the tax code refers to a procedure -.Clare a property owner a slumlord. You can invoke provisions of that code rohibit them from making deductions. It is not meant to deny rights, but specif procedure to enforce those provisions. an Kiser asked about substantial changes to the Element would d to HCD for further review and could impact the City's status. Can the Planning Commission make any changes? Ms. Wood answered that the City is limited to changes that can be made and sti maintain the certification. If we eliminated any sites identified for futuu construction or reduce the density on any of those sites, or delete a program, c lengthen the timing of a commitment where we said we would do something then •think HCD would have a concern with that. As mentioned, we have been given conditional certification. We would need to be very careful about any changes w make at this point. mmissioner Selich then noted his concern with review of this element if nothing i be done about it. One of his issues is with the Banning Ranch designation. expressed that he has other ideas within the City and would like to discus, ;m. There are some opportunities in Newport Center other than the Avocad( that we can be looking at to identify. The Planning Commission is suppose( be part of the Housing Element and there is all this work that goes on that wi presented with and we end up with our own analysis. We should be involve( th this as it is very important. anissioner Tucker noted that he doubts that the number of units allocated Avocado/Macarthur site by the draft Housing Element would actua ;ically fit on that site. Wood noted that if there are other sites to be identified to accommodate number of units that is a change that could be submitted to HCD and Id take more time to certify again. followed on: . I . Potential site on Avocado and MacArthur; . Lower Bayview Landing; Page 7 of 9 file: //I:\ apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet\P1nAgendas\mn06- 19.htm 07/29/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 • Potential impact of not meeting requirements. . . Council submittal timing. • Possibility of potential risk to the City if not in certified status resulting possibly not being able to issue permits for development in the City. comment was opened. comment was closed. was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to July 17, 2003 Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker Noes: None )sent• None stain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted the City Council: adopted ne Councilmanic Districts; approved a professional services agreement i prepare an EIR for the St. Andrew's Church project, and a profession services agreement and budget amendment for the General Plan Update ar • the EIR; the item regarding City Council and Planning Commission calls fi review was continued to June 24th. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Econom Development Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that at the In meeting the Local Coastal Plan was reviewed, EDC has about 30 areas i concern and recommends that the City hire a legal expert who knows tl laws and has expertise in these plans and expertise in lobbying and gettir something through the Coastal Commission. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Ph Update Committee - a meeting is scheduled June 23rd to appoint two ne members to the vacancies that have occurred. Ms. Wood added th . technical studies have been reported, as well as the Local Coastal Progm Land Use Plan, Housing Element and biological and hazards study for tl General Plan will be analyzed and discussed. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coast Plan Update Committee - Ms. Temple reported that comments are to I back from Coastal Commission on the 27th of June and several cowmen from EDC, EQAC, GPAC and several individual comments have bee received as well. • e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Page 8 of 9 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS file: //I:\ apps \WEBDATA \Internet \P1nAgendas\mn06- 19.htm 07/29/2003 �J • 0 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2003 f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a agenda for action and staff report - none. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted 1 the owner of Malarkey's is inactive in pursuing resolution of his s violation and therefore, it has been placed in the overall amortizat program for the Balboa Sign overlay. The City has retained the firm of R to prepare a comprehensive sign code update which will include the mi analysis and a further report on the dedication of rights of way will presented at the next meeting. h. Project status - none. i. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker asked for excuse fo . dates of July 17th and August 7th; Commissioner Toerge asked for excust for the meeting of July 17th. Page 9 of 9 ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Gifford gaveled the meeting to adjournment ADJOURNMENT as her last official act of a distinguished eleven year career as a Planning Commissioner. 7:50 mm. ICITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMM S ION file:// I:\ appslWEBDATA \Intemet \P1nAgendas \mn06- 19.htm 07/29/2003