Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/2008Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 8 file : //F:1UserslPLN\SharedlPlanning CommissionlPC Minutes\mnd08212008.htm 1 10/10/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren - all present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney ony Brine, Transportation /Development Services Manager atrick Alford, Planning Manager elinda Whelan, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS hairman Peotter noted that there was an Underground Utilities meeting the revious night that had been advertised for Thursday, August 20th, which actually None as held on Wednesday, August 20th. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on August 15, 2008. HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of August 7, 2008. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: None ITEM NO.2 OBJECT: General Plan Amendment (PA2008 -131) PA2008 -131 Recommended for The Fire Department has recent) p y prepared a Local Hazard and Mitigation Plan approval (LHMP), which is a comprehensive assessment of hazards that could affect the City including flood, earthquake, tsunami, and fire disasters. Assembly Bill 2140 limits the amount the City may receive to 75% of post - disaster reimbursement costs unless the City incorporates a LHMP into the Safety Element. When incorporated, local jurisdictions may receive up to 100% of post-disaster, Page 1 of 8 file : //F:1UserslPLN\SharedlPlanning CommissionlPC Minutes\mnd08212008.htm 1 10/10/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 Page 2 of 8 imbursement costs. Ms. Whelan gave an overview of the staff report. ommissioner Hillgren ascertained having the report by reference was sufficient, o which staff replied, yes. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to recommend approval to the City Council to adopt the General Plan mendment incorporating the LHMP into the Safety Element (PA2008 -131) with he following corrections: • Fifth Whereas clause, after General Plan, insert .... "to incorporate the Local Hazards Mitigation Plan "... • Add a seventh Whereas clause as follows: 'Whereas, the adoption and implementation of the Local Hazards Mitigation Plan (LHMP) will advance the health, safety and welfare of the City and its residents by implementing programs to address disasters, develop educational programs for citizens, preserve natural systems and develop appropriate local partnerships to address disasters." Staff agreed to these recommendations. Commissioner Unsworth suggested adding in the section of Local Hazards Mitigation Plan in the second line, ....is and, as updated from time to time, will continue to be incorporated in the Safety Element. The maker and second of the motion agreed. None None xxx iical Residence (PA2007 -133) ITEM NO. 3 Pacific Drive I PA2007 -133 request for a modification permit to allow planter walls and a water feature tol Approved ceed the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback in association with thel nstruction of a new, three -story single - family dwelling. The property is located in Single- Family Residential (R -1) Zoning District. Planning Department also requests a determination on whether the propm ict complies with City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3, which requires that development comply with applicable polices of the General Plan. Planning Manager, Patrick Alford, gave an overview of the staff report noting th changes from the original application that included a variance, but which is no longer requested. He added that the origin of the parcel in a 1904 subdivision map showed that this parcel was once part of the right -of -way of Pacific Drive. There was a street vacation in 1926 that actually created this property. He noted file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd08212008.htm 10/10/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 the Public Works has concluded that the proposed water feature in the publ -of -way were unnecessary liabilities to the City and do not support th oachment. Therefore, staff is asking that this be deleted from the propose sct. Staff recommends approval of the modification and determination that tY :ct is in substantial conformance with the policies of the General Plan. ssioner Unsworth asked if the applicant agreed to eliminate for the planters. Alford answered he was not aware of any response. following information was provided by staff as requested by the Commission: • Access from Bayside Drive - not viable due to the retaining wall on this property; the applicant would have to have a driveway access through Begonia Park. • Coastal view road designation for Begonia Avenue and Bayside Drive - neither have the designation of public view roads in the General Plan. • Discouraging materials that could raise local temperatures - copper roof and tinted windows are fairly common in residential construction and staff is not aware of these presenting problems with glare or temperature impacts. • Residential Design Guidelines - require the project has to conform to the site rather than adjusting the site to accommodate a particular design. However, given the direction by the Commission, allow additional alteration to the landform in order to protect or minimize the view impacts. • Use of turf block - a previous project referred to had to do with providing non - standard material in back of a sidewalk. An encroachment permit would be needed for non - standard materials. • Bench in the park referred to in a letter received today - staff is not aware of when or who moved this bench. • A citizen's email referring to countless modifications requests for this lot - ar application was made in 1978 for a variance but there are no other applications on file. • If this project was disapproved from the standpoint of the view corridor and no development could occur that would not impede the view, what would be the responsibility to the landowner - if there was no use of the property, the City could be sued for fair market value of the highest and best use of that property. • If designated as view corridor, staff recommendation for this site is that protection should be created to minimize the impacts to the view corridor, recognizing that some impacts may still occur. • Water feature and raised planter area - encroachment into the setback is why the applicant is asking for a modification. One planter wall was designed to provide a guardrail from a second living area down below and was a requirement by the Building Department. • The setback is designated on a Districting Map for this block. Megonical, property owner, noted: Agrees with staffs presentation. The water feature was added to make the front of the house presentable. However, if it is determined this is not necessary, we will it out. Olson, architect for the project, noted: Page 3 of 8 file : //F:\Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mnd08212008.htm 10/10/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 We have made changes as requested by both staff and the Planning Commission. A variance request has been removed from the original application. Planter area and water feature in the front were added for visual interest a there was concern about massing on the front. The driveway and planter layout will be addressed by a landscape architect. The water feature had been added as a result of comments by thi Commission, if it is removed, then we will address the aesthetics in different manner of landscaping. Because of the terrain in the back, the two stairways coming up from th; lower levels are required to satisfy egress and access requirements for fin suppression and safety. ny Brine stated that the planter encroaching into the right -of -way and the plan ight are both covered by Council policy. Staff can not make a determination prove the planters as that would go against Council policy and it is for them rke a determination. Whatever does not comply with Council policy would ha be removed from the plans. Comment was opened. in opposition to this project for similarly stated reasons: Simon, local resident - presented and explained pictures taken from the F i Fleming, local resident - noted a Commissioner should recuse himself I ig decisions on this project due to a conversation she overheard with on Gorrie, local resident - presented and explained pictures taken from that depicts the view hindrance with the proposed built project and he Peters, local resident. Balderston, local resident - presented and explained pictures taken four years ago. Bell, local resident. ies Bissill, local resident. Sherwin, local resident. Maerou, local resident. Vandersloot, local resident. Rogan, local resident. v Neff, local resident. Park is used every day. This project does not protect or enhance the public view and General Plan. is against Construction on this site would present danger to the children playing in park below; and, the park would have to be closed during construc thereby presenting hardship to all the neighbors. 5K race goes by there every year. This is a beloved and cherished location and should be protected as a corridor. If this project is built, there will be a lot of people hurt due to loss of view. The City should purchase this lot and keep it as a park. The view has been enjoyed for 104 years and it should be given to people by the City buying the property. Building on this site should adhere to the size and shape of the lot. This land is smaller than other properties and was purchased for a sm; amount. The applicant is not entitled to put a house the same size Page 4 of 8 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \mnd08212008.htm 10/10/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 scale as the neighboring lots as the neighbors built their homes before t adoption of the General Plan. • The wall will encroach into the public right -of -way corner and unacceptable and will be unsafe. • Referencing a book, Newport Beach, Images of America, noted pictures coastal and historical importance taken from the lookwt point at the corr of Begonia Avenue and Pacific Drive. This landmark view might not exist future times. • The community wants this to remain a park and is considered the back ys for many surrounding homes. • The impact of this decision will be in force for years to come and irrevocable. • Should have environmental documentation for this project. Pictures we presented depicting environmental sensitive habitat area. This proj( should be heard by the Coastal Commission due to the loss of views a environmental impacts. • Petition presented in favor of protecting this local view. Megonical noted that everyone, including the City, had an opportunity to property. They have a right to build on this property. Story poles led, as directed by the Commission, to depict the impact on the view. A: his rights as a property and homeowner be protected. comment was closed. )mmissioner Toerge noted it is common practice to meet with the applicant a meeting. )mmissioner McDaniel noted he discusses issues with people in order to n informed vote on matters. These discussions with the applicant are impo d necessary. He then asked about the square footage that is allowed on Alford answered there is no variance for size and the house is not bigger it would normally be allowed. Harp, at Commission inquiry, noted from a CEQA standpoint without iification there would be no need for CEQA analysis and they would be able ie in and pull permits. This project is in a categorical exclusion zone, so it required to go to the Coastal Commission. r. Lepo, at Commission inquiry, noted that the Commission can only approve oject for what is up to the public right -of -way, which is a subject of encroachn id would have to be heard by the Council. continued on encroachment agreements. nissioner Unsworth, referring to Page 2 of the draft resolution, asked at Council Policy L -6 and if the referencing items should be eliminated ling in the right -of -way is not within Commission purview. Alford stated non - standard improvements can be approved by Council. Th rence requires meeting City standards or the applicant is subject to L -6. Tt ` report identifies the types of permits that are problematic and should t continued on the need for modification of the planter within Page 5 of 8 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd082l2008.htM 10/10/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 nmissioner Toerge then discussed the slope of the site and the modification grade for the garage and the planter(s). Harp, at Commission inquiry, noted the primary issue is for a determination `ormance with the General Plan and if you told the applicant that no project property could comply with the General Plan then you would be in a regulatc ig type of area. )mmissioner Toerge noted that making a determination of consistency with thr :neral Plan means the whole Plan. Part of the Plan allows building a house or i R -1 lot. The people to make a choice to buy this property is the City Council it the Planning Commission. Our focus is on the planning. By requiring thr plicant to come back with a plan that fits within the height restriction is an effor protect public views. The property owner has the right to build on this lot that is the categorical exclusion zone. erring to pictures presented by Mr. Gorrie, he suggested that a view ea: top of the property second deck be required in the conditions so that sible a view easement is given. m was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissi an to approve a modification permit to allow planter walls, with no v re, to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback in associ; the construction of a new, three - storey single - family dwelling with ring additions to the draft resolution: Require the dedication in perpetuity of a view easement over the "Outdo Room" and all open space areas that shall restrict the maximum height landscaping and accessory structures to that of the top of the guardrails the "Outdoor Room" and restrict the building envelope to that approved a reflected in plans dated August 8, 2008. The form and legal description the view easement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed a approved by the Planning Director. nissioner Toerge suggested this view easement to protect the view al is being proposed so that nothing else can be built or stationed there I block the view. r. Alford clarified the area described is a patio area, does this ndscaping and restriction on patio furniture height? Megonical stated if this is what it would take to get this project approved, uld agree to a view easement as what he is proposing is what he wants Id. He recognized that this would include future owners from building up as v restricting tall trees /landscaping. Peotter asked staff how this condition would be crafted and enforced. Lepo answered the applicant would prepare that legal instrument subject oval by the Planning Department and the City Attorney's office with the prof •ences to the plan and within the building envelope. Use of the deck a oor patio furniture are not restricted. ier Toerge noted the General Plan calls out where feasible to seek view easements for the benefit of the public. Page 6 of 8 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd08212008.htm 10/10/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 rman Peotter clarified that this proposed new condition would require cation of a view easement in perpetuity, the form and legal description to ared by the applicant with review and approval by the Planning Departme City Attorney's office. Trees will not be allowed above the deck height. imissioner McDaniel noted his support of the motion stating this is an imp, is difficult to vote on. In this case, we mitigated everything we could within t s and standards. It is my opinion that these people have earned the right I on their property. nmissioner Unsworth noted his support of the motion. He would hate to lose view if he lived in the community, but it is up to the City Council if they want the nmission to reduce the building envelope as provided by the Zoning Code tc N for public views. When Ordinance 2007 -3 was passed, the Zoning Code tha ated the envelope was in existence. Statutory construction assumes that e slative body is aware of all the existing laws at the time it passes new laws. City Council intend to reduce building envelopes as defined in the Zoninc le to enhance public views? iissioner Eaton agreed this is a difficult issue. The City Council has to do more with this situation than the Commission can. nmissioner Hawkins noted this site is owned by a private party who has it under the General Plan and Zoning Code to do what he can based of emission determination. The suggestion for the view easement is important are protecting the view as much as possible. He supports the motion. Lepo clarified it is the intent for trees on that lot to be no higher than ation of the top of railing. That plane would be projected all the way to erty lines all the way around. As far as furniture on the deck, it is allowed. answered, yes. Commissioners all noted that they had visited the site. Ayes: I Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren (Noes: None Excused: None •xa BUSINESS: BUSINESS City Council Follow -up. No report Planning Commission reports. Commissioner Eaton noted a meeting of i General Plan Implementation Committee. The topic was the fair share I updates for street and highway improvements. This item was continued the first week of September. Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed a future agenda for discussion, action, or report. None. Requests for excused absences. None. RNMENT: 9:00 p.m. BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 of 8 file : //F:1UserslPLN\SharedlPlanning Commission\PC Minutes\nuld08212008.htm 10/10/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 Page 8 of 8 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mnd08212008.htm 10/10/2008