Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/2006Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 6 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn09- 21- 06.htm 06/23/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn - Commissioner Henn was excused, Commissioner Peotter arrived at 6:37, all others were present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 15, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 7, 2006. ITEM NO. 1 Commissioner Hawkins noted that he had agreed one of his suggested changes Approved to these minutes referring to statements by an applicant was not included. SUBJECT: The Koll Company (PA2006 -095) ITEM NO.2 4450 MacArthur Blvd. PA2006 -095 General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Plan Amendment to transfer un -built retail and restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Recommended Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -11) for the for construction of a 21,375 square foot, two -story office building over one level Approval subterranean parking structure. Adopt Resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 006 -008, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2006 -001 and Use Perms No. 2006 -095 to the City Council. ITEM NO. 3 UBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485) Page 1 of 6 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn09- 21- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 2920 Newport Boulevard Continued to he Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpub October 5, 2006 pursuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City n 1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. City has received several omplaints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission will valuate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the condition nder which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission may require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions o approval. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary and revocation of the Use Permit is not being considered at this time. Staff requests to continue this item to October 5, 2006. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the consent calendar as modified. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge Noes: None Absent: Peotter and Henn Abstain: McDaniel HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.4 SUBJECT: Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 PA2006 -173 (PA2006 -173) Recommended Amend the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to for Approval decrease the maximum density permitted in Planning Area 5 from 48 dwelling units to 47 dwelling units and to prohibit subdivisions that would increase welling units. Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff review: • This item was initiated by the City Council in response to a letter from the Belcourt Master Association. • The original amendment would reduce the number of dwelling units from 48 to 47 to be consistent with the number of existing lots and to prohibit future subdivisions. • A second amendment has been proposed that would allow language from the General Plan to allow for reverting back to the underlying lots and that is okay with the Homeowners' Association. • The new recommendation on the resolution attached as exhibit A shows the Planned Community Text, which remains at 48 units and allows for reverting back to the underlying lots. Ms. Temple noted that, should the Commission decide to pursue the original language, it is included in the staff report of the previous meeting. Commissioner Hawkins asked if anyone had spoken to the Council. Assistant City Attorney Harp answered this fully addresses the Council concems. Ms. Temple noted that the alternate discussion came about after question Page 2 of 6 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PinAgendas /2006hnnO9- 21 -06.ht n 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 I to how this fits within the just adopted General Plan. Should thi ig Commission adopt the new recommendation with the new resolution, be staffs intention to show to the City Council both options at thei 1. They could approve either action. Choosing the newe nendation with a statement of your rational of the citywide polic ency would be helpful. issioner Hawkins asked staff to discuss the 48 lot preservation. Bunim noted the language of the General Plan it allows for reverting back underlying lot lines, which would be 48 lots. If we decrease the number > to 47 from 48, there is one property that is currently the size of two lots shire there would not be a dwelling unit for them to revert back to if 'ease it to 47. It would require another PC text amendment to allow for tF i lot. cn Cole noted it is also consistent with the proposed General f that requires no subdivision of existing lots with the exception purposes only. Bunim answered it is consistent with the existing language in the eral Plan. issioner Peotter arrived at 6:37. Harp noted that the current plan allowed 39 units and the current language elves potential conflict between what the General Plan currently says. irperson Cole stated this would be consistent with the intent of what the )ciation requested, which is not to further subdivide any lots that have not i subdivided already for additional units in the community. imissioner McDaniel noted he was not in attendance at the last meeting; ever, he has listened to the recording for this item and is able to vote tonight. Hilton, member of the law offices of general counsel for the Homeowners :)ciation, noted: . He has been in contact with staff and has reviewed the proposed with the association board president. . They agree that the language satisfies most of their concerns. They would like to add a sentence if the Commission feels it would be benefit. 'The above right of re- subdivision is not transferable to other I< or between lot to lot.' Some owners have been talking about not wanting re- subdivide and have spoken to other owners about transferring rights. the General Plan precludes that sufficiently, then the language is r necessary. If it is not the case, we submit to adopt this language to t end of the proposed resolution. Temple noted it is staff's opinion that no additional regulation could I ieved by adding that language. If someone sold the rights to their unit ie other person, it could not be utilized unless the rules that are left in affe A allow subdivision because you could still only have one unit per lot. It necessary to preserve this protection. Page 3 of 6 http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn09- 21 -06.ht n 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 imissioner Hawkins added that the lot itself is transferable and that right Id go along with that sale. His concern is this language would trip up sales of erty in the association. Helton noted this language is transferring rights lot to lot. Owners transfer rights to subsequent owners for purchase certainly. The idea is to make it r to anyone who is considering a transference that this is not allowed. He noted he and the association are in agreement with staffs recommendation. comment was opened. comment was closed. Harp noted minor edits in Exhibit A. mmissioner Hawkins offered modified language: "Except as authorized by amendment of the General Plan (GPA), new residential subdivisions that uld result in additional dwelling units are prohibited." He asked staff wt the second sentence. s. Temple answered that it means that the General Plan assumes the number units for purposes of the citywide densities in each area. The number of units it would be supported by the original subdivision. This is actually the policy of new General Plan. Bunim added that the current General Plan allows for 39 units. If you were to :rt back to the underlying lot lines on the one property you would need 48 >. It does need an exception and does need to be exempt from the current feral Plan requirements. This current language is consistent with the existing feral Plan because it gives that exemption and it is consistent with the )osed General Plan. Temple noted the number of lots in the old General Plan was in error cruse the number that was established did not account for the fact that the as of lots that were intended to be a neighborhood park for serving the ite community ended up using the subdivision instead. That is something we would correct through a normal course of action which, depending on the frame and what we were dealing with, might have been a General Plan :ndment, but it would not have been considered one that is a true ndment that increases entitlement because the homes were already there. Hawkins noted he is suggesting that the General Plan set at 48. >. Temple answered this is not a General Plan Amendment consideration, this an amendment to the Planned Community. There was an amendment asked to allow one of the original lots to be further subdivided with a General Plan nendment. At that point, the City Attorney's office said no, that was not propriate under the existing General Plan. Harp noted that before 1988 there were originally 39 lots. The park that was e got subdivided and the 9 additional lots were added to make it 48 lots. of those was merged so that brought the total down to 47. The 1988 eral Plan came about and the number that was used was 39. When an icant came in to see about subdividing a lot that previously had not been ged, they were told they would need a General Plan Amendment because Page 4 of 6 http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn09- 21- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 General Plan said that there could only be 39 lots total. The ambiguity tl ted at the time was whether or not when they adopted the 1988 Gene i they intended to go with what was on the ground (47 dwelling units) ether they intended to mirror the PC text of 48 and that is why a General PI sndment is needed. iairperson Cole noted this was discussed at the last meeting and is the staff report. was made by Commissioner McDaniel to adopt resole iding approval of Planned Community Development Amendment to the City Council. ommissioner Peotter noted that the applicant has eliminated the ability ibdivide in their CCR's. They are asking us to police their association. It is good policy for the City to do. He noted he does not support this application sets a precedent. Cole noted: . This was generated by the City Council. This will be consistent with the new General Plan, which would not for subdivisions anyway. So it is reinforcing something that is al theoretically approved. . Have we done this for other communities where we are enforcing policy? Harp noted that there was an ambiguity here and a problem that we ig by clarifying. He affirmed that the motion included the language the the first sentence in Exhibit A. The maker of the motion agreed. Temple answered that the City has not to date actually adopted any spec s that were originated within CCR's in any planned community or oommur tired by covenants, codes or restrictions. However, the City has be roached at least three times to consider such an action and the City Counc imon response was if you as a community can agree to apply for it, meani all the community members would sign the application then we woe sue it as a normal application. They had to show that consensus whi ins a 100% concurrence. In this case though, we are not just enacting it zoning something which is solely within the CCR's, it is also in our propos feral Plan. missioner Eaton noted because this language of the General Plan is in General Plan, if the new General Plan is ratified by the voters, I think t tion will come up again in order to be consistent with that language. It is t of the State Law that zoning, be it a PC text or conventional zoning, stent with the General Plan so I think our action with this resolution ilv consistent with that. Hawkins noted he shares some of the concerns raised Peotter. However, he supports the motion for reasons ns, Peotter Page 5 of 6 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn09- 21- 06.htm 06/23/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 Absent: Henn ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - At the last City Council agenda the approved the General Plan Update Implementation Program. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no report. c. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Committee - Ms. Temple noted that staff had circulated a re-drafl of the implementation plan and there was still concern about the level orl detail. There was another meeting with two of the committee member (Selich and Toerge) to get a feeling of what areas and magnitude the would like to see this scaled back. It was concluded that some modifications to the information presented needed to be made for furthe feedback from the committee members. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Hawkins noted he had received call from a member of the public regarding copies of draft minutes. Ms Temple said she will look into the matter. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Peotter would like t talk about the organization, number and language of the conditions an how they should be accessed. Ms. Temple noted that other issues fo consideration by the Planning Commission for the by -laws may include procedures and will be brought forward at some point in the near future and possibly at the same time. Discussion continued. f. Project status - Chairperson Cole noted that with the workload that is to be addressed it would be helpful to consider having two meetings i November instead of the one that is listed. Following discussion, it was agreed to call for two meetings in November on the 2nd and the 16th. g. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 7:30 p.m. 1ADJOURNIVIENT ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 of 6 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PhiAgendas /2006 /mn09- 21- 06.htm 06/23/2008