Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2003• 0 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page I of 18 file: //H:1Plancomm12003 PC11106. htm 11/21/2003 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - Il present. TAFF 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 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Chandra Slaven, 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 Friday, October 31, 2003. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 & 2 MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of October 23, 2003. Approved OBJECT: Landmark Buildings 707 East Balboa Boulevard Request for a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program to change the intensity limit for 07 East Balboa Boulevard from a floor area ratio to one based on the number of seats and a Code Amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Cod to add a specific height limitation for landmark buildings. file: //H:1Plancomm12003 PC11106. htm 11/21/2003 6 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 Page 2 of 18 Continue to November 20, 2003. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker, and voted on, to approve the Consent Calendar by the following vote: Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: 3450 Via Oporto (PA2003 -213) ITEM NO. 3 Initiated by the City of Newport Beach PA2003 -213 Amend the General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations Recommended from Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities to Retail and for Approval Service Commercial and to change the zoning district classification from Governmental, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) to Retail Service Commercial (RSC). Commissioner Toerge noted the following in the resolution: • Section 5 - the first sentence should include a reference to 1988 and the inadvertent designation so that it appears as mistake. • Wording changes were made to clarify the intent of the resolution. Commissioner Cole asked if this location was ever considered for an expansion opportunity by the Elks Lodge. He was answered, no. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to recommend approval o eneral Plan Amendment No. 2003 -010, Local Coastal Program mendment NO. 2003 -004, and Code Amendment No. 2003 -008 to the ity Council. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None xx• OBJECT: Michael Lugo and Dalia Badajos -Lugo (PA2003 -216) ITEM NO.4 1807 Irvine Avenue PA2003 -216 Appeal of the Modifications Committee denial of a request to allow a new Appeal was attached single story garage to encroach 5 feet into the 10 -foot northerly Denied side yard setback, a 6 inch encroachment into the 10 -foot side yard setbac of the first and second floor at the southerly property line, an attached file: //H: \Plancomm\2003 PC\ 1106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 ingle story utility meter enclosure to encroach 2 feet 6 inches into t southerly 10 -foot side yard setback and a second floor bathroom pop -out . encroach 2 feet inches into the southerly 10 -foot side yard setback conjunction with the construction of a new single family residence. 0 LJ ssioner Toerge asked about and received an explanation of characteristics in reference to lot coverage. comment was opened. Lugo, applicant noted the following: The intent of Title 20 is to protect the neighbors and surrounc neighborhood from encroaching into each others space, etc. neighbors adjacent to his property feel this project would be enhancement to the neighborhood and would in no way encro onto their individual properties. He noted signed letters from neighbors and produced two additional ones in support. . Enjoyment of his property - a side loading garage provides safety, the issue of ingress and egress on this unique property. The prop is not seen until cars are right on it. There is no other property the 'hidden' with two other properties on either side being 5 feet from curb. . No precedent would be set in light of the orientation. . Noise abatement - we are proposing to put as much property in the back to allow us to enjoy our property to the maximum. . This is a small deviation being requested that will improve the value the property, will not set a precedent and will create safety. Lugo, applicant noted the following: . Neighbors have expressed that a new home would give g setbacks than are currently standing. . House currently has 6 feet and 5 feet setbacks. With a new home can have greater setbacks. Eaton noted that the side loaded garage could even if the modification was denied. Lugo noted that there is no parking in front of the home and they are g to have some parking for family members accommodated on site. are trying to maximize the location of the house on the lot as much a: ,ible. Irvine Avenue actually narrows in front of the house and when we )ht the house the Hollands next door had indicated that the previous cents were concerned because people going by didn't slow down anc file: //H:\Plancomm\2003PC\ 1106.htm Page 3 of 18 11/21 /2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 Page 4 of 18 thought they were going on to another street. That is our concern and addressed this with Public Works when we were thinking about purcha: •his property. We don't think we are asking for a lot and our neighbors d consider it an issue. ID missioner Toerge asked how the 4 foot encroachment into the improves safe access. Lugo noted that it gives more space when people drive in to park the area to turn around. She had no exhibit of the new plan to illus point when questioned. ;sioner Toerge noted that the elimination of the side yard setb; :hment would not cause the garage orientation to change. why they couldn't build a house that is safe, peaceful s able on a quarter of an acre lot with 75 feet of frontage without r. Lugo answered that they are trying to maximize the back yard and don't ant to use the entire lot like other homes in Newport Beach. Since it is or busy street, he wants his kids and guests to remain in the back and use e back yard to its fullest extent. Having the house pushed up to the front lows them to do that. The house could be pushed back, but that is not eir intent or their plans. cornmissioner Cole asked about the uniqueness of the lot and the size e garage. Lugo noted that if you go down Irvine Avenue, this is the only ho faces Irvine Avenue on this block. When you drive down Irvine Aver do not notice that the house is there until you are at the end of cent neighbor's wall. We feel that is key. The garage area will also I for storage. comment was closed. Tucker asked about a standard for a circular driveway curb cuts. 1. Edmonston answered that there is no standard design for circ veways, however, there is a City Council policy that deals with drivew sere there is more than one serving a property that they should be 20 more apart to allow for a parking space in between. On this side of In enue, no on street parking is allowed so that particular criteria would me into play. Tucker asked if the garage was set back, would that Edmonston answered that there is some flexibility on site. The plan file : //H:1Plancomm\2003PC11106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 Page 5 of 18 he packet shows that it is five feet from the property line, ideally, you like eep driveways in front of the particular property. You could narrow tt istance between them and as the applicant indicated, it would eliminE ome of that front yard maneuvering space but I would guess that it wot till function if the garage was moved over 4 feet to be compliant with t nmissioner Tucker questioned if the existing structure on the north sic > six feet off the property line. Staff answered that this was an area th > annexed from the County of Orange and had different developme ulations. The City put the 'B2' overlay on these properties, which gave v development regulations so that when new houses were constructe V would have to comply with our regulations. Continuing, he then aske v the modification on the'barn /carriage' came about. Temple answered that Mr. Holland had acquired an old barn from 1 ige County Fairgrounds and wanted to preserve the old structure a it to store his automobile collection. It was a controversial project tl lately was approved by Council. One of the factors considered at 1 was the structure was of a set size and the property was very large. ommissioner Tucker noted that it is staffs position in this case tha because of the size of the lot while this design might not work, a desigi would work that would not be a hardship on it. Staff agreed. Commissioner Kiser noted he is troubled finding justification for the appeal. Those provided by the applicant that the modification would diminish the likelihood of burglaries by providing a side loading garage. It has bees testified that the garage could still be side loading without the appeal beinc approved. Even if it wasn't side loading, I would question the justificatioi o long as the garage door is closed. The applicant also show: improvement of ingress and egress and I am not hearing anything tha would convince me of that. The proposed modification helps reduce nois( hat travels from Irvine Boulevard to the backyard cuts both ways fo approving or not approving the appeal, we are talking about a couple o eet. Upon a site visit, I can not imagine that the decibel level of the nois( rom Irvine Boulevard would change in any material way by the structun eing a foot or two one way or another. Finally, what was just discusse( bout the modification for the neighbor's barn, there was some unusue ircumstances with the barn being brought on the property. Even if then eren't, just because one modification was given, whether it was gives isely or not, you have to look at each issue on its own basis and no assume there is a precedent set. I think I would support the Modification, ommittee who in fact see hundreds of these requests all the time. I an oting to deny the appeal and support the decision of the Modificatioi ommissioner Eaton asked if this lot is a key lot, does the Zoning C recognize that? Staff answered that terminology is not within our Code. file: //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 Page 6 of 18 Commissioner Cole asked about the intent of Title 20 regarding sett when you are looking at granting a modification for encroachment. current setback for the residence is 6 feet. If they did a major ren would the setback requirement be different? ;. Temple noted that the original purposes of Zoning Code including t rposes for the setback arrangements for any use of property is found the zoning regulations established through the police power to protc public welfare and safety and use of property. Setbacks tradition2 wide for both light and air for both the subject property and adjoini as. In terms of the relationships of those historical intents to the intent r Title 20, Newport Beach Municipal Code, they are based on tho torical concepts. The next agenda item looks at the intent of the Coc tintaining the integrity of the Code and the justification for granti riations to those provisions through the Modification Permit process. Ramirez answered that the regulations in the 'B' overlay district all tions to the principal building of the site at the original setback line. applicant wanted to add on to the existing building at the existing 6 fl ack for example on the northerly side, they would be able to do so. hairperson McDaniel noted his agreement with Commissioner Kisei statement. You have a pretty flat lot, you can build quite a bit on it wi ingress and egress covered. I don't see the justification to make changes. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to affirm the decision of tt Modifications Committee and deny the appeal. He noted that it is a ve large flat, rectangular lot and I don't see anything that puts the applicant Ecompromised position that we would need to help him out with k anaina the setbacks. imissioner Tucker stated he does not see this as a precedent. It is uely situated property, it is a large flat parcel. There is a current 6 fo ack on that side of the property and the encroaching structure is on story. It is a close call, but I don't think I will be supporting the motion. imissioner Cole noted his agreement with Commissioner Tucke 3ment. He added that he has driven that street and it is a unique a t street in the City. I think the City should be encouraging this type 3. 1 understand the precedent and I believe it is the only reason, granting a modification permit. I think the unique nature of the lot a fact that they already have a structure that sits closer than what & proposing deserves consideration. They have done a great job with i hbors' approval and I think we should be encouraging this type of thi not unfairly discourage new construction on this street. and Kiser Noes: Cole, Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None file: //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 Page 7 of 18 SUBJECT: Amendment to Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) ITEM NO. 5 PA2003 -080) PA2003 -080 Initiated by the City of Newport Beach Recommended An amendment to Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) to revise the for Approval Required Findings Section and other associated revisions for processing Modification Permit. Ms. Temple stated that in 2002, the Planning Commission considered ar appeal of a modification and at the conclusion of that meeting, at the request of Commissioner Kiser, an item was added to staffs work list t< review and consider strengthening the findings to approve modificatior permits. Through the course of this year, there have been at least twc modification permits called for review by the City Council and there is one on their agenda this week. The Council has specifically asked staff tc ccelerate this project and bring forward to the Commission potentia hanges to the Modifications Chapter. Members of the Modifrcatior ommittee have indicated that it is becoming more and more difficult tc administer the Modifications Chapter because there was so little guidancf is to what should or should not be approved. This has become an issu( ecause staff has been getting rather a significant amount of modification equests on brand new development on lots that were not constrained bi any traditional factors that we see such as reversal of ordinary orientatior r unusual or small lot size. hairperson McDaniel affirmed that the scope of what the Commission is iscussing tonight is the list that has been presented tonight to us for reviev s well as the three issues listed in the staff report. Temple noted that this is the first presentation on the three suggest ngs. The Planning Commission can take testimony and deliberate a Liss and ask for more information if they wish and /or they can mE iges, or provide staff with new direction for alternatives to consider 1 staff go back and work on those. At Commission inquiry, she nol if this was voted on, the Planning Commission would not see this it n unless the City Council decided to send it back to the Commission. Ms. Slaven noted the following . The goal of the three proposed findings is to address concerns of 1 City Council, staff and members of the public regarding propert l containing practical difficulties which create unnecessary hardshil the preservation of neighborhood compatibility; and the assurance public safety. . Practical difficulties - this finding would limit those applications properties containing physical constraints such as size, shape, a topography or lot orientation. With this finding, the applicant would required to clearly demonstrate facts that would create the acts file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \l 106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 need to deviate from the Code. Such applications would include those whose lot size, shape, or orientation relative to other neighboring lots may make the application of standard setback; impractical. In those cases, a Modification Permit would be granted. • The neighborhood compatibility finding - would require the review o modification permits to be processed in a manner that recognizes anc respects the unique features and characteristics of that neighborhood thereby assuring the continued enjoyment of the City's quality of life. This finding is more subjective and can be utilized in cases such a: setbacks and streetscapes. • The public safety finding - this is beneficial because it addresses the City Council's concern of Modifications Permits creating impediment: to safety personnel. It is important to maintain a certain amount o setback for public safety access and staging. This finding ie consistent with the existing modification finding that ensures that the project does not cause harm to adjacent property. • The additional guidance provided under the section of 'Duties of the Modifications Committee' is important to aid the members in thei review of each application in terms of what the Modification Permi does and does not apply to. For example, under the neighborhooc compatibility finding, the Modifications Committee may only (onside . such characteristics as they relate to the direct impacts of the proposed modification on the neighborhood character and not the development rights that would otherwise be enjoyed without the Modification Permit. • As requested by Commissioner Selich, Jay Garcia has provided the summary before you to supplement your understanding as to hov these three proposed findings could potentially alter the determination of similar applications based upon a review of pas Modification Permit determinations. The sample of application: presented range from encroachments to various architectura features. • Referencing the summary, she then noted that there were 1'' Approved projects that would have continued to remain in the Approved category using these revised findings and 10 Approve( projects could have been denied with these revised findings. • In the opinion of the Modifications Committee, the proposed finding: would have an effect on their ability to make stronger determinations of denial. At Commissioner inquiry, staff noted that an outreach meeting was held fo he public and that about 5 or 6 people attended. Tuckerasked: Page 8 of 18 file : //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \l 106.htm 11/21/2003 E 1] Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 What does an 'unnecessary' physical hardship mean: Is the 'unnecessary' needed? The finding that the modification be compatible with exi . development in the neighborhood and respect the neighbor] character. What is the difference between being compatible respecting the neighborhood character? If these words do not anything, should they be included? s. Temple suggested that some modification to the organization of 1 >rds would be beneficial. We are trying to get to the issue of when the a practical difficulty of the property that creates an unnecessary hardsl the property if the Code was strictly applied. If it is a practical diffiCL at creates a physical hardship that doesn't serve a particular purpose intent of the Code. imissioner Tucker then referred to the summary that was distributed. noted his concern is that this issue is not a solution looking for a Clem. Is it staffs perception that the trend concerning the number o ifications is such that it's become problematic now with too man] ification requests and circumstances that there shouldn't be? Garcia noted: Referencing the summary - the first finding on a cursory look at these projects are reviewed to be made would need more det analysis of the project asking the applicant for more reasor justification to meet that first finding. Some of these properties I may have some other justification that was not brought out to i this specific finding. It would be difficult in most cases to meet. A lot of issues that the Modifications Committee has been dealing w in conjunction with new construction, is the way the Code is writt gives the perception that if you want an encroachment, all you need a modification permit to get it. As we start to deny some of the projects and the complexion is reflected to regular architects w basically bring projects over and over again or are dealing with n( projects. They must make the decision whether they want to build to the building they have now and preserve some of those nc conformities, or tear it all down and start from scratch. missioner Tucker asked if without some changed or added langt does not feel that they have the ability to deny those requests the :ally 'designed in' modifications. You don't believe you have )rity under the existing Code? r. Garcia answered that with more stringent findings, we would probe iscourage more people from applying. At this point, we try to discoun people from making applications for things that really have no merit, and he most part people will accept that direction, or they have the opportui Page 9 of 18 file: //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 Page 10 of 18 o apply anyway. You can meet with them as many times as you want a ell them the same thing, but if they want something, they are going to try 40 ursue it. imissioner Tucker noted the terminology, 'health, safety, peace, con general welfare', that means to me that the committee members h latitude. You indicate that more applications would be denied with language than you would deny now. Garcia answered we would be discouraging more applications rat i denying them. The application form would list the findings and ask icant to list the merits to justify their request. irperson McDaniel stated that this sounds like giving the Modificati imittee more of an opportunity to have more information provided they could make a decision of yes or no. It also sounds like you no information to make these decisions. He was answered, yes. missioner Tucker asked if it could be possible to leave the finding the Code presently reads and change the application so that the 1 for information that makes it clear that the applicant has to come something that shows why they have to design a project a cer •r. Garcia answered that when a person comes back and asks, 'where that in the CodeT, it becomes difficult to direct them. We fall back on wt is the justification for an encroachment, or, why can't it conform? Especia if it is a new building. If you want these architectural features, then scc our building back so that you can accommodate them. There are a lot different ways to answer that question. With the addition of these propos ridings, on new structures these requests could be discouraged. When N re dealing with non - conforming structures and they are trying to make ilk purse out of a sow's ear by dressing it up, you might need some type latitude as far as architectural features that are not already written in t practical difficulty of trying to dress up a building that is built like a bo; back line to set back line, there is no place to put architectural features. e only way to dress it up is to encroach into some setback. The practice culty or unnecessary hardship you are trying to avoid is tearing it dowi I rebuilding it. They only want to dress it up, why should they have to ck it down to accommodate these architectural features? person McDaniel noted that staff has done a lot of work on itials to give the Modifications Committee the tools needed to decisions. You believe you can do it with these changes? Mir. Garcia answered yes. The findings required will increase the level nalysis that will have to be done on the project and make the applicai ome up with more factual objective criteria or justifications. file : // - lAPlancomm \2003PC \l 106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 Page 11 of 18 ommissioner Eaton asked about the third finding noted on the summary review of actions and how the probable result under the propos rdinance is different. Garcia noted that this application was unique to Newport Crest wh project is located. The condominium project has been there since s and the encroachments that have been proposed and approved in 1 a were balconies and stairs in an area between a building and )erty line. Public safety would be impacted by the extension of a di basically goes from building to property line that will restrict access ;rgency personnel to go around the building. That was the reason no indication on that finding. nissioner Kiser asked about Finding C, 'the health, safety and g re finding', isn't that one that today the Modifications Committee to be operating under with each decision? Ms. Temple answered the wording is different. The existing Code says tl the granting of the application will not be detrimental to surroundi properties and the neighborhood'. The re- working of it was to specifics work in that the concept of the health and safety in concert with the r detrimental. It is similar to what we have, some of the words are differ( but are what we thought would assist us in bringing in a more clear fashi he concept of what one of the things the Council is concerned with, whi • is the actual physical access of safety personnel to the property. Ms. Clauson added that from a court review of a decision point of view, I additional findings help staff to bring out information to support I etermination, approval or denial. Also, it provides a court some basis eview by. A use permit has the general health, safety and welfare findi hat is pretty wide open and there is a lot of discretion, but it still has to ased upon substantial evidence. lifications are different. It is not considered that they have just a gener th, safety and welfare standard for an encroachment into a setbai ause the purposes and intent of setbacks and encroachments into tl lack is a different process. For instance, we have a court reviewing now and when the finding is, " a reasonable use of the property" at property owner is saying, well it is reasonable what I am proposing, ,es it harder to have a record that shows the reason why you denied it. r. Edmonston added that one of his staff members sits on the Modificat )mmittee. The reality is that most of the items heard are primarily zon fated encroachments. In discussing the proposed change to the pol th him, he feels comfortable that this will help the people that aren't miliar with the detail of zoning issues as Mr. Garcia is and is a clear s the right direction to have this change to the process. commissioner Toerge stated he has trouble understanding the verbiage ecessary/unnecessary hardship'. That wording should be looked at. I file : //H: \P1ancomm\2003PC \I 106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 Page 12 of 18 hen asked for clarification as to the subjective language to respect t neighborhood character. For instance, in some cases where there is a fi oot side yard setback and someone has a kitchen window and wants build an 18 inch popped out bay window over the kitchen area that v encroach into the setback. Is that something that falls under the scrutiny he Modifications Committee and secondly, if all the neighbors had or how would that be considered? Garcia answered that over the years changes have been made to the ing Code to accommodate certain types of architectural features, bal tows, cornices, things of that nature that people can do by right now. se are written into Chapter 20.60 of the Municipal Code. There are ays situations where people want bay windows wider or taller or on the )nd floor where the Code does not already allow them, or an increasec fiber. Those are the types of things the committee would be dealinc . Changes that occur in the Zoning Code where some things required lification say five years ago and now you want to do something and the e does not allow it. People have difficulty with that rational and say wh) t I have the same thing my neighbor has? There are always those !s of issues that come up. New structures are the hardest to deal wilt are often times denied. Ms. Temple added that the modification process has proven extren aluable to identify areas where some modification to the Code may esirable and appropriate. If we start to see certain types of features ecome commonly requested and expected, and we find that ommittee finds that over time they are very easy to approve, then that I is to change the Code. Selich noted the following: Good job on the survey. During that period of time during through October, how many total modification permits processed? How were these selected? Garcia answered from the list that was put together we probably ped about ten. I went through all the agendas from July, put them al a list and from that pared down those which were what the committee fibers did not have a recollection of the project, because it was hard tc uer the questions on the findings without having to pull the file and gc through the history. We only dropped a few. This list is about 90% o we dealt with just on modifications, and does not include lot line stments, parcel maps and other things we review on agenda. ommissioner Cole noted that some of the council members were une P Pmisconception that the Modifications Committee was making decisic n things such as height and size and FAR requirements. Has there be •ny concern from the community or people where a current situation ausing some kind of problem in the community? The'mansionization' id ouldn't follow under what we are talking about today. We are talki file : //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \1106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 Page 13 of 18 about encroachment issues, setbacks, architectural features and signs. m wondering, looking at this summary, maybe half of them approve ould have been denied. Is that benefiting the community in any way th hose people could not have gone ahead with their plans? Is th omething that will necessarily be helpful to the community? Is th omething that is really needed, or can we make minor changes to tt xisting language. Will this create something we don't need for applican ho have desirable or appropriate changes? Slaven answered that in her review it would be beneficial to the pub fuse it would make a better application. The public would have a belt :rstanding of what they need to do in preparation for a modificati( iit or even if they could be granted one. It is more detailed and cleat en. Any form of education for the general public when we meet wi i at the counter is a good thing and beneficial to the community as Temple added that staff wants consistent application of the granting )difications over time so that people are treated equally pursuant to c 3ulations. When there is a strong clear path and good guidance in c aulations, then as staff assignments change and actual staff Chang thin the function of the various departments, then we believe it will res a more consistent application of these provisions over time. *I Public comment was opened an Harrison, architect noted that the modification is there so that there exibility with the Code. I wonder if that is going to be a problem. Tt health and safety issue is nebulous, how is that going to be approached? hink the existing problems in a community like West Newport if everyboc has a bootleg apartment does that mean that you should approve a bootle apartment because it is existing and everyone has one? nmissioner Kiser asked if the speaker had reviewed the propos auage for the new findings. Finding A in 20.93.030 about the physi straints and hardships is a requirement for the applicant to give me rmation and says that the physical constraints such as nonconformi ictures, size, shape, etc. are all things the Modifications Committee Ie What we see in the decisions over the years in comparison appears comprehensive. Does it give comfort that this list is in there for t Jifications Committee to look at? Harrison answered that whatever you do to help define our jot iitects} and make it easier, if there is consistency. That is a problem has been inconsistency. I think you will be seeing more tear downs. ommissioner Selich noted that he came from a strict 'constructionali: • ackground in Zone Codes both in education and professional standpoint. ad a hard time getting used to this modification process. As I have seen Aerate over the past 8 years for Newport Beach, I think it works good. file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 Page 14 of 18 Ives us the ability through our Zoning Code to address a lot of unique ituations in this city versus a city like Irvine that is all new developmen .under modern zoning and planned communities. I am not inclined tc hange the Code, I am concerned that with a change like this you end uF ith an unintended consequence. I don't see where things need to be fixec hat are not broken. I think there is a misconception in the community a: ar as what is going on with the modification process. It seems to me i orks very good. I had asked for this survey because I read this Code ant as shocked that so many projects would be denied under this Code because my thought was that the survey would show that there wouldn't be much of a change. Maybe for some of these things we should make Code hange, for example a subterranean garage or part of a subterranear tructure encroaching into the setback area. A lot of times that is e esirable situation and may be something that can be dealt with a zonin( hange, not a modification change. This survey shows that this has a to more impact than I thought it would have and I wonder if we adop omething like this that we choke off some creativity and ability to come ul ith designs that do not harm properties in the neighborhood and allov Baling with subdivision problems we have in some of the older parts of the ity. I think that what we see now is that a lot of the older structures are being remodeled and /or torn down with a lot of new construction going in. don't see we are accomplishing much by doing this, and if the Modification: ommittee feels that under the existing Code they do not have enougl direction to deal with certain issues, they can certainly go to the Citl Council and get some policy direction. My inclination is to leave this alone. Chairperson McDaniel asked if you had this information when these issue., on the survey were reviewed, some of these may not have been denied. They were denied based on the information that the Committee had bu might have been approved if you had more information. Am I wrong it Garcia answered yes, that is true. Some of these would have regr itional analysis and maybe the first finding could be made. In rse of new construction it would be difficult to make that finding so )ably would have been denied on the first finding. Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the first group that asked isideration of this matter was the Planning Commission, the sect )up was the City Council on an official basis. Through the course of t e, the Modification Committee was articulating internally that tl aught considering the changes was a good idea from their perspective. ommissioner Eaton noted that if this was a general law City th odifications would have to be considered minor variances and would h o require a variance procedure and criteria to be followed. Because re a charter City we have more flexibility. My sense of the Cou irection is there is too much flexibility and being applied too widely to i onstruction and newer areas. I agree with that. The findings for the o art of town can be made in item 1 and I would strike the u file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \l 106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 /unnecessary. In the newer parts of town there ought to be more uniform because the average person sees a Code requirement and assumes th M hey ought to comply with it. There are others who want to get around nd if the Modifications Committee does not have a little more to base thi ecisions on then that is what happens. I think this proposal is a good ide mmissioner Kiser noted that with the new findings and the minutes Council deliberations, they would like to see this tightened up. T difications Committee would like to have 'some more teeth', or supp those cases when they would like to deny applications. It is appropris both those reasons to do something like we are looking at tonight. T st important thing is we need to have more direction, otherwise, 1 ling Code is completely amorphous. With the number of modificatic t I see being given, I have a sense that there is very little justificati uired today in the City to get a modification, and that leads to pc nning and bad development. In view of that I would vote to pass t ng. The comments made on the specific language, removing the we necessary" from Required Finding A would help and from Requir ding B remove ...., "and respect neighborhood character". ommissioner Tucker noted this is a significant policy issue that ouncil will need to decide where they want to head. While my inclin< is not to make a recommendation to them to go ahead and adopt ti hanges, we do need to look at the language and make changes we 1 •hould be in there if the Council were to decide this is something they o do. iairperson McDaniel stated he recognizes that the City Council has se is to us for a purpose. Staff knows what they need and have done a lot irk on this to present what they felt would tighten up the Modificatic ode. The comments we have had are to help us with court follow u rich I think is a significant aspect of what this will do for us. I think this H fect new construction more than it does anything else in the City, whit Barly the old construction needs to be modified and adjusted over time. ink this would be very helpful and I think our recommendation tonig Auld be that, a recommendation to pass on. It is appropriate to do th id the City Council will look at it and make their decisions if there are to I iy changes. Commissioner Cole stated he would like to have further discussion as it lace a greater burden on the resident who wishes to make remodels changes. I have not heard the result of the increase of modifications tl seems to be a concern for some, but I am not sure just because of 1 increase in number of approved Modification Permits necessarily mee that is a bad thing. If there is something resulting out of the increE Modification Permits either the Council or Commissioners find objectiona I think the way to address it might be in the Zoning Code itself and hanging the modification approval process in the Code. This has work or 35 plus years and there might be some minor language changes to g taff the ability to deny, but I am not sure we need to create a level sim Page 15 of 18 file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 o a variance. I think we need to review this item and bring it back pother meeting. • Commissioner Toerge stated he would like to pass something along to th Council. I have not had the opportunity to study in detail this summary tha as presented tonight, I have some questions about the resolution. I think understand it, but things need to be clarified in paragraph 1. Clauson stated that the ordinance states all the findings need to e, and this ends up in the Code. The resolution adopts the ordinal mioner Toerge asked about paragraph 2 in Section 3 of Dn. Ms. Temple noted the reference should be to Secl 15B regarding extent of authority. There wasn't a reference date in the resolution. Ms. Temple noted the date change. nissioner Toerge stated he would support a continuance to make clear and more accurate to satisfy the Council's wishes. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to recommend to City Council amendment to Chapter 20.93 to revise the Modification Permit's standa of review. Code Amendment No. 203 -003 as revised in our meeting toni with the resolution revised with removal of word 'unnecessary' in Find •P and words '....and respect of neighborhood character in requii inding B 20.93.030, and in the Purpose 20.93.010. )mmissioner Selich noted he would not support the motion. )dification process has been in place since 1968 and works well the is. It deals with the problems of Newport Beach. Adopting a iendment such as this can have some unintended and unfore; nsequences. If the City Council does feel there is a need and staff ire is a need for further direction, then the Council can do that thn licy direction to staff as opposed to a code amendment. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser Noes: Cole, Selich and Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - Mrs. Wood reported that at the last Cou meeting of October 28th, the Council set the hearing for the Tal residence appeal for November 12th; initiated a Code Amendment Height Limitations for Landmark buildings; and on the agenda th • was some ideas with regard to a city position on the Santa Ana Ri Crossing Study and EIR. The four cities, Fountain Valley, Cc Mesa, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach had jointly funded Page 16 of 18 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS file : //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \1106.htm 11/21/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 EIR at least a year ago to study the impacts of removing two of tl proposed Santa Ana River bridges from the County Master Plan Arterial Highways one at 19th St. and one at Gisler Avenue. A br discussion followed. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to tl Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich report that on the meeting of November 19th Hoag Hospital will do presentation on their Master Plan. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the Genei Plan Update Committee - no meeting. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Lo( Coastal Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Toerge noted tt discussions were held on the Economic Development Committe( recommendation to engage a consultant experienced on the ways the Coastal Commission; reviewed Chapters 1 and 2 ai recommended the next submittal to the Coastal Commission be formal submittal as opposed to a second draft. At our next meetii we are scheduled to review the biologists comments from the Coas Commission and review Chapters 3 and 4. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report . at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Toerge noted he would li to see a summary of the minutes of the meeting held October 29th 1 the Notice of Preparation on the Marina Park project. Commissior Tucker gave a brief synopsis of the meeting. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Selich not a discussion in a previous staff report on 'fifth' sided architect. I asked for a discussion on this issue and perhaps give guidance staff. The Commission agreed they would like to have tl discussion. Ms. Temple noted she has received a request from t Orange County Water District to make a presentation on the grou water replenishment projects and effects to the water supply. N Temple noted that environmental and CEQA law puts a hea emphasis on water supply in project development approval. N Wood noted that there is also a requirement in State Law that wal supply be addressed in the General Plan. Perhaps this presentati could be made to GPAC instead of the Planning Commission. T Commission noted their agreement. Chairperson McDaniel noted tt there is no meeting planned for December 18th. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - the Modificati Finding issue will be moving to City Council sometime next month. • h. Project status - Ms. Temple noted that the Coastal Commissi approved the Bayview Landing project at 120 units. Page 17 of 18 file : //H:\Plancomm \2003PC \1106.htm 11/21/2003 C� 0 Planning Commission Minutes 11/06/2003 Page 18 of 18 file://H:\Plancomrn\2003PC\l 106.htm 11/21/2003