Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes - 08/07/2008Planning Commission Minutes 08/07/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT August 7, 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 7 file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd08072008.htm 08/14/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren — all present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Kay Sims, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on August 1, 2008. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of July 17, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as amended. Approved yes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter and McDaniel bstain: Toerge and Hillgren SUBJECT: North Newport Center TPO (PA2008 -126) ITEM NO.2 PA2008 -126 Approval to develop 96,428 square feet of office space in Block 500,North Newport Center Planned Community, pursuant to Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Approved Ms. Wood gave an overview of the staff report noting: . The Planning Commission is to determine compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). All other approvals associated with this project file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd08072008.htm 08/14/2008 Commission Minutes 08/07/2008 have been given. . A recognized intersection that is currently operating at a level of service of unsatisfactory would be made worse with the development of this office space; however, the Development Agreement that covers the square footage requires The Irvine Company to construct an improvement of a third left -turn lane at San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. . This approval is a code requirement and the TPO has specific traffic requirements for a more detailed analysis. . Copies of the TPO were distributed and in Section 15.40.030 it states the Planning Commission shall approve the project or the City Council on review or appeal. . A revised resolution was discussed. . Staff will not issue building permit unless there is compliance with the Building Code. iissioner Hawkins noted the possibility of additional resolution language on 3 and suggested adding after, "....Ordinance, and authorize all other such es pursuant to Code," as this would refer to anything that requires TPO Wood agreed to this additional language and clarified the responsibility of in by the Planning Commission and staff. ner Eaton asked if the 96,000 square feet is to be developed or consolidated. Wood answered it was understood it is to be consolidated. comment was opened. i Miller of The Irvine Company noted they have read and understand the staff ort and concur with the findings and recommendations. He noted agreement i the proposed additional language in the resolution. At Commission inquiry, stated generally it is their intent to consolidate this square footage based on ;iqn. comment was closed. ion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner laniel to adopt a resolution making findings required by the Traffic Phasing nance approving the development as presented in the revised blue /red lined Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren None None Page 2 of 7 :\Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd08072008.htm 08/14/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/07/2008 Page 3 of 7 Housing Resources LLC, Fritz Duda (PA2008 -080) ITEM 627 W. Bay PA2008-08 -080 Denied parcel map to change the orientation of two existing lots currently fronting :reet to front on West Bay Avenue. The reoriented lots would deviate from inimum size and lot width required by the Zoning Code. The application inclu Code Amendment to change the Districting Map to establish a 9 -foot front y -tback for the two reoriented lots where the Zoning Code requires a 20 -foot f ird setback. The property is located in the R -2 District. Sims, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report. Budovec of M. J. Knitter and Associates, representing the applicant, noted: • Two houses on the lot face West Bay Avenue and it is proposed to keep the same orientation; • Received the proposed curb cut approval from Public Works and then submitted the revised proposal to Planning Department; • Informed of the Zoning Code Amendment that requires 20 feet along West Bay, which makes the site almost unbuildable; • Is here to see if they can get an adjustment. Loper of Fritz Duda Company, noted: • The attached exhibits show the proposed parcels with the existing two residences; • Asking to orient the houses the way they have been with the West Bay address; • Several instances where lots have been adjusted in the area; • The new twenty-foot setback would be inconsistent with anything else on West Bay; • Parcel 1 should be 810 square feet due to the 6 foot by 10 foot cutout where it went from a 3 to 9 foot setback; • The differences between the lot configuration from what could be done now as opposed to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies related to alley access and curb cuts for new development; • There would be additional parking on site; • Asked for approval of the proposed project as it is consistent with past development in the area. Hawkins asked about the site configuration and parcels. Loper noted both parcels were bought with the two homes on them. l purchased from one owner. One of the homes sits across the parcel has since 1907. immissioner Eaton asked about the second residence; R -2 zoning; condominiums and original assessor's map date. Loper answered they have not thought about the prospect of converting iominiums and does not know the map date. file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnd08072008.htm 08/14/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/07/2008 mmissioner Toerge asked if it was considered taking garage access for tl ner lot from the alley in this configuration across the back of the secoi cel. This would eliminate the need for curb cuts and save the trees. He state was not inclined to support the project as is and suggested a continuance ; was an alternative the applicant would consider. Loper noted this is something they could look at as an alternative. Hillgren noted his concern about the setbacks of the east. r. Lepo answered those setbacks are 9 feet. r. Loper noted the setbacks across the street are 5 feet. rman Peotter asked if the other residences noted by the applicant were a parcel map or re- oriented with a lot line adjustment. Sims noted there was a Covenant Agreement completed in 1995 when ent home was proposed. At that time the setbacks were 9 feet fror enth Street and 5 feet on West Bay Avenue. With the updated Zoning C reverse corner setback would now have a twenty -foot setback and the revo ier setback of nine feet for the lot across the street. She then explained arate ownership; prior to the Subdivision Map Act, covenant agreements v a continued on the requirement of a parcel map as opposed Lepo noted parcel maps are required because that is the only way to create J and legal title to properties. All of the other lots discussed were creat( r to the adoption of the current General Plan. The newly adopted Genei i policies require new development to take access from the alley and minimi: i cuts. rman Peotter noted his concern of the need of a code amendment setback. Lepo noted the main issue is the General Plan compliance. ssioner Eaton asked if there would be problems with the from the alley with conversion to condominiums. Lepo answered there could be problem with the separation of the buildings same lot, there needs to be ten feet, or it could be done if they altered Jing configuration. Jacobs, adjacent neighbor, noted his concerns of the loss of parking on tF -t and the tight measurement of the alley. If the garage is moved back, the sharp left turn right on the corner that would be too tight, especially with vehicle. Currently, there are not two homes as the second "residence" is io above a garage. Page 4 of 7 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minmes\mnd08O72008.htm 08/14/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/07/2008 Page 5 of 7 R. Dilding, a board member of the Central Newport Beach Communitl xiation, noted their concern about the parking as this is in the area of the it club. With a garage set back nine feet, that is a good opportunity to have Sts park in the public sidewalk, which is a common occurrence on the point. area is a problem area and the association is very concerned and oppose; removal of on- street parking. Budovec noted there is a 9 -foot setback to the face of the garage so there ty of back- up space for ingress and egress to the back alley. comment was closed ;ion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissio )aniel to adopt staff recommendation to deny the application for Parcel h NP2008 -012 and Code Amendment No. CA2008 -001. nmissioner Toerge noted he supports the motion. He suggested to licant continuing this item to review alternatives that had been presented Commission. issioner Hillgren and Chairman Peotter noted similar concerns as stated. Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel Toerge and Hillgren ITEM NO.4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved irman Peotter noted there have been action minutes and asked if this agreeable to the Commissioners. imissioner Toerge noted he favors detailed minutes to allow for understandi the rational and thoughts whether in support of opposition to proposals to i emission. He prefers to use the old system as it is better disclosure, me i government and it helps the City Council when there is an appeal. He ,ied to revert back to the old process. was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by to move that recommendation. Eaton noted we need more than bare action minutes. r. Lepo suggested for future minutes that after a motion is made whet )proved or denied, if the Commissioners would help us and state your facts e public so that we have a very clear record. Staff is emphasizing that idings are everything. We can duly record those and paraphrase pu >mments. We are proposing to rely on the Commissioner to clearly state 0 tuitions after a motion is made. Peotter noted he supports the minutes presented tonight; file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnd08072008.htm 08/14/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/07/2008 Page 6 of 7 . They are a good balance. . Minutes do not need to be verbatim in order to represent or statements by the Commissioners. I don't want to encourage Commissioner to say their pro or con on every item they vote on, they are so inclined for whatever reason. . It is not conducive to forward business. Bullet point option fashion can used and if anyone needs more information they can listen to an audio t; of the Commission meeting. . Most people I know do not read verbatim minutes as action minutes are readable and is used by almost every single Council. . He is in opposition to this motion as it is a waste of staff time Commission time to review as well as the public. . He suggested going further in the action minutes with elaboration in a point menu. Toerge noted: . Does not support verbatim minutes and summarizing comments completely appropriate. . Understands the issue of staffs time but it benefits the public and asked more description and explain rational for the public. . Noted the council members will not take the time to get recording in office when the packet is delivered to their homes that include the wr minutes. nissioner McDaniel noted verbatim transcript minutes are a waste and is for reasons stated by Commissioner Toerge. rman Peotter restated the Motion is to go back to the verbatim style o rtes used prior to the July rather than the action type minutes we have now. maker of the motion agreed. Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge and Hillgren )DITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo noted the City Council initiated the General Plan amendment to add the Hazard component to the Safety Element, and the AERIE project has been sent back for additional work on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, specifically as regard to the view frorr the water to Carnation Cove, the inlet below the building is a concern. Experts for proponents to the project raised the issue of geotechnical aspe indicating the drilling or chipping away from the rock formation of the cliff t file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnd08072008.htm 08/14/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/07/2008 build basements to the lower floors will damage the face that could away. There is a decision to be made about the Mitigated Nege Declaration or an EIR would be more appropriate. It is scheduled to cc back in September to the Council. The wine tasting for the Pavilion's approved with revision that only one employee has to be available at wine tasting bar, the hours were expanded, and the vintners are not requ to have the LEED's training. b. Planning Commission reports - Commissioner Hawkins reported E Executive Committee met and received a report on the economic downt from the Chamber of Commerce; and, Mr. Cole was not picked to serve the Committee. Commissioner Toerge noted the next meeting for the Gn Building Committee is August 13th at 9:30 a.m. c. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. d. Project status - none e. Requests for excused absences - none. 7:45 BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 of 7 file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mnd08072008.htm 08/14/2008