Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes - 08/21/2008Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT August 21, 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 7 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nmd08212008.httn 10/03/2008 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 Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Melinda 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 The 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 Commission Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: None arx ITEM NO. 2 OBJECT: General Plan Amendment (PA2008 -131) PA2008 -131 Recommended for The Fire Department has recently prepared a Local Hazard and Mitigation Plan approval (LHMP), which is a comprehensive assessment of hazards that could affect the ity 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 7 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nmd08212008.httn 10/03/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 Ireimbursement costs. Whelan gave an overview of the staff report. )mmissioner Hillgren ascertained having the report by reference was sufficient, which staff replied, yes. comment was opened. comment was closed. :ion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner )aniel to recommend approval to the City Council to adopt the General Plan ,ndment incorporating the LHMP into the Safety Element (PA2008 -131) with 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." agreed to these recommendations. ioner Unsworth suggested adding in the section i Plan in the second line, ....is and, as updated from to be incorporated in the Safety Element. maker and second of the motion agreed. None None Megonical Residence (PA2007 -133) 2333 Pacific Drive of Local Hazards time to time, will request for a modification permit to allow planter walls and a water feature ceed the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback in association with t nstruction of a new, three -story single - family dwelling. The property is located Single- Family Residential (R -1) Zoning District. Planning Department also requests a determination on whether the propoe :ct complies with City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3, which requires that development comply with applicable polices of the General Plan. ling Manager, Patrick Alford, gave an overview of the staff report noting the ]as from the original application that included a variance, but which is nc r requested. He added that the origin of the parcel in a 1904 subdivisior showed that this parcel was once part of the right -of -way of Pacific Drive. was a street vacation in 1926 that actually created this property. He notes ITEM NO. 3 PA2007 -133 Approved Page 2 of 7 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd08212008.htm 10/03/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 the Public Works has concluded that the proposed water feature in the pL of -way were unnecessary liabilities to the City and do not support oachment. Therefore, staff is asking that this be deleted from the propo :ct. Staff recommends approval of the modification and determination that :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 thi: property; the applicant would have to have a driveway access througt 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 anc tinted windows are fairly common in residential construction and staff is nol 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 providinc non - standard material in back of a sidewalk. An encroachment permit woulc 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 anc 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 anc 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 7 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd08212008.htm 10/03/2008 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 p i Fleming, local resident - noted a Commissioner should recuse himself 1 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 de Peters, local resident. e Balderston, local resident - presented and explained pictures taken four years ago. Bell, local resident. es Bissill, local resident. Sherwin, local resident. Maerou, local resident. Vandersloot, local resident. Rogan, local resident. y Neff, local resident. • Park is used every day. • This project does not protect or enhance the public view and is against General Plan. • 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 i 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 7 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd08212008.htm 10/03/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 scale as the neighboring lots as the neighbors built their homes before tl 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 lookout point at the corn 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 ya 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 proje should be heard by the Coastal Commission due to the loss of views ai 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 % ted, 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. immissioner Toerge noted it is common practice to meet with the applicant a meeting. immissioner McDaniel noted he discusses issues with people in order to n informed vote on matters. These discussions with the applicant are impoi d necessary. He then asked about the square footage that is allowed on r. Alford answered there is no variance for size and the house is not bigger iat 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 is 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. rence requires meeting City standards or the applicant is subject to L -6. report identifies the types of permits that are problematic and should continued on the need for modification of the planter within Page 5 of 7 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \nmd08212008.1 tm 10/03/2008 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 formance 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 regulate ig type of area. )mmissioner Toerge noted that making a determination of consistency with tl meral Plan means the whole Plan. Part of the Plan allows building a house R -1 lot. The people to make a choice to buy this property is the City Counc t the Planning Commission. Our focus is on the planning. By requiring tl plicant to come back with a plan that fits within the height restriction is an effi protect public views. The property owner has the right to build on this lot that the categorical exclusion zone. (erring to pictures presented by Mr. Gorrie, he suggested that a view easel top of the property second deck be required in the conditions so that w sible a view easement is given. tion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissi gren to approve a modification permit to allow planter walls, with no v ture, to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback in associ n the construction of a new, three- storey single - family dwelling with owing additions to the draft resolution: . Require a dedication of a view easement described to be above the area the deck to protect that view in perpetuity from the park beyond the scope this building that is being built within the height restrictions. nissioner Toerge suggested this view easement to protect the view a is being proposed so that nothing else can be built or stationed there block the view. Alford clarified the area described is a patio area, does this incl ;taping 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 M 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 rences to the plan and within the building envelope. Use of the deck a loor 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. Peotter clarified that this proposed new condition would require i of a view easement in perpetuity, the form and legal description to by the applicant with review and approval by the Planning Departme Page 6 of 7 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd08212008.htm 10/03/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 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 imps is difficult to vote on. In this case, we mitigated everything we could within t > and standards. It is my opinion that these people have earned the right i on their property. mmissioner Unsworth noted his support of the motion. He would hate to loss e view if he lived in the community, but it is up to the City Council if they want the mmission to reduce the building envelope as provided by the Zoning Code t( )w for public views, then we should have something clearer than we have now. ien Ordinance 2007 -3 was passed, the Zoning Code that created the envelop( s in existence. Statutory construction assumes that legislative body is aware o the existing laws at the time it passes new laws. What we would appreciate is sition from the City Council stating whether or not they intend to reduce buildinc velopes in order 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 parry who has 1 it under the General Plan and Zoning Code to do what he can based uK nmission 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 arty 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. yes: I Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: INone Excused: INone 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 1 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. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 of 7 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mnd08212008.httn 10/03/2008