Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc mintues 05-17-07Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes • May 3, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 16 file : /fF: \Users\PLN\Shared \Ptanning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn05 -03 -07.1 n 06122/2007 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge an Hillgren: All present STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director aron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Principal Civil Engineer Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS e None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on April 27, 2007. HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of April 19, 2007. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded bg Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes., I None Abstain: Peotter and Toe e ITEM NO.2 SUBJECT: Environmental Nature Center (PA2007 -030) PA2007 -030 1601 161h Street Approved Permit request to demolish the existing 1,894 square foot module ding and replace it with two buildings comprising 6,641 square feet o oor area. The existing 1,860 square -foot butterfly enclosure will remain in place. Page 1 of 16 file : /fF: \Users\PLN\Shared \Ptanning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn05 -03 -07.1 n 06122/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 2 of 16 Commissioner Eaton recused himself from deliberation on this matter, upon advice of City Counsel, as he is a member of and contributor to the Environmental Nature Center. Ung gave an overview of the staff report. She introduced two itions addressing the overnight camping and shower provision. loner Hawkins asked about condition 19. He asked how th came about. Ung answered that this condition came about after an inspection of erty where it was noted that the existing butterfly enclosure v :ed across a portion of the School District property. In order mmodate the applicant's request that this structure stay at the sa :ion, the City added a condition requiring the applicant and Sch ict to include this provision in their lease agreement requiring )val of the butterfly enclosure upon the expiration of the le; ement. The City Attorney's office has agreed to the language of D agreement. This condition assures that the lease will be in ply i the applicant applies for building permits for the new building. :d that this is an amendment to the Master Lease already in place. issioner Hawkins asked about a liability or indemnity ng the overnight camping. stant City Attorney Harp answered this is not something that would ired. Wirick, representing LPA Architects, gave an overview of the citing: Aerial view of the project; Location of current trailer; Parking with two points of access, and parking for two school bus on site; Butterfly house and fire pit location; Concept allows for north light into the facility and taking advantage breezes from the shore; Floor plan with office and support areas as well as public exhi areas, restrooms and classrooms; Structure with operable windows, photovoltaic panels, roof overha and heat chimney; Evening events will be accommodated on the outdoor deck tt surrounds the existing fire pit. Landscaping of indigenous and drought tolerant materials; Waterless urinals, storm water management, day - lighting dimmi system, and on -site retention basin; This will be the first Platinum LEED building in Orange County and an investment by the Environmental Nature Center (ENC). Hawkins asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Bo Glover, Executive Director, answered that the hours of operation fo the public are 8 to 5 Monday through Friday and 8 to 4 on Saturday. There fil e : //f: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007=05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 be some evening programs of lectures (two to three times a month) as overnight camping, perhaps once a month. comment was opened. any Petros, Building Committee Chairman of the ENC, noted this is tl rst Platinum LEED building in the County, they have supporters througho (range County and a Grant for this project. The butterfly enclosure was ift to the ENC from the Balboa Rotary Club as well as the Sister City ikazaki South Rotary Club. The enclosure is a tent facility that is loveable and temporary. He agreed to all the conditions included in tl laff report as well as the two new proposed conditions. He then gave < verview and highlights of the Environmental Nature Center. imissioner Hawkins asked if this was a non -profit organization and vered that it is operated by a Board of Directors with the manages administration of an Executive Director. missioner Hillgren asked about the funds and when the building will Petros answered that they have the funds to erect the building a to have it opened in the summer of 2008. comment was closed. was made by Commissioner McDaniel, and seconded ioner Toerge, to adopt resolution approving Use Permit No. 2+ ;ommissioner Peotter noted word changes in proposed added 2 and 13. The maker of the motion agreed. Ayes: Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Recused: I Eaton ITEM NO.3 PA2007 -039 SUBJECT: Appeal of Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2007 -002 (PA2007 -039) 1499 and 1505 Monrovia Ave. Decision of Zoning On March 5, 2007, the Zoning Administrator approved a Lot Line Administrator djustment request to allow the adjustment of lot line between two existing was upheld lots and to combine portions of an abandoned right -of -way into the existing southerly lot. randon Nichols, Associate Planner, distributed aerial maps showing lentation of the involved lots. He noted this appeal was called missioner Hawkins and proceeded to give an overview of the rt. He noted: Project qualified for a Categorical Exemption of Class 5 under the California Environmental Quality Act; Page 3 of 16 file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Noticing of the approval contained an attached map that incom depicted the location of the project; map was included with approval letter that was sent to the applicant and subsequo provided to the Commissioners in their staff action packets; this was not included in the public notice and the addresses properly listed on the notice and on the approval letter. ioner Toerge asked about the right -of -way and if it is wider in the exhibits. r. Nichols answered yes, the right -of -way shown on the map is the 60- Iht -of- -way that was abandoned by the County prior to the property br mexed to the City of Newport Beach. The property line is currently in fiddle of the 60 -foot right -of -way and the 104 -foot future right -of -way e on top of each other, so the center line is the exact same. Cole asked the Assistant City Attorney to discuss the ng. Harp answered that the notice of approval cited Title 20, which provid, sixty days to have the hearing on the call for review. The appropria dysis should have been under Title 19, (Section 19.12.060) whit vides for a 30 -day time period to hold a hearing. The question becom :then or not the failure to hold that hearing within the 30 -days divests tl nning Commission of jurisdiction over this matter. The case law make distinction whether or not the ordinance is jurisdictional or directory. Once, if it is jurisdictional it would divest the Planning Commission of al ver to hear this matter. Similar cases analyzed with similar langual i that those timelines are directory and that the governmental bo firing the matter is not divested of jurisdiction over the matter. Th ns from the due process rights the people have to have the mater hea I just because the matter wasn't calendared appropriately by staff dol divest the Commission of jurisdiction to hear the matter. Commission inquiry, he added that a remedy for the applicant would seek a writ to force a decision to be made on the matter. If it was held Planning Department for a year, the applicant could go to court to fo it it be heard by the Planning Commission. irman Cole asked for a consensus from the Commission regarding the -al issue and whether we agree with the Assistant City Attorney, or wE that this could be construed as a reason for approval of the appeal. Commission agreed to go ahead with hearing the appeal. Chairmar then asked for an opinion on the notice issue. sistant City Attorney Harp answered that the notice issue stems from th( Lice of the approval and the Section that was cited was Title 20, a: posed to Title 19. The call for review was done in the appropriate time. IlLnotice for this hearing was appropriate. )mmissioner Hawkins noted his concern that the public does not recei notice of the approval, yet has a 14 -day appeal period, but no notice e decision. Is it posted? Page 4 of 16 file: //F: \USersTLN�Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minu1es \2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 1. Harp answered they receive notice of the original hearing. The notice approval is not re- noticed to all people who receive notice of the hearing. e requirement stems from the Government Code which requires a notice Lhe hearing, not the decision made. Lepo added that the Planning Commissioners and City Coun fibers have the right to appeal a Planning Director's or Zonir inistrator's decision. For that reason, the Planning Commission ar Council receive notice of that particular approval. The publ Wedge of the decision comes from the original notice of the Zonir inistrator for review of this matter. The presumption is that the origin :e of the public hearing is the basis for anybody who has an intere who may also later appeal. An interested member of the public wou id the hearing and hear the decision or inquire the following day as t the decision was in order to exercise their right to appeal. There is r e requirement to notice the decision. ian Cole noted there appears no reason to re- notice this hearing to continue. Nichols noted the questions sent by Commission Eaton: ) Is this a "de novo" hearing? Mr. Harp answered, "yes". The action listed on the agenda? The agenda listed the staff action, ' the decision of the Zoning Administrator, or deny the approval of t Adjustment ". That was listed in error. Staffs recommendation Id the decision of the Zoning Administrator. nissioner Hawkins noted it is a de novo hearing and asked nation of the import and the administrative record for a de ring Harp answered that a de novo hearing is basically hearing it anew a administrative record is everything that was considered by the Zoni iinistrator plus anything else you consider relevant. ner Hawkins noted the Commission is required to consider t action, the appeal and then anything else we may consider, right? r. Harp answered yes with some standard applied as to relevancy. r. Nichols continued: Is consideration Harp answered review of the lot by the Planning Commission quasi -judicial in capacity? this is a quasi - judicial proceeding; however, the scoD( line adjustment is very narrow as opposed to where it is a lot broader. Hawkins, referring to Section 19.76.030, required )nt noting there from Page 4 of findings for a are general findings. He then read the the staff report that should be addressed Page 5 of 16 file:HF: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 nning Commission. Harp clarified that the Subdivision Map Act, which basically exempts to adjustments and gives direction on what is supposed to be considered. iys a local agency or advisory agency shall limit the review and approve the determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the to adjustment will conform to the local General Plan, any applical5k stal Plan, and Zoning and Building Ordinances. To the extent tha e general findings apply and are taken in that context, they need to be i in context of what the Government Code says. Title 19 at the inning says the Subdivision Map Act overcomes any difference: veen Title 19 and the Government Code but you need to know the :nt general health and welfare are related to the General Plan. Hawkins noted that in the past the City Attorney has Development Agreement law dy because we are a Charter ( provide us any escape in uirements? Harp answered, "no ". Nichols continued: that some of those requirements may City. Does the fact that we are a Chg connection with the Subdivision Map Can the Planning Commission act outside of this hearing? This is a V' hearing and everything is on the table as long as the Plan hmission wants to hear it. Can the Planning Commission take judicial notice of the fact that th s an application before it? Mr. Harp answered you would not be tak icial notice. You can consider it, but you are not judges and will not judicial notice. If the Planning Commission can take notice of prior projects, does Jude the possibility of considering design items that were part of ✓ious project? The answer is that the project this refers to has b idrawn; however, you can consider anything that you find relevant. Exhibits attached to the staff report were part of the lot line application. :re appears to be discrepancies in the square footage on resultan cels. The exhibit staff distributed at the beginning of the hearing depict: correct square footage so there are some changes that will need to b( le to the exhibits. Regarding a "nexus" test and requirement of a dedication a ovement of a major portion of the 15th Street right -of -way, Mr. H; vered it is premature to be doing a "nexus" analysis on some poten :ct that may be developed on the northerly parcel. It is infeasible luct that analysis at this time. imissioner Hawkins noted it may have bearing on consideration ;istency with the General Plan, health, safety and welfare of munity. That consideration, the issue of burdening a particular par( Page 6 of 16 file : / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Cornmission\PC Minutes\2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 have some impact on the analysis and decision. Harp noted you cannot impose anything more onto the northerly par i that for which you could establish a nexus. If you move the lot line, g proposed, a dedication would no longer be an available option. N still require an exaction based on the proportionate impact. oner Eaton noted his concern of the substantial shift of right -of -way to the southerly parcel. Harp answered, regarding the southerly parcel, you could not im s of a dedication requirement on it than is appropriate in imstances when you analyze whatever is re- developed on the nort ussion continued on future City needs if 15th Street was develo Banning Ranch, nexus test, and development impacts. Nichols continued: When was property annexed to the City? 1980. 0) When did the City's Subdivision Ordinance first start requiring pproval for the division of less than 4 parcels? Staff unable to obtain ssessoes Map of area dated 1990 shows no delineation of parcels. was the single parcel divided into two parcels? Assessor's Map: boundary lines for the purpose of assessing taxes and do no ish lot lines. Any information on that map does not necessarily give of where the lot line exists, which is another reason for the exhibi uted earlier as well as the Title Report. ner Hawkins asked for documentation of Lot 1016. . Nichols answered it has never been subdivided. At some point in >t that portion of the lot was deeded to someone else. Exchanges s this often happened without any other legal instrument. imissioner Hawkins discussed common ownership with an appli a lot line adjustment, is the signature or the consent of the >erty owner not necessary? Nichols answered that the applicant has said that he owned that September of last year. Therefore, the entire lot belongs to the apl missioner Hawkins asked about the Zoning Admi mentation of ownership. answered the Title Report is required. >mmissioner Hawkins noted the documentation of the lot line not complete. Page 7 of 16 file: //F: \Uscm\PLN\Shaured \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mnO5- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Harp answered that the property had the applicant owned be )erties when the application was submitted. Both properties adjacent right -of- way were part of the application. on continued on the Title Report, lot line application, and Zoning Administrator requirements. Nichols continued: Did subdivision occur prior to the City annexation? Commission inquiry, Mr. Harp noted that parcels 1016 and 1017 were iablished by the 1915 recording of the parcel map. The street wa,, bsequently vacated; there is a presumption in the Civil Code that the )perty line runs to the middle of the street and half goes to each parcel. e applicant has submitted some evidence, and we are still in the paoces: reviewing it, arguing that the whole street vacation went to the southerll rcel and that, in fact, the lot line was established at the edge of the right way on the northerly side. According to the Preliminary Title Report, the line does run down the middle of the vacated right -of -way. imissioner Eaton noted the abandonment occurred when it was in the nty, Wasn't the line set when the County made the abandonment? did the applicant say it was a City error? Harp answered the applicant could answer that. The Civil imption is it runs down the middle of the street. It is a rebul imption, but that is the presumption. At the time the street ted there was joint ownership of the two parcels. imissioner Hawkins noted the Title Report says the lot line goes middle of the abandoned right -of -way. Why are we requiring a ort if somehow the lot line depicted here does not mean anything? irman Cole noted this is a legal lot line. There is no record of a oval indicating that this might not be a legal lot line. Harp answered that there is likely a lot line there. Stanley Lamport, representing the applicant, gave a PowerPoint out history of the Lot Line Adjustment appeal. He commented that they waiving, by presenting tonight, any jurisdictional issues that N ussed with respect to whether the hearing occurred and emission does or does not have jurisdiction. Lot line adjustment is viewed as a ministerial act. Subdivision Map Act governs and supersedes ordinances to extent that ordinances are inconsistent for Charter Cities as well General Law Cities. He continued to discuss the Map Act. This application deals with two existing legal lots. Page 8 of 16 file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\nut05- 03- 07.htrn 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 The County vacated 15th Street right -of -way in 1967. The building was built with improvements across the vacated ri way. His client was told that the City considered the boundary to be I centerline of the abandoned right -of -way. A Title Report to provided to show this, consistent with Public Work determination where the lot line exists. mer Hawkins noted Exception 8 of the Title Report dealing with parking agreement. Discussion continued on: . The reason and purpose for this reciprocal parking agreement was dated in 1974; . Common ownership and rights; . A potential sale of the southerly parcel; . Burden on northern parcel; . No single ownership of all the improvements on the southern parcel; . Adjustment of boundaries so that all the improvements with the office building would be on one parcel; 0 Loss of land on the northerly parcel; . Possible configuration of the parking lot. Lamport continued with his PowerPoint outline: The building improvements would be on 2 lots if the lot line is at centerline resulting in the improvements encroaching on the nortt parcel. The lot line adjustment would ensure that the building im are on a single parcel and would eliminate the en problem; The original subdivision plot was referenced where two lots we created with the 15th Street right -of -way; two lots were and common ownership when the right -of -way was vacated; Chronology of vacation and legal description with 60' right -of -way abandoned 15th Street; County allowed landowner to include the right -of -way within southern parcel; City recognizes that the boundary is at the centerline of the vac right -of -way; hence, office building improvements now encroach northerly parcel creating a problem when the properties are sold; Page 9 of 16 file: / /l::\Users \PLN \Shared \Planning CommissionTC Minutes \2007U=05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Lot line adjustment solution would restore the boundary to description in the building site plan and place all of the build improvements on the same parcel, and eliminate the encroachm problem; Lot line adjustment is not inconsistent with the General Plan and consistent with required findings; Lot line adjustment does not violate CEQA; the decision of relo a lot line inherently has no physical impact on the environment; The applicant has withdrawn the subdivision application due to ai existing five -year lease on the southern parcel. There was no way t proceed with a subdivision of that property without breaking a lease; Their plan is to pursue an exit strategy and dispose of the property; The lot line adjustment would not necessarily result in fu development; The City would still have the ability to require a dedication of the right -of -way; who owns it is not relevant to the question of whether is required to reasonably develop the property on either side; We are trying to clean up this situation and ask that this lot Ii adjustment be approved. Eaton noted his concern of authenticity of description plans. Lamport answered no jurisdiction will allow someone to take prope is on another parcel and include it in a development because y Id have encroachment issues. When the County approved tl slopment the access was located on the vacated right -of -way. It w erstood at that time that the right -of -way would be included as part property; this is the legal description that accompanies the site plan tl submitted to the City as part of the process to get building approval. iissioner Eaton noted this was the County, not the City. He his concern about this legal description. lion continued on the chronology and how the property ed on the documents submitted for approval; improvements on ; current and continued use of access for both parcels, and pos: >n related to this access. sioner Hillgren asked about the timeline of the Reciproca nt Agreement (REA), which was in 1974. He noted it seems tha might have been built out of compliance if the REA wasn't in place. r. Lamport answered that what was intended at the time was that th( )ht -of -way was part of the property, otherwise, you would have an issue. would be an odd state if the City or County would allow construction of ai Page 10 of 16 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning COmmission\PC Minutes \2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 building and say it is okay to have your required access for thi g off -site. It seems obvious what was going through the minds then. Harp noted for clarification, issues regarding the location of the lot line generally discussed prior to the applicant coming into the Zoninc iinistrator for the lot line adjustment. Detailed information such as the Sing plan and things of that nature were not submitted until after the ing Administrator had made his decision. The applicant's argument h the lot line adjustment is already up at the top of the northerly parcel. I hasn't been fully analyzed and to some extent is irrelevant because are here to move the lot line because they acknowledge that there i,, e ambiguity about where the lot line is. This is an interesting subjec it hasn't been fully analyzed by our office and we are still waiting fo tional documentation. Lamport noted this has become an issue and we are trying to solve it. missioner Peotter questioned why this issue was in front of mission at all, as it seems a reasonable request and meets itions of the Code. Outside of the technicalities of the noticing or cation, I don't understand why it is being appealed. :ion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded nmissioner Toerge, to uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval Line Adjustment LA2007 -002 and deny the appeal. missioner McDaniel noted his concern about a real legal descripti some identification of where the line is. There should be real data mpany this approval with a real legal description. maker of the Motion agreed to make this part of the motion. comment was opened. comment was closed. Hawkins noted: . The reason for my appeal had nothing to do with the that has been provided. . The appeal occurred because, from my perspective, the applica was trying to do an end -run around the Planning Department and ti planning processes of the City. . The concern in connection with the development of the overall was a concern by the applicant over dedication requirements. The applicant was told to revise the project and Mr. Lamport they decided to withdraw the southerly parcel. We don't have documentation. . We have a letter from the applicant that purports to withdraw Page I 1 of 16 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 entire application which covers both the northerly and portion of the project. . That withdrawal occurred after the appeal. . From my perspective, nothing is relevant after the appeal. . We are back in the "shoes" of the Zoning Administrator. . Mr. Lamport has said that the lot line project is exempt, but on other hand argues that it is not even a project. I think the sec position is erroneous. . It is clear it is a project and it is clear that it is not exempt. . He distributed copes of a description of "Project' under the CE( Guidelines and the McQueen Court of Appeal case. He proceeded read and refer to the exhibit on "Project' and relayed how 1 application was pending when the Zoning Administrator made decision. . He then relayed how the McQueen case would apply if looking at It issue and the withdrawal of the project and how it would relate to reasonably foreseeable project on the development of the norther parcel. He then referred to the specific findings and noted this would interfer with the development of 95th Street as it would transfer the burden 1 the southerly parcel. He noted this conflicts with the General Pla and Circulation Element. . The noticing issues raised in the appeal need to be addressed by th Planning Department. The timing of the mailing, the erroneous ma and the notice of this decision under Title 20 was misleading. H asked how these issues were going to be addressed, if at all. Th staff report notes that these are inconsequential. Lepo noted that Commissioner Hawkins raised some good points. ocedural changes will be made as to the mailing process under thi fining Administrator. As far as the erroneous map, we will probably delete at because it is redundant and serves no purpose. An update of Title 2( going on now and a lot of that update includes administrative procedura ms. The only noticing that is different are decisions on Parcel an( :ntative Tract Maps Lot Line Adjustments are not mentioned. This is m, Sin concern, the procedural administrative items and how issues such a: s are addressed. imissioner Hawkins noted the deletion of the map is not acceptable. many of the parcels in subdivisions it is essential to have that map t( rte where you are. Rather than deleting it, I would require that the mal in and be accurate, and I will push for this as part of the update :edure. I find those maps helpful. Page 12 of 16 file : / /F:\Users\PLMShared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 �mmissioner Toerge noted that as to the CEQA discussion, on utherly parcel it appears that under any circumstance the taking of ht -of -way would render the southerly parcel non - conforming Forkable as the 104 foot right -of -way runs through the building. Mo, property line north and putting all the right -of -way on this prop esn't change anything. Even with the property line the way it is with lual use of that right -of -way the southerly property is rendered r nforming or not even able to be there. The fact that it is all on )perty changes nothing. Eaton reiterated his concern of the access of the sioner Toerge noted that there is plenty of land for the owner of / property to take access off Monrovia anywhere he wants to. s a property issue. This property is not landlocked and can h,c It can be handled by cutting a driveway or working out a recipro easement, but the Planning Commission should not dictate t nissioner Peotter noted that we could say a City approved acre be maintained, then give the property owner the flexibility of how re that. This would have to meet building ordinances. Cole asked if this would be an amendment to the motion. Peotter answered we should ask staff how to achieve this. r. Harp noted that for a condition like this that you need to find a link to into the Zoning Code or General Plan. He asked for a fifteen min oak. Cole asked the Commission if they wanted a break and It Lepo suggested that the language needs to be linked to the e that supports the need to maintain that access. Cole noted there doesn't seem to be a majority on n to go down that path. imissioner Hillgren noted whatever future development will be propos will be reviewed by staff. Any access issue will need to be resolved time as well as the use going in there. Harp noted that staff has come up with the opinion that moving this does nothing to impact zoning related to either property. When so re project comes in for development it will have to comply with eral Plan and the Zoning. missioner Hawkins asked about the landscaping on the site plan and loss of landscaping with the adjusted lot line location would t :facial to parcel 1017? Page 13 of 16 file : / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning COnnnlssion\PC Minutes\2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Lamport answered there was landscaping shown. The line was dra that the driveway would be part of the property. Are you asking us if nt to move the line further northward? 1imissioner Hawkins stated that is the question. If we are cleaning and you are excluding landscaping that is required on the site I The you are creating more problems for yourself. I believe what sh pen is that you should either provide additional information or with( application and re -draw the line. imissioner McDaniel noted that as long as the same person owns els, it doesn't make a difference. if there is a new project on eit el, there will be a new site plan and new landscaping, etc., as long property isn't sold, there is no way to track it. If you ever go to sell tl eone will be watching to say you better watch what your are doing those pieces of properties. You are going to have to come up u plans, etc. Lamport stated they drew the line at the same point the line was d the site plan. Whatever exists on one side or the other and wha o evolved since 1967 is whatever it is. We really want to get a fixed, )ated boundary where we know where the sides of the line are. ssioner Toerge noted the site plan does not show landscape on tl y line nor on the westerly property line that abuts the Banning Rar y. So, that issue about including landscape doesn't really matter. required at the time and is on the other property and it doesn't sei itherly parcel according to this plan. I am ready to vote. ition is to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the ministrator with appropriate legal descriptions. Lepo noted the conditions of the original approval require that the I ;ription go to the public surveyor in Public Works to validate that iments are legal and to be recorded. Ayes: Peotter, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: Eaton and Hawkins Excused: None BUSINESS: BUSINESS City Council Follow -up Mr. Lepo noted that at the last meeting, the City Council updat establishing a new Quimby or park in -lie fee that is assesse against each new residential unit was continued because th Building Industry Association submitted comments on our origin; appraisal and staff needed time for analysis. It is slated to be hear on May 8th; the moratorium dealing with all forms of transitoi housing was put in place. Staff will be back on May 22nd with a ordinance to address these uses and problems. Report from Planning Commission's representative- to- Page 14 of 16 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\nm05- 03- 07.htm 06/2212007 Planning Conunission Minutes 05/03/2007 Committee Commissioner Hawkins noted they will have a presentation on economic development study in June, a discussion on the budget by in May. Commissioner Eaton noted that the Committee talked about coas bluffs at the last meeting. It was determined the work that the pr LCP Implementation Committee regarding predominant line development had done was still valid. This committee asked staff draw lines in all areas where the predominant line of developme would apply, including canyons and bluff faces. Grades and buildi heights will be discussed at the next meeting. Intensive Residential Occupancy Committee Commissioner Toerge reported no meeting. at subsequent meeting Commissioner Toerge noted he had been contacted by resides (Deans) who had a complaint about the operation of the Albertso in Corona del Mar. The question of employee parking and trt, access are the issues, and Albertson's may not be operating witl their conditions of approval. He asked for an update a confirmation on whether or not the 24 employee parking passes tl Albertson's is obligated to purchase annually since the approval 1999. Mr. Lepo answered that the permit issue will be addressed the next meeting and the following meeting will have an assessm( of the other issues that the Deans have raised. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may Ish to. future agenda for action and staff report None. Project status 1►1191M Requests for excused absences Following a brief discussion, the Commission determined that week of July 2nd will be dark for the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: 8:50 P.M. vka Page 15 of 16 fi le: //F: \Users\PLN\SharedTianning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/03/2007 Page 16 of 16 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • Cl \J file: / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn05- 03- 07.htm 06/22/2007