The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Minutes-08-03-06Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/2006 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 9 file : / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \08032006.htm 09/08/2006 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - Commissioners McDaniel and Tucker were excused; all others were present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None ommissioner Hawkins noted that Commissioner Tucker's name should be added to the enda as a sitting Planning Commissioner. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on July 28, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR OBJECT: MINUTES of the special meeting of July 13, 2006, Chairperson Cole noted he ITEM NO. 1 had made the motion to approve the June 1 st minutes. Minutes of 07/13/2006 Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the minutes as corrected. Approved R R R OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of July 20, 2006. The attendance ol ITEM NO.2 Commissioner Henn needs to be noted in the minutes. Minutes of 07/2012006 Motion was made by Chairperson Cole to approve the minutes as corrected. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Henn Noes: None Absent: McDaniel and Tucker bstain: None * R R HEARING ITEMS UBJECT: D'Amato Residence (PA2004 -189) ITEM NO. 3 2319 Pacific Drive PA2004 -189 file : / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \08032006.htm 09/08/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/2006 Page 2 of 9 It for Variance No. 2004 -002 to allow portions of a new single - family residence toy Approved the 24 -foot height limit and Modification Permit No. 2006 -072 to allow portions of they and an architectural entry wall element to encroach into the required front yard Murillo gave an overview of the staff report noting: • The demolition of the existing development and replacement with a multiple level family dwelling with an attached two -car garage and multiple deck areas. • The topography of the lot. • Design restrictions. • Protection of the bluff face and visual qualities of the bluff. • Conformance with a predominate line of development. • Floor area. • Neighborhood conformity. • Building height. • Denial of proposed balcony encroachment in the front yard setback. Carlisle, architect, representing the applicant noted: • Worked with staff to balance this project. • They agreed to the removal of the front deck encroachment and will put a roof on area. • This project has been pulled back in the design and fits with adjoining structures. • Problems created by the trapezoidal lot configuration and solutions with garage parking allotment. • He thanked staff for the work on this project and asked that it be approved. m Cole asked if the applicant has read and understands the findings and c in the staff report and resolution, including the removal of the balcony deck. Carlisle answered, yes, they are all acceptable. comment was opened. iul Moses, neighbor, noted his opposition to the height variance. He noted that he hac modeled his home six years ago and was able to build it 6 feet below the height limit, stayec thin the setbacks and did not require a variance. He also noted that the removal of a tree thout a replacement due to the encroaching telephone wires leads him to believe that staff ay not be aware that there has been approval to underground all the telephone wires on the eet. The process will take another 2 -3 years and cost about $25,000 to each homeowner. its shows how the people who live on the street are concerned with the view of the skyline d are not eager to see a house come in that needs a variance for height. His other concerr this house has an unobstructed view of the ocean from all levels so there is no need for a ight variance. Homes across the street are going to be re -built and a variance given for thi: use will be a good argument for them to have variances, which will cause a domino effect. missioner Toerge verified with staff that the variance for height was not done at the but is down lower on the slope. lowing a brief discussion, Mr. Moses understood that the variance was for down the the project cascades. He therefore, has no concern for the variance. Commission inquiry, Mr. Murillo noted that the property at 2315 Pacific Drive had a -lance request that had been approved. file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \08032006.htm 09/08/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/2006 nmissioner Toerge asked about the discussion on the drainage off the project. Where drainage go? Temple noted that during the review of the site drainage plan by the Public We Oment and Building Department, they will be reviewing how the water is handled ass compliance with water quality rules regarding drainage on private properties. Edmonston noted that the City has implemented, within the last few years, restrictions or ,w drainage can leave a property, particularly low water flows, which are non -storm events. iey are basically to drain on property with a sort of trench drain that allows soil percolation or appropriate, into a storm drain. For at least two years the City as adopted stringers 3ndards primarily based on water quality because of not wanting run off into the stree entually into the bay. imissioner Henn asked if any effort had been made to contact the neighbors adjacent site and across Pacific Drive to get their views of the project. Carlisle answered, yes. The applicant had spoken to many of the nearby neighbors ac street and next door on either side over the course of three years. He is not aware of actions they have to this project. comment was closed. imissioner Eaton asked about the front property right of line and if there is excess right that should have been abandoned. Temple answered that the City abandoned a portion of the Pacific Drive right of way side of the street and established the right of way line at the place where it was felt t appropriate given the location of public utilities as well as the public side walk. nmissioner Hawkins asked about condition 23. He suggested that it include wording on t ulatory requirements. He asked staff to assist in establishing language that the applic< comply with all regulations including city regulations, etc. Additionally, if there is going undergrounding in this area, it seems that the tree should be replaced in the vicinity of t Temple noted there is no definite positioning of the undergrounded utilities and where th in relationship to all the trees in that area. Undergrounding is a fairly intensive process ai .ild result in many of the existing trees being removed due to necessity. The city wot Jertake a reforestation project. For this property, when it was discovered the tree was native health at this time and wouldn't survive more than a year or two, the Gene rvices Department first looked at a reforestation condition for property. It was determin it given the location of the new driveway and the proximity of other trees, it would be best )w the reforestation at a place determined by the City elsewhere. Following tl Jergrounding of the utilities, there could be a tree on this property given the conditions it time. confirmed that the reforestation is funded by the undergrounded assessment. r. Edmonston noted that most districts do not involve reforestation; however, if this antified due to the location of the undergrounded facilities and would require the reforest2 would be covered in the engineer's report and therefore is a candidate for a cost of strict. s. Temple gave the following revisions to condition 23: Prior to the issuance of buil :rmits, a drainage plan that complies with all laws shall be reviewed and approved by Page 3 of 9 file: / /F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \08032006.htm 09/0812006 Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/2006 Department. a brief discussion, the language was agreed upon. missioner Eaton noted the unique circumstances of the property which apply to a varia respect to the existing topography and the fact that the existing right of way allows for ification in the front. He noted that maximum FAR is a goal, not a right. was made by Commissioner Eaton to approve Variance No. 2004 -002 ion Permit No. 2006 -072, subject to the findings and conditions in the resolution. oerge and None McDaniel and Tucker None 1710 E. Bay Avenue Page 4 of 9 PA2006 -114 e request to exceed the 2 FAR limitation for a single - family home located in the R -1I and a Modification request to encroach within the required front, side, and rear yard Approved ime Murillo, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting this is molition of existing buildings and construction of a new residence; certificate of complian tablishing legitimacy of the parcel created in 1947; a variance is needed due to applical fault setbacks resulting in no buildable floor area (FAR) for the property; and a modificati requested to allow construction within the required setbacks. The new residence wide a two -car garage on first level and consist of living area on second floor. Findings pport a variance can be made given the size and location of the parcel. The propos tbacks are intended to match the other setbacks in the neighborhood. The westerly six in tback is adjacent to a ten foot wide landscape parcel that is undevelopable as a residen d should not currently, or in the future, incur a negative impact. Staff recommends appro, the request as proposed. Becker, project designer, representing the owner noted the following: • The applicant owns the project on the other side of the alley. • The lot is 899 square feet. • Existing garage is sitting on 3 of the 4 property lines. • Proposal is to remove existing garage and have a 3 foot setback on rear and the s where two homes are and provide 5 feet from the alley, which is similar to surrounding neighbors. • Eastern most neighbor is the most affected and they have worked with them designing the second story. Eaton noted condition 11 prohibits windows in the west elevation. is Becker answered that the condition is for operable windows. They have met with ling Department and the Fire Department. The windows will be fire rated glass and i into the setback. comment was opened. file: / /F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \08032006.htm 09/08/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/2006 Page 5 of 9 Oublic comment was closed. Eaton asked about the ingress of a car into an 8 1/2 foot garage. Edmonston answered the design criteria have been established by the Council. It tak, ra movement depending on the size of the car. A total of 20 feet for a turning radius wog Foe, but most of the alleys are now 14 of 15 feet. However, this is akin to pulling into fe aisle in a parking lot stall with an 8 1/2 foot stall. It is tight, but the City has allowed tt single family residential. There may be one backing movement to get into a garage al or more getting out of the garage for larger vehicles. Murillo, at Commission inquiry, noted the ten foot landscape strip belongs to the iss the alley at 1707 East Bay Avenue. Becker, at Commission inquiry, noted that the applicant has read and accepts the fir conditions contained in the staff report including condition 8 where the garage ain available for parking two operable cars at all times. was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve Variance No. 2006 -002 :ion Permit No. 2006 -059 subject to findings and conditions contained in imissioner Eaton noted he does not support this application. He noted that if the applic acquired the 10 foot landscape strip to accommodate windows and a possible balcony, have been able to support this request. Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and Eaton McDaniel and Tucker x x + 15 Vista Tramonto I PA2005 -292 jest to permit the construction of a wrought iron gate (8 -feet tail), combination block wall wrought iron fence (overall 6- to 7 -feet tall) and related pilasters (7 -feet tail) that will Denied, decision each 7 feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback where the Zoning Code limits that of the Zoning it to a maximum of 3 -feet 6- inches. The property is located in the PC (Newport Coast Administrator wa! ned Community, Planning Area 2A -1) District. upheld Murillo gave an overview of the staff report noting: • The applicant has appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision and is seeking appro) to allow the retention of over height walls, pilasters and gate within the required frc yard setback. • As -built improvements range in height from 6 to 8 feet and encroach approximately 7 9 feet into the required 10 foot front setback. The County Zone Code limits the height such structures to a maximum of 3 1/2 feet. • The Zoning Administrator determined that the applicant did not provide adequa justification to support the encroachment and therefore denied the request. • Based on the review of the appeal and the applicant's justifications for tt encroachment, staff has concluded that the findings for the required modification pern can not be made as the lot does not pose a physical hardship and unique difficulty th would preclude the applicant from designing a conforming project. • Adequate space exists within the buildable area of the lot and the ten foot setback is file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \08032006.htm 09/08/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/2006 minimal restriction given the large size of this lot. • The project is not compatible with existing development of other residences on Tramonto or other conforming residences within the neighborhood. • The over height walls may adversely affect the safety of persons residing in neighborhood as they create an unnecessary safety hazard and sight dish impediment as vehicles pull out of the property driveway and neighboring driveways. • Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Zo Administrator and deny the applicant's request. • Additionally, this action will require the property owner to either remove the conforming structures or obtain a building permit to construct the project to conform applicable development regulations. rson Cole asked what the City's position in situations where we find non- conformi ns such as this that is not permitted? Do we require, and when do we require, them it or come in for a permit to make it conforming? Temple answered that the City would continue to honor any structures that were bu rsuant to a valid building permit. It would become legal, non - conforming and we would ha+ address attempting to make it either more conforming or fully conforming at the time ar ther alterations to the structure(s) would be proposed. If there is no valid permit, we wou as how we have handled the permitting in this case, to inform them that they need to get rmit and inform them of the necessary approvals to achieve one, in this case a Modificatic rmit. They could only receive that building permit if a modification was approved. If th edification Permit is denied, staff will be seeking to have a building permit issued that wou luire changes to the wall to make it either conforming or more nearly conforming as directs the Planning Commission. This particular situation, perhaps under the County jurisdictio ght have been able to be passed through their permit process; however, the contractor ar applicant elected to construct the wall without obtaining a building permit. We are no erating under City rules as this is a transferred area, and we need to make findings for edification Permit. Harp added that there is no legal non - conforming right attached to this property. TI icant needs to comply with what our Codes are, and if it doesn't meet the criteria for lification, then they will have to bring it into conformity. )ner Hawkins asked about the recommendation to conform to the applical ,nt regulations of the County Zoning Code. The County Zoning Code is still t governs this area even though it is transferred and we are using our procedures? Temple answered, yes. Hawkins asked if there is going to be a time that the City's Zone Code will Temple answered currently there is no provision; however, in the future it may. idment to the pre- annexation and development agreement would need to occur icil action, County action and the acceptance by The Irvine Company. Commission inquiry, Mr. Murillo noted that the Association had issued a cease and xk order and requested that the applicant apply for a modification permit with the City. when staff became aware of this illegal construction. Michael Migan, attorney representing the applicant, noted the following: Referenced a packet that had been distributed to the Planning Commission included copies of walls and fences permit summary of several homeowners and Page 6 of 9 file:l/F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \08032006.htm 09/08/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/2006 applicant. • He noted that there have been no accidents due to this wall or gate. • The documents summarize the development allowed by the County and were in tf name of the developer. • None of the summaries list the individual persons having a permit for their front wall gate. • 8 signatures on a petition that support the applicant stating the wall and gate compatible with the walls in the neighborhood and do not affect the safety of tt neighbors. • On the question of precedent, if you don't allow the modification you are going to have bigger headache in the sense that all these people likewise have to go through the san process we are. You are going to have to reject their modifications and they will have remove the structures and bring them into conformance. Harp noted there isn't anything in the packet about the gate that is over 5 feet. Do any information on that? It looks as if that front gate is over 5 feet. Migan answered the permit for this work (retaining wall) is for the structure that encroach( the front area of the property. All of these properties have structures such as gates ar ills that are within the 10 foot setback and are more than 3 1/2 feet. There are a number )perties that do conform to the Code. 50% or so would have these structures so it is a go( mber and seems to indicate that this property does conform generally with the design of it ighborhood. He questions the contention that the structures are into the setback area 7 to ;t. Looking at the aerial photo, there is a sidewalk and a gap of 2 feet from that before it ill starts. I assume the 10 foot setback starts with the property line that starts at the curve. uld seem the encroachment is 5 feet into the setback and is not so egregious. ;loner Toerge asked why this property was noticed by the homeowners association to all the other properties discussed. Migan answered they suspect it is a personality issue. The reason for the packet sh the other nonconforming structures were built by the homeowners but they did not get ication for the modification permit. His client did the same thing and constructed atures within the setback area without approval. iissioner Toerge asked why the Commission just got this packet and one copy of e n at tonight's hearing as this item has been continued since May. He noted the ent of the other homes and approval might have been compelling a couple of years agc the Modification Ordinance was changed. Now, the Ordinance requires that there be practical difficulty with the property. We, as the Planning Commission, are obligated tc and find the findings that are put before us. One of them is that there is a practica ty associated with this property. I can't see it. So, unfortunately I can't get past the firs i. Continuing he noted that this is a flat lot and there is no real practical difficulty. ter, the City Council might see it differently so that may be an avenue for the applicant. iissioner Eaton noted that no one listed in the packet got permits. The opposition letter that the developer allowed some of this to happen. Migan answered that is correct. The homeowners did the work without getting permits. elopers do not put up front walls or gates, that is part of the landscaping plan which ieowners take on when they buy the property. Developers put in perimeter walls. nmissioner Eaton noted that the letter of opposition said that the developer allowed sor ier ones to go in, that is not saying he did it. Whenever you have CC and R's and ieowners association the developer almost always controls the homeowners association beginning. Page 7 of 9 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \08032006.htm 09/08/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/2006 Page 8 of 9 IMr. Migan answered that whether this complies with the CC and R's is a separate issue. Eaton asked if the owners adjacent to this property had signed the petition. Migan answered the person to the south gave verbal approval but he did not know one to the north. imissioner Hawkins noted we have to make findings, and 1 agree with Commissic �ge that some of those are difficult. You suggested that if we overturn the Administr grant the appeal then we would be creating more problems because of this host of peg have done non - permitted work. That indicates or suggests that it is a precedent set m because then all this illegal work is okay. He stated that he has concerns about tv issue as well. ner Henn asked why the clients chose to proceed with this work despite that they should get the permit? Migan noted it is not unusual for associations to get involved with people's affairs like this it doesn't surprise me that this happened. If it was a code enforcement person that would a different thing. The architect mentioned she had talked to someone at the County and s given the impression that a permit was not necessary. Apparently this was incorrect. :)lic comment was opened 3lic comment was closed. tion was made by Commissioner Toerge to deny the appeal and uphold and affirm th vision of the Zoning Administrator to deny Modification Permit No. 2005 -135. nissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the motion and is concerned with extending wall all the way to the sidewalk as it creates a sight distance problem for both ;ant's driveway and the neighbors' driveway. None McDaniel and Tucker and NESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the Council met July 25th and approve( the Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and the General Plan Update considered a suggestion by a local architect to consider use of a site along Avocad( Avenue north of the existing central library for the city hall location and decided that e more central location within Newport Center proper should be pursued; set the land use quantities, the land use category table, the anomaly table and the land use maps tha will become a ballot measure in November as required pursuant to Charter Section 423 and, another City measure was placed on the ballot to limit the use of eminent domain. Discussion continued. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Committee - none. c. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Committee 1 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \08032006.htm 09/08/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/2006 Page 9 of 9 Commissioner Toerge noted a packet delivered today that will reshape th Implementation Ordinance and will be discussed at the meeting set for August 14th a 3:00 p.m. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a meeting - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - Commissioner Hawkins asked for a review of the bylaws rules and procedures. Discussion followed. f. Project status - none. g. Requests for excused absences - Chairperson Cole noted he will be absent from next meeting on the 17th. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 0 ADJOURNMENT file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etas \2006 \08032006.htm 09/08/2006