Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-20-2005Planning Commission Minutes 01/20/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes • January 20, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. r r Page I of 5 file: //H:\Plancomm\2005\0120.htm 02/18/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins - all Commissioners present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None OSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on January 14, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 6, 2005. Approved Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as modified. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None xx• OBJECT: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church (PA2002 -265) ITEM NO.2 PA2002 -265 Adoption of two resolutions reflecting the recommendations of approval of the St. ndrews Presbyterian Church Expansion project and the certification of the EIR. Continued to 02/17/2005 otion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to February 17, 200 ind allow staff time to prepare marked up resolutions with deletions /additions shown nd distributed to Church representative and Community Association representative r their input. file: //H:\Plancomm\2005\0120.htm 02/18/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/20/2005 Page 2 of 5 yes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins (Noes: I None bsent: None =11is Residence (PA2004 -265) I ITEM NO. 3 308 Evening Canyon Road PA2004 -265 eal of the Modifications Committee's approval to allow structural footings that encroach 12 Continued to es into the required 6 -foot side yard; a basement - access stairway that encroaches 2 feet 02117/2005 the required 6 -foot side yard setback; and a 3- foot -high protective guardrail and retaining a that are more than 3 three feet tall to be located within the 25 -foot front yard setback in unction with the construction of a new single - family residence. Tucker verified that this modification was approved under the ordinance with r Committee. Hawkins asked for and received a brief overview of the scope of the project. mer Cale asked if this modification were to be granted, if it would be setting for future applications. Temple answered that each modification is examined on its own merit and an approval :fore not considered to set a precedent. At Commission inquiry as to how ma ifications have been granted in the past with regard to stairwells, Ms. Temple answer staff would have to go back and research by pulling permits, etc. and that baseme •oachments are a relatively new phenomena. imissioner Selich asked what if the applicant redesigned the entry to the basement suc the entire side yard stepped down to the basement access door from the front and bai a separate retaining wall at the side property line? In that case, the retaining wall wou be part of the main building and it wouldn't require a Modification Permit as it would t w grade. There would be approximately 6 feet of clearance around the building that way. Temple explained that it would not be considered part of the structure and even when erty wall was subterranean it would required an encroachment into the setback. Selich then asked about a ramp scenario as well as a slab on the ground. Temple answered that a solution would be to change the Code and exempt N ground. then followed on subterranean structures, retaining walls and design of the project. Homan, project architect, noted the following: . Staircase with retaining wail underground will provide a 3 foot access. . Retaining wall is below ground. . Asking for same thing as another home two blocks away has. . Asking for a four foot encroachment into the side yard setback. file:1/14:\Plancomm \2005 \0120.htm 02118/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/20/2005 Page 3 of 5 1 e Asked that the staircase be allowed into the basement. I e At Commission inquiry, he noted that he could make the retaining wall less thick. Tucker asked the architect why he would need the encroachment in the setback. Homan answered that they wanted the modification in order to not to have to re- design irperson Tucker noted that the Commission had received two letters, one referencing tree: might be damaged with the block wall footings and another letter noting that by allowinf modification, it would allow a structure to be bigger than what would otherwise be feasible. Homan answered that the staircase is a structure. Following a brief discussion, he there were other ways to accommodate this staircase, it could be re- located to the I, but it would not be attractive in the back yard. nmissioner Eaton asked if the house will be at the same level as the current one. He wered that the new house will be 1 foot higher, a split level with a basement. He ad about the guard rails towards the front of the lot and how far out they extended slope, as well as the raised planters within the front yard. Homan answered that if the guardrails were pulled in closer to the house, it would not 6 i and make the entrance into the basement garage look bigger; the homeown xiation requires that the planters not be more than 30 inches high within the front yard. rson Tucker then verified with staff that the whole application can be considered, side yard encroachment that was appealed. Homan then produced and distributed a set of pictures showing the home at 174 Shore, id that he said had a similar structure encroaching into a setback that had been allowed. Commissioner inquiry, Ms. Temple noted she was not aware of this project on ad and would have to research the records to see what was permitted. Hawkins asked if there were other ways to gain access without a side He was answered yes. dic comment was opened. k Ellis, owner of the project, noted: • The stairway is not seen by the neighbors. • He will use alternate fencing to address the neighbor's concern about the trees. e He doesn't want to take away from the design of the home. ommissioner Toerge asked about the letters of opposition from the neighbors. r. Ellis answered that he has had phone conversations with the neighbor regarding the tree nd that the neighbor is satisfied that there will be no damage to the tree as a result of the block wall construction; he is absorbing the cost of the fence and new landscape ommissioner Toerge noted the letter regarding the size of the project and that he is aware o file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \0120.htm 02118/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/20/2005 Page 4 of 5 mansionization' of homes in the neighborhood and is acutely aware of citizens' thoughts in hat regard. comment was closed. Toerge noted: • Each Modification is viewed on its own merit. • He does not see the need for an encroachment into the side yard setback. • He is aware of the size of the homes being constructed in the areas and a decision allow this modification appeal would contribute to the home being larger. • The neighborhood is too dense and there is not 'a right to do this as the applicant h not provided documentation to refute the objections noted in the letters received. • He does not support this application. issioner McDaniel noted his agreement with Commissioner Toerge adding that wl ody else has on their property is not a reason to grant an appeal; there is plenty on site and does not support any modification on this property. )ner Eaton stated he would favor a continuance to allow the applicant to pull access in and to modify the front guard rail system at the same time. Hawkins noted he favors a continuance as well. Cole noted he agrees with a continuance for reasons previously stated. �r Selich noted he would favor the encroachment remain the same with the at 4 feet with a 3 foot clear access. rperson Tucker noted this is a new house and it probably should be designed to fit on the This is an unusual issue: How steps down to the basement with guard rail features. He noted that the applicant could withdraw his appeal as, if this is continued, the whole cation will be considered and could be modified further. ion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to continue this matter to the nex ting of February 17th. Ellis noted that he is only asking for the same as was granted on Shorecliff. )wing a brief discussion he agreed to a continuance. s: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and Hawkins s: McDaniel ant: None twin: None ates Residence Appeal (PA2004 -208) I ITEM NO.4 5051 Street PA2004 -208 eal of the determination of compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.65 of th Removed from rport Beach Municipal Code (Building Height) by the Planning Director related t calendar approval of a plan revision for a project at 505 J Street. The appeal contests th file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \0120.htm 02/18/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/20/2005 4 4 Page 5 of 5 erectness of that determination. tall requested that this item be removed from calendar. otion was made b Chairperson Tucker to remove this item from calendar. yes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins oes: None bsent: None Abstain: None Ye R A ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that at the last Council meeting the Code Amendment to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan District #7 was adopted; the telecommunications facility permit at Newport Coast Drive was approved and the planning process for future use of Marina Park was discussed. b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no meeting. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Updat Committee - Commissioner Eaton reported that different alternative circulatio system configurations were discussed at the last meeting, including omitting certain planned improvements such as widening Coast Highway in Mariner Mile, extending SR 55, and the 19th Street bridge, for the purpose of traffi modeling of the land use alternatives. It was determined by GPUC to use a more realistic circulation system configuration of the traffic modeling, and also t re -run the existing General Plan build -out alternative using the same circulation system configuration. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted that all active items have been updated. g. Project status - none. h. Request for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 7:45 p.m. IADJOURNMENT JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \0120.htm 02/18/2005