Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes1• • Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 13 file: //H:\Plancomm \2003PC \0918.htm 10/24/2003 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - all present STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, September 12, 2003. CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of September 4, 2003. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker, and voted on to approve the Approved minutes of September 4, 2003. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment Initiations ITEM NO. 2 3450 Via Oporto and 707 East Balboa Boulevard PA2003 -212 Adopt Resolution recommending initiation of the General Plan Amendments Recommended (GP12003 -006 and GPI 2003 -007) to the City Council and initiate Code for Initiation file: //H:\Plancomm \2003PC \0918.htm 10/24/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 Page 2 of 13 Amendment (CA2003 -008) • Commissioner Kiser removed this item from the consent calendar questioning the proposed intensity limit of 350 seats for the Balboa Theater as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Toerge suggested adding the address in Section 1 of the proposed resolution for specificity. Commissioner Kiser noted he was not in favor of this initiation on the Balboa Theater due to the intensity of use and approving 350 seats. He felt he did not have enough information upon which to base an opinion relative to parking. Ms. Temple noted that this is an initiation level only, not an approval. There will be a complete analysis later as to the issues involved should this item be initiated and come back for public hearing. This number of seats represents a significant reduction from the existing facility. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to adopt resolution recommending initiation of the General Plan Amendments (GPI 2003 -006 and GPI 2003 -007) to the City Council and initiating a Code Amendment (CA 2003 -008). . Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: Kiser Absent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Velardo Variance and Modification (PA2003 -048) ITEM NO. 3 3809 Channel Place PA2003 -048 Request for a Variance to allow a proposed single - family residence to Removed from exceed the established floor area limit and a Modification Permit to allow Calendar he proposed residence to encroach within the front, side and rear setbacks. The applicant has withdrawn this application and will be re- submitting at a later date. • Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0918.htm 10/24/2003 10 • • Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 Page 3 of 13 Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to remove this item from the calendar. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Yuki Sushi Corporation (PA2003 -163) ITEM NO. 4 3601 Jamboree Road, Suite 15B PA2003 -163 Requests the approval of a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Approved Ordinance for the sale of beer and wine for on -site consumption at a new restaurant that is permitted to operate under an existing Specialty food Service Permit. Since the Specialty Food Service Permit prohibited alcohol sales, the Use Permit also includes the full service, small scale eating and drinking establishment as defined by the current Zoning Code. If approved, his Use Permit would supersede the existing Special Food Service Permit and create a single Use Permit for this location. Associate Planner, Gregg Ramirez noted that the Police Department approves 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. for the hours of operation for the interior of the restaurant; however, they recommend the patio be closed at 10:00 p.m., which is standard for outdoor dining areas. These hours are referred to in condition 14. Victor Peter Tous, P. O. Box 7890, Huntington Beach speaking for the applicant noted that they accept the revision to condition 14 allowing the outdoor dining open to 10:00 p.m., and agree to and understand the rest of he conditions of approval. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve Use Permit No. 2003 -024 subject to findings and the revision to condition 14 allowing outdoor dining until 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Kiser noted condition 26 to read, 'Full menu food service items shall be available feF- efdeAng at all times that the restaurant establishment is open for business.' The maker of the motion agreed. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0918.htm 10/24/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 BJECT: Tabak Variance (PA2003 -180) 3431 Ocean Boulevard applicant proposes to demolish an existing structure and construct i four -story residence. The applicant is requesting a variance to allc 24 -foot height limit to be exceeded. In addition, the applicant reques amendment to a previously approved Modification Permit to encroai the 10 -foot front yard setback by 8 feet. for Planner, James Campbell gave an overview of the staff . The existing property will be torn down and a new resider constructed that will meet all applicable guidelines and standards the Municipal Code except for the height of the structure and the fn yard setback. . The front yard setback has been reduced to 5 feet with the previously approved Modification; however, the applicant is requesting an additional 3 feet of encroachment for a total of 10 feet of encroachment. . Staff recommends approval of that Modification Permit request . The variance would not encroach above the top of the curb height would encroach above the 24 foot height limit. . The topography of the property is a steep bluff faced property, wh makes it difficult to construct a residence; however, the applicant h chosen to excavate the entire bluff to construct the proposed rn residence and thereby eliminate the impediment. The previou approved designs modification complies with the height limit as H as achieves the allowable maximum buildable area of the property 7,321 square feet. Granting of the variance application is not necessary as the previc approved plans allow for the maximum buildable area and full and enjoyment of the property. The purpose of the height limit is to preserve the character and scale of the community. The modification to the structure the applicant is proposing, the actual height and mass is not overly large; however, the stated purpose for doing this is to achieve a private view. Approval of this variance application would therefore, be a granting of special privilege. • I Photographic exhibits were presented noting the location of residence; existing conditions of the bluff area; comparisons file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0918.htm Page 4 of 13 ITEM NO.5 PA2003 -180 Variance was denied and Modification Amendment was approved 10/24/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 Page 5 of 13 I. I neighboring properties; property access; front yard setback; via from the ocean side; and plans depicting portions proposed to above the height limits. mmissioner Selich clarified that in reviewing the variance mmission is looking at the total project. Under finding 3 in the sort, 'the purpose of the height limit is to preserve the scale and chars the community.' If we found some other aspects of the project eting that finding, does that give us sufficient grounds to evaluate perty, or are we solely evaluating that portion of the project that exce height limit? Clawson answered that to the extent the rest of the project drives I to exceed the height limit, then you would look at the entire project. Continuing, Commissioner Selich referring to page 4 of the staff rep reference to the General Plan consistency, to what relevance does i discussion of Policy D have to our discussion this evening? Ms. Clauson answered in one way it has relevance as to one of 1 determination of the findings is the fact that the surrounding location impacted by topography and the general plan provisions in regards coastal bluff, so that is a consideration that can be made in the findings tl you are considering. • Ms. Temple added that in the resolution there is no finding related to t General Plan because staff was not making a recommendation on t variance. You have a proposal that must be evaluated against that polic Staff evaluated it in light of prior Planning Commission and prior Coas Commission actions that by doing the grading the footprint of the existi development met that criteria. However, our views related to the coas alteration provisions will continue to evolve. To the extent the request approve the variance also drives the need to make that alteration, then tt would also be a finding you could make. >ioner Selich asked for a comparison between this and the approved variance two houses down the street Campbell answered that this project comes down to a 35 foot I itour. The Ensign variance had roughly a third of the property con vn to the 58 foot contour and 2/3 of that project would come down to foot contour. The current project does go down the bluff a bit fur )roximately 17 feet. Mr. Campbell then made the Ensign plans avail, the Commission to review. . Commissioner Tucker noted that there are two issues, height limit varian and how far down the bluff will be disturbed, which is driven by the pool. he applicant didn't seek the variance, then the issue of the swimming pa has already been decided. The only reason the issue of how far down t fil e: //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0918.htm 10/24/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 bluff comes up is because the applicant is asking for something in addition • to what exists as a matter of right. How does the down the bluff issue work relate to the height variance issue, which has to do with a different area of he property? We can look at the totality of the circumstances if one aspect affects the other, some interrelationship. I am not seeing how the work in the pool area relates to the variance request. s. Clauson noted that to the extent that considerations of the coastal b id preserving coastal bluff property is an element that might be used ipport of a reason for the need for the variance to go up, then in ntext of the overall approval of this project you can consider all the des Tributes of this project to the extent that they are driving the hei : rease. The applicant is saying that there is something about 1 operty that drives the need for this variance. The whole project and h nits on the property and how it is impacted by the topography driving ied for a variance is relevant. They could still get it if all the approv -re granted and they were not asking for this variance. I don't think ) wld look at the request for this variance in that vacuum, you would N look at the whole project. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted the manner in which the natural grade was determined, we have a situation here where we are using the slab of the footprint of the prior structure as the natural grade. We have this plateau and then south of the plateau a 3 112 foot wide area where the • variance request is primarily located. My concern is why the Butterfields did not need a variance when their house was in identical circumstances, it must have been the pre- existing structure on the Butterfield lot encompassed the entire building envelope for the next structure. answered that appears to be the case noting, the difference is �r level of the house cantilevers over the existing retaining walls a Jations. The area of the variance is directly above the sloping bluff ised to being above the existing retaining walls and foundat Mures. It is a different circumstance because this house cantilevers, is why there is a wedge shape area that puts the house above I it limit if you want to put the new house in the same position as 1 ing house. nmissioner Tucker asked about the new construction and how far ild go down the slope, and how much of the 17 feet was beyond whe Ensign residence was at the 52 foot contour structure? Mr. Campbell answered that the basement level is at 40 and 1/2 feet; extra 5 feet is due to the pool taking the project to the 35 foot contour. Commissioner Eaton stated that to approve a suggested zone change .Commission or Council would have to make a finding of consistency the General Plan. Is that true for a variance or a use permit? If a varia as to be approved, is there a necessity to make a finding of conforma with the General Plan? file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0918.htm Page 6 of 13 10/24/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 Page 7 of 13 Ms. Clauson answered that there is not a finding in the Code that require: • consistency with the General Plan. There is some case law that use permits do not require that consistency finding because the government code talks about zoning ordinances being consistent with the general plan. use permit and a variance are discretionary permits that allow for minor of different variations from the provisions in the Zoning Code. If the Zoning Code itself is consistent with the General Plan then variations from that, unless they vary outside even what is allowed under the Land Use Element, think generally wouldn't have to have that same finding. Commissioner 5elich noted his belief that the project is not consistent with General Plan Policy D, is that a valid reason to support the findings for denial of the variance? . Clauson answered that in looking at a furtherance of a policy is that ether the project would further the provisions of the Land Use, this might a finding that you could consider. irperson McDaniel noted that a letter from the Butterfields was received distributed to the Commission. i Joiner, architect in Newport Beach, spoke representing the stating the following: • . This project has been to the Coastal Commission for removal of a stairway and replaced with something that is built on grade. • This project is in compliance with the Coastal Commission and has a design approval with the City. • We are seeking this variance for architectural appurtenance reasons, which would beautify the home as far as sitting on the bluff. • The variance will put us in line with the adjacent residence and to the point that the existing home now sits. • We are not asking to go out any further than the existing home or adjacent home sits. • Referring to a diagram, he further stated that the project is not going down to the 35 foot level, existing house and allowable envelope for new construction; referenced adjacent homes; the variance request represents a 16 foot depth at 3 1/2 to 4 feet extension, an area for more shadow line for a piece of glass and a corner piece about 6 inches by 6 inches as well as an encroachment in the front yard that staff has recommended approval. • We did not put a pitched roof on this design; the proposed project is 3 1/2 feet below curb height, and are not obstructing the street view anymore than currently exists. • If the variance is approved, we will have to go back to the Coastal Commission. . . The design'zig zags' to adhere to the envelope lines. Commissioner Eaton then asked about the difference between the two sides of the building as to how much of an encroachment there is. The staff file: //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \0918.htm 10/24/2003 '• • • Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 shows different encroachments on the north and south sides. Campbell answered that the drawing presented by the architect resents encroachments of the proposed structure beyond the existing ise (indicated by red dash lines). Referring to the exhibit presented by architect, the light blue dash lines shaded area below the red dashed !s is where the proposed house would exceed the 24 foot height limit. then referred to Exhibit A6 of the drawings in the packet that shows the loon near the north and south elevations. The north side has lower de and a larger encroachment than the south side of the property. The posed structure would encroach vertically approximately 21 feet on the th side and 12 feet on the south side and approximately 4 feet izontally away from the bluffs. )mmissioner Cole verified that the reason the variance is being requested purely for architectural design, or are there other reasons that might pact the enjoyment of the home if the homeowner had to live within the isting envelope. . Joiner answered, yes it is for architectural reasons to create more adow line to the building. We are maintaining the same vertical footprint. Commission inquiry he added that they want to be adjacent to the home xt to them as that infringes upon the applicant's views and there is. a vacy issue as well. is comment was opened. arvin Nevis, citizen of the City and representing Helen Anderson and Rod ,nes, other neighbors who were unable to attend, noted that they oppose granting of the variance on the westerly side of Ocean Boulevard that !als with height as it infringes on the views not only theirs but people tlking up and down Ocean Boulevard. Ocean Boulevard rises as you go the southerly side of the street so what is below the street line at one sition is not below the street line at another position. The people who me to our boulevard will see roof tops and not what you used to be able see. That street is owned by the City and part of the land that is being ed by these people is owned by the City. The City has leased some of land to them, which is fine. I do not see the need for increasing height As on a house beyond the limits provided by the Code, which in some 3pect, may affect views for people across the street, down the street or tlking down the street. We agree that the variance be denied and urge at the modification permit be denied. It appears that there is no ,tification for allowing that variance to be approved. At Commission luiry, he stated that if the height was below the street line at the lowest rel of Ocean Boulevard, he would not object to the variance. But if it is low the street line at the highest level of Ocean Boulevard, I would ject. That is what is happening here and that is what happened on the tterfields project as well. I don't think that the fact that the Butterfields use was built and approved, should be a basis for you to allow it to ppen again. file: //H:\Plancomm \2003PC \0918.htm Page 8 of 13 10/24/2003 Is Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 k Reed, citizen of Newport Beach noted that the Code is there for a son. If you continue to grant variances to the Code, then eventually you have changed the Code. If you are for growth and to attract more alth to this area, I don't think it should be done through variances, it )uld be done through changes to the Code. I urge that you deny the iance request on this residence because if you do approve it, then it will easier for the next house to get a variance. You will be changing the iracter of the bluff. na Reed, citizen of Newport Beach urged the Commission to remember it a lot of homes on that street have been built within the standards of )de. She noted her concern of environmental issues and asked that :se be considered. At Commission inquiry, she noted that the building ay impair her views. nmissioner Tucker asked if the area where the variance is being sought ild be visible from Ocean Boulevard including oblique angles. What is effect on the view corridor, as we have nothing that shows the line of it. It should resolve concerns that this is on the south side of the cture and is a question of how much of the structure that is lawfully ig to be there will block the opportunity to see the area where the heigh ance is being sought. Mr. Campbell answered that the proposed structure will be higher than the existing structure by about three feet, but it will still be about three feet below the level of curb adjacent to property. The existing house is already non - conforming to the 24 foot height limit now. Referencing the photographs of the existing residence, he noted the volume that would be allowed and the oblique view that would be lost. The variance may affect residents on the north side of Ocean Boulevard from that vantage point hereby they would lose sight of some of the sand. The effect of this encroachment will change with the vantage point. He noted additional vantage points and views along the whole width of the house. on Kazarian, citizen of Newport Beach noted that the modification in the ant of this property is above ground and goes into the front setback and is big issue. This one house will be closer to Ocean Boulevard and is much fferent than the Ensign project. n Butterfield, citizen of Newport Beach asked that the Commission cider the consistency issue as it pertains to the Code because that is t gives the quality of life there. There are two other homeowners who at the City who are going to develop their property and await the :ome of this hearing. She noted that the Code is supposed to be • Public comment was closed. Staff clarified that on the upper level of the residence, there is a proposed terrace at the east side of the residence that will not block the view as noted Page 9 of 13 file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0918.htm 10/24/2003 I • r1 LI Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 previous descriptions. The actual encroachment on the upper level will an open structure. The encroachment does not go across the whole ith of the structure at the upper level. )mmissioner Tucker noted that there appears to be not much in the way view impairment but questioned where it is on the structure. )mmissioner Selich noted he is not in support of the variance. He noted at he does not believe there is any impact on the view from Ocean wlevard, even at oblique angles you may be blotting out tiny views of the nd. He noted his concern about the project is based upon something that is done two years ago when the Commission sent a request to City )uncil suggesting that the City look at what happens to structures that are ping built on the bluffs at Corona del Mar and what can be done legally der the existing Code and what impact that would have on the bluffs. ie Council decided to defer any consideration on that to the development the Local Coastal Plan, which we are working on and are still quite a bit tay from conclusion. There will probably more defined criteria when the in is done than what we have now, which is a general statement in the ?neral Plan. My concern is that this project is going further down the bluff an I think it should and it appears that if is not in conformance with our licies in the General Plan. We took the right approach in the Ensign eject where they went down into the bluff, but the bottom level receded wn and the bluff face remained outside of it. It was basically a semi - bterranean bottom level, whereas this bottom level is completely open on ocean side of this project. It makes a big difference and the pearance and alteration of the bluff is going to be much more significant in the Ensign project. The problem is that this project did not take this o consideration in its original design because the City has no policies or sign criteria to regulate bluff alteration. It comes back to us and they are king to exceed the height limit on a very small portion of the project, sere, with very minor modifications on this, they could build the project der the existing Code exactly as it is proposed with the alteration down s bluff. It presents a dilemma on how to evaluate this. I don't see I could pport a project that I think is encroaching too far into the bluff even )ugh I know the applicant could go back and make a few minor changes it and take a small portion out of the height encroachment area and be in mplete conformance with the City Codes. In looking at the totality of the )ject, I can not support it. nissioner Cole noted he can not support the application. As a nission we have to find certain findings to grant a variance. Even h we can make a case for several of them, I don't believe a case has made where there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstance ing to the land, building or use. •Commissioner Eaton noted he can not support the variance, he could support the request for the modification. The findings for the modification are different and the majority of the modification request is under ground and will not be visible. I agree that we can not make the findings for the Page 10 of 13 file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0918.htm 10/24/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 variance. Being this close to Inspiration Point the further extension down • the bluff is going to be particularly visible. Commissioner Kiser stated he could not support the height variance for previous comments adding that he supports the staff analysis for the modification. He noted his concern of the homes going further down the Dmmissioner Tucker stated he supports the modification, the variance he troubled about the concept of having a plateau that falls off and then the easurement is done in a different fashion. He stated that he believed the idings could be made to support a variance. There ought to be a string e so that all neighbors would be treated alike and that should limit where e structure should be. I don't believe that the height variance has iything to do with the proposed work down the bluff. At some point in time ere needs to be a defined limit on how far down the bluffs you can go. )wever, I do not see anything in our Codes that presently gives us that ithority. The rest of the project developing down the bluffs is not heading the right direction. Commissioner Tucker noted he was going to be in the inority on the variance, but in this case was happy to be on the losing Chairperson McDaniel stated he is not in support of the variance. A variance is to fix a problem, this is going to be a blank slate to start with and • I don't see a need for anything different to take place here. 1 am discouraged when we are building down the bluffs, but we have no authority to deal with that. I suspect we are not going to rezone that area so we are going to try to be as consistent as we can. If we did grant this request, it would be a special privilege on a special piece of property. sioner Selich noted that his comments were in addition to the and recommendations in the staff report. Motion was made by sioner Selich to deny the applicant's request for the variance and the modification permit by adopting the resolution contained in of the staff report. imissioner Tucker asked the maker of the motion to split the motion in so he could vote for the modification. The maker of the motion agreed. was amended by Commissioner Selich to deny the applicant's for the variance for reasons stated in the staff report and discussed. Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich and Kiser Tucker Motion was continued by Commissioner Selich to approve the modificati • permit by adopting the resolution contained in Exhibit 1 of the staff report. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: McDaniel Page 11 of 13 f ile : //H:1Plancomm12003PC10918.htm 10/24/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/18/2003 Page 12 of 13 Absent: None • Abstain• None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that at the Council meeting the professional services agreement for the Regent Newport Beach project was approved, which is the hotel project at Marinapark, so that the official processing of that project has commenced. This project will come before the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that EDC discussed the Mariner's Mile improvement plans. The discussion also included mixed use development particularly as it relates to redevelopment of bay front property. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no meeting. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Toerge noted that comments from EQAC, Harbor Commission, staff and EDC as well • were discussed. The committee voted to wait for the second meeting in October to receive and incorporate the changes from Coastal Commission staff. The report will then be distributed to members of the public and homeowner associations for review. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted that the meeting with special interest groups in regards to the proposed changes to modification permit findings has been scheduled for September 25th at the City Council Chambers; the City Manage newsletter is available via email; h. Project status - the South Coast Shipyard project response to comments period has been concluded and will result in an Environmental Impact Report being prepared. i. Requests for excused absences - Commissioners Selich and Cole will • be excused from October 9th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 8:13 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0918.htm 10/24/2003