HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Draft Minutes of 04-11-13NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 04/11/2013
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES
100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach
Corona del Mar Conference Room (Bay E -1st Floor)
Thursday, April 11, 2013
REGULAR HEARING
3:30 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
Staff Present: Brenda Wisneski, Zoning Administrator
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner
Jason Van Patten, Planning Technician
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner
B. MINUTES of March 28, 2013
Action: Approved
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 610 Larkspur Parcel Map No. NP2013 -003 (PA2013 -014)
610 Larkspur Avenue CD 6
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the parcel map was for
condominium purposes. Ms. Whelan stated that the single - family dwelling was demolished and a duplex was
currently under construction which would provide the code required two -car parking per unit. The parcel map
was to create separate ownership units. Ms. Whelan added that the project request did not include any
waivers of the Subdivision Code (Title 19). She also noted that a revised resolution was distributed at the
hearing which addressed minor typographical errors and duplication of conditions.
Applicant Buzz Person, representing the owner, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and the
required conditions.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing.
One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke and questioned Finding I asking if the increase of one unit
contributed to the City meeting its regional housing needs. Additionally, he questioned Condition No. 4,
asking which utilities are being undergrounded and if this was a boiler plate condition.
Mr. Person spoke again thanking staff for their work
The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and asked staff to address Mr. Mosher's questions. Staff
explained that the increase for an above moderate income unit does not contribute to meeting the City's
share of regional housing needs as units at this income level are not defined as a need for the City. The
Zoning Administrator explained that the undergrounding condition is a standard condition required by the
Public Works Department.
Seeing that no one else from the public wished to comment, the Zoning Administrator closed the public
hearing and moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2013 -003 pursuant to the revised resolution.
Action: Approved
Page 1 of 4
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 04/11/2013
ITEM NO.2 600 Narcissus Parcel Map No. NP2013 -004 (PA2013 -015)
600 Narcissus Avenue CD 6
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the parcel map was for
condominium purposes. Ms. Whelan stated that a two -unit dwelling was demolished and a new duplex was
currently under construction that would provide the code required two -car parking per unit. The parcel map
was for the purpose of creating separate ownership units. Ms. Whelan added that the project request did not
include any waivers of the Subdivision Code (Title 19). She also noted that a revised resolution was
distributed at the hearing which addressed minor typographical errors and duplication of conditions. Finally,
language was added to Condition No. 17 for clarification.
Applicant Buzz Person, on behalf of the owner, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and the
required conditions.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment
the public hearing was closed. The Zoning Administrator moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map No.
NP2013 -004 pursuant to the revised resolution.
Action: Approved
ITEM NO.3 418 Carnation Avenue Parcel Map No. NP2013 -006 (PA2013 -035)
418 Carnation Avenue CD 6
Jason Van Patten, Planning Technician, provided a brief project description stating that the parcel map was
for condominium purposes. He stated that a duplex was demolished and was being replaced with a new
duplex that would provide the code required two -car parking per unit. He indicated that the parcel map was
for the purpose of creating separate ownership units and added that the applicant was not requesting any
waivers of the Title 19 Subdivision standards.
Applicant Leonard Stiles, of Stiles Surveying, on behalf of the Owner, stated that he had reviewed the draft
resolution and the required conditions.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing.
A member of the public, Phyllis Howard, spoke and expressed her concern with the development. Ms.
Howard felt that the absence of a sidewalk on First Avenue presented an inconvenience and a hazard. She
also felt that the construction was improperly encroaching into the front yard.
A second member of the public reiterated points made by Ms. Howard and requested that a sidewalk be
installed.
A third member of the public, Jim Mosher, stated that he did not feel the resolution addressed the existing
easement for street purposes shown on the tentative parcel map. Additionally, with respect to findings
regarding consistency with the Coastal Act, he stated that the City does not have the authority to make those
findings.
There were no other public comments.
Zoning Administrator Wisneski inquired further into Ms. Howard's concerns regarding construction and the
absence of a sidewalk, as well as clarifying that the application for a parcel map was strictly for creating
separate ownership units and was not tied to the development itself. Follow up on the issues she raised
would be conducted outside the hearing process.
The Zoning Administrator took action and approved Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2013 -006
Action: Approved
Page 2 of 4
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 04/11/2013
ITEM NO. 4 Moss Lot Merger — Lot Merger No. LM2013 -001 (PA2013 -038)
2600 and 2602 West Ocean Front CD 1
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the applicant is requesting
to merge two lots located at 2600 and 2602 West Ocean Front into one parcel. Each of the two lots is
currently developed with single -unit dwellings. The existing dwellings will be demolished and the proposed
merged lot would be redeveloped with one new single -unit dwelling. Each of the existing lots are 1,875
square feet in area and 25 feet in width, which are less than the 6,000 square -foot minimum lot area and 60-
foot minimum lot width requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposed merger would create one 3,750
square -foot, 50- foot -wide parcel that will be more consistent with the minimum lot standards of the Zoning
Code.
Applicant Paul Craft of Apex Land Surveying, Inc., on behalf of the property owners, stated that he had
reviewed the draft resolution and the required conditions.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing.
One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke and stated that he had three general comments. First, he did
not feel the Class 5 Categorical Exemption under CEQA was appropriate because there was a reduction in
density. Second, he requested clarification regarding the type of vehicular access that would be provided.
Third, he requested clarification on the finding for a waiver of parcel map requirements.
There were no other public comments.
Seeing that no one else from the public wished to comment, Zoning Administrator Wisneski closed the public
hearing.
The Zoning Administrator revised Finding A -3 to clarify that per the Municipal Code requirements,
redevelopment of the property will require vehicular access from the alley. She also revised Finding A -5
clarifying that future development on the proposed parcel will be subject to the Zoning Code development
standards. The Zoning Administrator took action and approved Lot Merger No. LM2013 -001 and the waiver
of parcel map.
Action: Approved as amended
ITEM NO. 5 Eat Chow Outdoor Dining Minor Use Permit No. UP2013 -005 (PA2013 -034)
211 62nd Street CD 2
Benjamin M. Zdeba, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the existing restaurant
operation was approved in 2010 with a use permit that allowed an expansion of a restaurant into an adjacent
tenant space. He noted that the parking was reviewed at that time and it was determined that the proposed
restaurant use and expansion would be comparable to the previous establishment and that no additional
parking was necessary. Mr. Zdeba furthered stated that the proposal was for a small, 50- square -foot outdoor
dining area with a total of two tables and four seats. He stated that restaurant establishments are allowed to
add up to 25% of the interior net public area of outdoor dining without incurring additional parking
requirements and that the current proposal complies with this allowance. It was also noted that the outdoor
dining would cease by 9:00 p.m. and no alcohol could be served as conditioned in the draft resolution.
Applicant and restaurant operator Brian McReynolds clarified the existing hours of operation for his
establishment and stated that he was aware of recently identified operational issues with respect to valet
parking on public streets, employees parking in residential neighborhoods, and deliveries through the rear
door of the establishment. He indicated that he had addressed these issues with his staff and that he would
work with the neighborhood to solve the problems.
Page 3 of 4
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 04/11/2013
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing
The owner of the property, Michael Hoskinson, expressed his support for Mr. McReynolds as well as the
proposal to add outdoor dining.
Several residents living near the project the site were in attendance and spoke of concerns relating to the
existing operation including valet parking on the public streets, specifically in the residential neighborhoods,
deliveries adjacent to the residences, employees parking in the neighborhood, and the impacts from the
current operation on the neighborhood with the proposed expansion of outdoor seating.
Zoning Administrator Brenda Wisneski closed the public hearing. She reiterated the importance of contacting
the City's Code Enforcement Division with any operational concerns, stated the parking was reviewed under
the previous use permit approval, and expressed support for utilizing commercial lots in the vicinity that were
underutilized at certain time periods throughout the day. Zoning Administrator Wisneski stated her
understanding that Mr. McReynolds was trying to alleviate the outstanding issues related to parking and
deliveries. However, Zoning Administrator Wisneski continued the item so that compliance with the existing
conditions related deliveries and valet parking restrictions could be demonstrated. The continuation date
specified the first Zoning Administrator meeting in May. May 9 was inadvertently referenced as the continued
date; however the correct continuation date should be May 16, 2013.
Action: Continued to May 16, 2013 Zoning Administrator Hearing
11 111RK9 1i!V[*7i!C_[C1 :Q1�7_ \11� 67
None.
U1 1111911111 N \Ikh1:11\11
The hearing was adjourned at 4:31 p.m.
The agenda for the Regular Hearing was posted on April 4, 2013, at 6:51 p.m. on the City Hall
Bulletin Board located at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on April 4, 2013, at 9:56
a. m.
Brenda Wisneski, AICP, Zoning Administrator
Page 4 of 4
Items B and 1: Additional Materials
Zoning Administrator Hearing April 25, 2012
Comments on April 25, 2013, Zoning Administrator Agenda Items
Submitted by: Jim Mosher ('immosher(Dyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949 -548-
6229)
Item B: Minutes of April 11, 2013
• Page 4:
• paragraph 3: "Several residents living near the project the site were in attendance..."
• paragraph 4: "Zoning Administrator Wisneski continued the item so that compliance with the
existing conditions related to deliveries..."
C. 1: West Marine Towers - Modification Permit (PA2013 -053)
• ResoTDfiQQof Approval, Section 2.1: "The proposed towers are solely architectural design elements
that do not in a the structures structure's overall floor area ..."
• Facts in Support of Fin ' A -1: "The structure on which the towers are proposed is ..."
• Handwritten page 10: In "Reso 2." I believe the appeal would be to the Planning Commission
and should be filed with the CommunftQkyelopment Director, rather than the City Clerk.
• Per Statement of Facts 1.4, the site is in the coa zone. Does the project require a Coastal
Development Permit? If so, the requirement should pro be pointed out to the applicant in the
Conditions of Approval.
• More generally, the location of the tower entrances, encouraging patrons nter and exit directly
from and to the parking lots, and the elimination of the existing connection to the and facing
Via Lido seem incompatible, to me, with encouraging the pedestrian friendly vision of the '
Village Design Guidelines.