Loading...
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.