HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Planning Commission Action ReportCITY OF
z NEWPORT BEACH
C9�FO0.HP City Council Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 13
July 26, 2011
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Community Development Department
Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director
949 - 644 -3226, kbrandt @newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: James Campbell, Principal Planner
949 - 644 -3210; 0 cam pbell(o)newportbeachca.gov
APPROVED: A
TITLE: Planning Commission Agenda Report for July 21, 2011
Item No. 1 Minutes of June 23, 2011
The minutes were amended and approved (3 ayes, 1 abstention, 3 excused).
AYES:
Ameri, Hawkins, and Unsworth
NOES:
None.
ABSENT:
Hillgren, Myers, and Toerge
ABSTAIN:
Kramer
Item No.2 Minutes of July 7, 2011
The minutes were amended and approved (3 ayes, 1 abstention, 3 excused).
AYES:
Ameri, Hawkins, and Unsworth
NOES:
None.
ABSENT:
Hillgren, Myers, and Toerge
ABSTAIN:
Kramer
Item No.3 Bowman Variance (PA2011 -099)
403 Jasmine Avenue
Summary: Request for approval of a variance to allow the construction of a 6- foot -high deck and
42- inch -high guardrail (9- foot -6 -inch total height) that would encroach 5 feet into the
required 5 -foot rear alley setback. The alley is unimproved and is not utlized for
vehicular access.
Associate Planner Jaime Murillo gave a presentation highlighting the applicant's
request, the existing condition of the alley, similar walls along the alley in the 5 -foot
Planning Commission Agenda Report for July 21, 2011
July 26, 2011
Page 2
rear yard setback, and the position of the Public Works Department that the alley will
not likely ever be improved for vehicular access. He noted that the primary purpose
for the 5 -foot rear yard setback abutting a 14 -foot wide alley that is free of
obstructions is to provide for vehicle maneuvering through the alley and into garages
that would face the alley. In this case, the entire block takes vehicular access from
the streets and vehicular access is not accommodated and the need to have the
setback free of obstructions is not necessary.
Staff requested that Condition Nos. 6 and 7 be eliminated with the language from
Condition No. 6 being incorporated within the resolution as a finding. Additionally,
staff requested that Condition No. 11 be modified to read as follows:
"11. In the event the alley is improved in the future, or if the City decides to utilize the
alley right -of -way for any reason for which the City in its sole and absolute discretion
determines that the deck and guardrail should be removed, the property owner is
required, at their own expense, to remove the deck and guardrail encroachment
within the rear 5 -foot alley setback. Should the property owner fail to remove the
deck and guardrail encroachment in a timely manner, the City may remove the deck
and guardrail encroachment and recover the costs of removal from the property
owner. The property owner shall not be entitled to any compensation from the City
for the removed deck and guardrail."
The applicant's architect testified indicating that the applicant was agreeable to the
changes.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project with the
recommended changes to the conditions proposed by staff (4 ayes, 3 excused).
AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Kramer, and Unsworth
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Hillgren, Myers, and Toerge
ABSTAIN: None.
Item No.4 Monrovia Avenue Amendments
1. 1537 Monrovia Avenue (PA2011 -082)
2. 1539 Monrovia Avenue(PA2011 -105)
Summary: Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map to change the designation of the
subject properties from Multi -Unit Residential [(RM (2420)] to IG 0.5 FAR (General
Industrial) land use designation; and to change the zoning designation from Multi -
Unit Residential (RM) to Industrial 0.5 FAR (IG 0.5) zoning district. The amendments
were initiated by the property owners who seek to continue the existing
nonconforming industrial uses of the properties. The properties are currently
developed with a light industrial use buildings, and no new land uses or development
is proposed at this time.
Senior Planner Javier Garcia gave a presentation summarizing the applicants'
requests to amend the General Plan and Zoning to allow for the continued use of the
property for industrial purposes. The presentation highlighted surrounding uses, the
fact that approval will make the existing uses of the site conforming and not subject
Planning Commission Agenda Report for July 21, 2011
July 26, 2011
Page 3
to abatement, and that the General Plan Amendments are classified as "Minor
Amendments" pursuant to Charter Section 423. Approval of the General Plan
Amendments would not require a vote of the electorate.
The Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of
the two requested amendments (4 ayes, 3 excused).
AYES:
Ameri, Hawkins, Kramer, and Unsworth
NOES:
None.
ABSENT:
Hillgren, Myers, and Toerge
ABSTAIN:
None.
Submitted by:
co
s Campbell, Pnhcrpal Planner