Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20170817_PC MinutesNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO.2 MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2017 Recommend Action: Approve and file Chair Koetting requested Mr. Mosher's changes be incorporated into the minutes. 08/17/2017 Motion made by Secretary Weigand and seconded by Chair Koetting to approve the draft minutes of the July 20, 2017, meeting with Mr. Mosher's changes. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Kramer VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.3 102 EAST OCEAN FRONT ALTERNATIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION (PA2017-099) Site Location: 102 East Ocean Front Assistant Planner Liz Westmoreland reported the subject property is located on the Peninsula at the division of West Ocean Front and East Ocean Front and is oriented towards the beach. The residence currently encroaches into the rear and side setbacks. The structure is considered nonconforming because it encroaches into the setbacks and because it has a one -car garage. Pursuant to the Zoning Code, the Director may redefine the location of front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties, specifically in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area is not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity. The site has a 10 -font rear setback, and the applicant is requesting a five foot rear setback. In determining whether the proposed rear setback is appropriate, staff analyzed compatibility of the proposed setback and the resulting true floor area ratio (FAR). In terms of compatibility, there would be an aggregate eight foot setback between the subject property and the adjacent property. The typical setback is six feet. The site currently has a FAR of 1.1; the bulk of the properties in the area have a FAR of approximately 1.3. With a rear setback of five feet, the subject property would have a FAR of 1.24. The front and side setbacks would remain the same. Staff believes the proposed setbacks would not result in more floor area than neighboring lots with typical configurations. Other lots of similar configuration and located on street ends have received modification permits and other approvals to allow for encroachments into setbacks. Staff believes the alternative rear setback is compatible with the surrounding area. No new structures would be allowed to encroach into setbacks. The applicant could demolish the existing structure and build a new residence, which would be required to conform with all Code requirements, or the applicant could remodel or do a significantly limited addition. The applicant could choose either option subject to the 10 -foot setback without Commission approval. Staff received several comments from nearby neighbors regarding design, existing nonconformities, and street parking. If the residence were reconstructed, it would have to comply with the Code -required two -car garage, which would result in the loss of at least one street parking space regardless of the rear setback requirement. Staff finds the proposed five foot setback compatible with setbacks and floor area ratios of nearby properties. Staff recommends approval. In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Assistant Planner Westmoreland explained that the subject structure would be eight feet from the adjacent structure with the five foot setback at the rear of 102 East Ocean Front. Chair Koetting requested the applicant show the orientation of the new structure, particularly the driveway with the two -car garage. In answer to Secretary Weigand's query, Assistant Planner Westmoreland advised that Public Works did not consider diagonal parking to allow replacement of the lost street parking space. With or without diagonal parking, one parking space will be lost. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Assistant Planner Westmoreland indicated the setback does refer to the buildable footprint. The Code currently allows eave or overhang encroachments into the setback up to 30 inches as long as 24 inches to the property line is maintained. The wall would be subject to the five foot requirement. The minimum distance between the new structure at number 102 and the roofline 2of6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/17/2017 of number 104 would be at least two feet on the subject property and the existing distance at the roar of number 104. Commissioner Dunlap expressed concern about the Commission approving a five foot setback, and then the residence design including a fireplace, which could encroach another foot. Deputy Director Wisneski agreed that the ,Zoning Code allows certain encroachments into setbacks; however three foot setbacks on side yards are common. In answer to Commissioner Dunlap's queries, Assistant Planner Westmoreland stated the building height could be up to 24 feet for flat elements and 29 feet for a pitched roof. The entrance used most by the residents is located by the garage. All the setbacks would remain the same regardless of the orientation of the structure. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Jeff Sumich, applicant, reported that the project will be a single-family, two-story residence with a flat -roof at a height of 24 feet. He plans to articulate the facade with stone and glass and wood. There will be no encroachments between numbers 102 and 104 in order to maintain privacy. In reply to Chair Koetting's question, Mr. Sumich advised that the size and number of windows and doors on the side facing number 104 would be minimal in order to maintain privacy. Chair Koetting encouraged him to add elements to the wall for interest. Jim Mosher noted that the proposed resolution implies the Director could have approved the project without a hearing. He questioned whether an application for a modification permit would be more appropriate. If the application were a variance or an amendment to the setback map, it would require findings that are more specific. Chair Koetting explained that the applicant proposes to maintain the 10 -foot setback along the front, along Ocean Front. The rear of the property is adjacent to number 104, where the applicant proposes a five foot setback; the setback is currently at zero feet. The setback along Island Avenue is three feet. Those are standard setbacks. Deputy Director Wisneski relayed that the Planning Commission approximately five years ago determined it wanted to review this type of application as it changes a standard and to provide neighbors with notice of the proposed change. Mr. Mosher interpreted the Code section as redefining the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas. Staff interpreted the section as allowing the Director to change the depth of the setback from 10 feet to five feet rather than just the actual location of the rear setback. In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiries, Deputy Director Wisneski reported the property owner has not dedicated any funds to designing the project because they are waiting on the setback determination. The Planning Commission is responsible for determining the setbacks, not for approving the design of a single- family home. The Planning Commission's role in this hearing is to determine whether the setback is consistent with setbacks in the neighborhood. Commissioner Kleiman stated there should have been some discussion and consensus among neighbors about the project. In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Assistant Planner Westmoreland clarified that the red striping extends approximately 10 feet in length to allow drivers to maneuver vehicles. Public Works may need to remove some red paint in order to create a standard parking space. David Tostenson, 104 Island Avenue, did not object to the proposed five foot setback; however, he did object to the loss of parking. Cars park at the curve in the curb whether or not it is painted red. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Secretary Weigand suggested continuing the item to allow Public Works to review diagonal parking along the street. The public is disadvantaged by the loss of the parking space. While he preferred not to continue the item, he wished to ensure all options were considered. He was not comfortable with supporting the project without consideration of diagonal parking to prevent the loss of a parking space. 3 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/17/2017 Commissioner Dunlap remarked that technically no parking space was being lost because the applicant proposed a second garage parking space. Deputy Director Wisneski advised that loss of the parking space would occur with or without the setback change because of the two -car garage requirement. Staff could request Public Works look at diagonal parking as part of the plan check process for the project. Motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to adopt Resolution No. 2064. approving Staff Approval for an Alternative Setback Determination No. SA2016-004. Pursuant to Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres' request, Commissioner Dunlap amended the motion to include finding the project exempt from CEQA. Commissioner Lowrey accepted the amendment. Amended Motion made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to adopt Resolution No. 2064, approving Staff Approval for an Alternative Setback Determination No. SA2017-004; and to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines—Class 5. Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. AYES: Koetting, Dunlap, Kleiman, Lowrey NOES: Weigand ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak, Kramer ITEM NO. 4 VILLAS FASHION ISLAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (PA2017-128) Site Location: 4200 San Joaquin Plaza Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager reported the project is located in the San Joaquin subarea of the North Newport Center Planned Community. The complex is undergoing work but is partially occupied. The property is surrounded primarily by commercial and public uses with residential uses to the north. In January 2017, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit, which allows a cafe and cocktail lounge on the property with a Type 57 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license. There are no late hours associated with the approval. The applicant requests removal of two conditions included in the original use permit. The applicant wishes to provide live entertainment for residents and guests and to use an outdoor sound system throughout the property. Live entertainment would be provided in the larger common spaces of the development. The applicant requests flexibility in location to allow entertainment such as stilt walkers, jugglers, and magicians, to move about the property. Staff recommends approval with additional conditions of limiting entertainment to residents and guests only, requiring approval of a special event permit for a dance floor, not allowing late hours, and locating live entertainment primarily in noted areas. The draft resolution contains 12 conditions of approval from the Fire Division to address safety and compliance with the California Fire Code. In reply to Chair Koetting's questions, Assistant Planner Crager advised that the applicant did not intend to utilize tents for events. The Fire Department included conditions regarding tents should the applicant consider them in the future. Initially, the applicant will have quite a few events of this type to promote the property. Condition of Approval 52 is carried forward from the previous use permit. An event serving alcohol separate from the cafe and lounge after 9 p.m. would require a different ABC license and a special event permit. In answer to Secretary Weigand's query, Assistant City Attorney Torres advised that staff struggled with language to prevent events from being open to the public. A prospective tenant would probably fall under guests of management. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's inquiries, Assistant Planner Crager indicated the applicant's intent was to provide background music using live entertainment. However, the applicant would have to comply with occupancy requirements. Director Jurjis clarified that the concern is assembly within structures. Large assemblies in a public area is less of a concern. Commissioner Dunlap understood the need for escape routes from a building or large 4 of 6