Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/2001CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kronzley - Commissioner Kiser was excused, all other Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Jay Garcia, Senior Planner James Campbell, Senior Planner Robert Kain, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of February 8.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley and voted on to approve as amended the minutes of February 8, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Excused: Kiser Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, February 16, 2001. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • February 22, 2001 • 0 SUBJECT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Presentation Presentation by Linda Taylor of Taylor and Associates. The presentation consisted of the Master Plan build out with proposed changes to the upper campus. Peter Foulke, Executive Vice President of Hoag Hospital, thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to present some of the projects being undertaken at the hospital. He noted that in 1992 the hospital went through the hearing process with a development agreement with the City. All of the projects that we are working on now are within that development agreement. The presentation tonight will allow us an opportunity to give you an opportunity to know what is happening. The process that we went through in 1992 was extensive in terms of the Master Plan process, resulting in approximately 123 Mitigation Measures that we continue to monitor and work with City staff on. It is a pleasure to be here tonight with Taylor and Associates, who have done the master planning for the campus as well as a lot of the architectural work. Tonight, we will be reviewing the parking structure and the expansion of the Women's Pavilion. Linda Taylor of Taylor and Associates shared a slide presentation on the Women's Pavilion expansion as well as on overall view of the Master Plan. The slide presentation encompassed the original hospital campus and ended with computer renderings of proposed architect. Ms. Temple commented that some things were not anticipated in the entitlements for the hospital. All of the square footage limitations were established based on staffs assumption of useable floor area and, as noted in the presentation, the mechanical space used in support of these medical buildings has changed radically and remarkably over the past ten years. What this has done is that the conventional zoning code definitions for mechanical floor areas and which types of those areas count against entitlement and which don't are starting to not work well for this particular use with its very extreme mechanical needs. We may be considering, at some future date, some new definitions that would apply only to the hospital, which would omit those areas from the calculation of entitlement. SUBJECT: Crabby Kenny's (Ken Poole, applicant) 3012 Newport Blvd. UP 3688 Review of revised floor plan in accordance with the conditions of approval. Chairperson Selich stated that there is a floor plan that has been submitted to the Commission. Public comment was opened. INDEX Hoag Presentation Discussion Item only Item 2 Use Permit No. 3688 Approved City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to find that the floor plan is consistent with the conditions of approval of Use Permit 3688 as attached to the staff report. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Excused: Kiser SUBJECT: 1933 Port Weybridge Place, Ken Everson, Jr. • Modification No. 5167 Appeal of the denial of a modification of the front yard setback to allow the construction of a new single family dwelling that would encroach 7 feet into the required 25 -foot front yard setback. Senior Planner James Campbell presented a slide demonstration noting: • Setback for this property is currently 25 feet and the applicant is asking to build at 18 feet. • The garage is presently 25 feet back from the front property line. • Each lot in this subdivision has a separate, distinct setback. • Neighboring lots have 19 to 22 foot setbacks. • The Modifications Committee denied this request and the applicant has appealed the decision and is asking that the Planning Commission overturn the denial and allow the proposed residence to be constructed with an 18 -foot front yard setback. At Commission inquiry he noted: • The distinction of this application is the extent of the encroachment and how large it is. Most of the other setback encroachments allowed in this area ranged from 2 to 6 feet, which were for portions of a garage or a front porch. • Developers and property owners are using this application as a precedent. • The existing house has 1,473 square feet built with a 25 foot front yard setback; the area limitation is a lot coverage requirement as it is within the planned community. It has a 6017o lot coverage and are allowed two story structures with a 32 feet height limitation. • The lot is 5,915 square feet, which could allow a little over approximately 7,100 square feet with a two -story structure. Chairperson Selich asked about the establishment of setbacks. Ms. Temple answered this was done at the time of the approval of the Tract Map and was provided for in the Subdivision Code of the City. Continuing, she 3 INDEX Item 3 Modification 5167 Approved City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 noted that the varying setbacks exist in many areas of town, most particularly on the east side in the tracts that were developed largely in the 1970's. It is my understanding that part of the intention was to provide a variety of front yard arrangements because the houses themselves were constructed all at the some time with similar architectural styles. It could be that the changing nature of the neighborhoods and the different things that people are doing with those properties could be determined at this time as showing that the need for the variety of setbacks is less important because the architectural variation is increasing. That is a perspective that the Planning Commission could take. On this particular modification, we were dealing with a totally brand new structure that was built within the amount of floor area and coverage that it could occupy but it certainly could be placed on the site in a manner fully conforming with all of the setbacks. We did not see that there was anything particularly different about this property that would really require or necessitate a change to the setback other than the fact that the applicant prefers to place this home closer to the street than is permitted by that setback line. Public comment was opened. Robert McCarthy, builder and partner in this project noted that the setbacks vary in the street. In a letter sent to the Planning Department it was indicated that the setbacks run from 18 to 20 feet and this property is the only one at 25 • feet on this street. Continuing he noted: • Project is designed to keep the massing down; second floor is set back. • The requested setback is for the front three -car garage. • Referring to the exhibit on the wall, he noted the footprints of the garages, living room and front door on the ground floor, and the second floor elements. • The second floor is smaller than the first floor. The association has approved the square footage for the proposed house and approved moving the house forward in the setback area. • The first floor is 2,100 square feet, the second floor is 1,600 square feet and the garage is 600 square feet. • This is a project that we are building and is not going to be lived in by either Mr. Everson or myself. Martin Notland noted that his friends who live across the street from this proposed development are not in support of this proposal. He noted that, having lived in Harbor View since it was developed, it is a spacious community. The reason for this spaciousness is the setbacks. If you move this house closer it will look crowded and be the some as other areas. In closing, he noted that he also was not in support of this application. At Commission inquiry, he noted that he sent a letter to the association stating his position on this matter. Mr. McCarthy noted that there is a lot more square footage on the first floor in order to keep the second floor smaller. Many of the newer developments go straight up the front, this one does not. The option, if we changed the design, would be to make the second floor bigger making a box -like structure that 4 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 would be more massive. Commissioner Tucker noted that the setbacks range from 18 to 25 feet in the area. He asked why 18 was the right number and not 20. It appears that the average is 20 feet with the exception of the block you are in. He noted his concern of having this big a house with the least amount of setback in that neighborhood. Mr. McCarthy answered that they could be at 20, he was trying to move it forward as much as possible. Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel noted that the ability to build is actually three times what was actually built there. That whole area could be full of 4,500 square foot houses, why is it there is 607o buildable space? Ms. Temple answered that is what was done at the time when the tracts were designed and built. This particular neighborhood was built as an entry level, middle income type of home tract and was marketed as such. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern of setting precedent. The 7 -foot • encroachment request seems excessive as the whole project could be built on the existing lot in a compliant fashion. If we begin to violate the setback requirements I think it would set a precedent. In order not to let that happen, I am disinclined to approve this 7 -foot encroachment. Commissioner McDaniel noted he did not approve this application agreeing that it could be precedent setting. Chairperson Selich noted that the homeowners association is approving these larger homes. He stated that the original setback lines were set to keep the street from looking monotonous. As I drove through the neighborhood, all the new houses are individual and different, so there is not the subdivision feel. Continuing, he noted that the design of this project is a good one; a larger back yard is as important as setting a house as the front setback. He noted he was in support of the appeal, and approval of the application. Commissioner Tucker agreed with the comments of the previous speaker except that he would be in favor of a 20 -foot setback. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to overrule the decision of the Modifications Committee and allow a 5 -foot encroachment into the 25 -foot front yard setback for Modification 5167. Chairperson Selich noted for the record that the applicant had agreed to that change of encroachment. • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Commissioner Kranzley asked if the 18 -foot setback was approved could some builder later on build a box because we have already approved this setback? Ms. Temple answered that the condition is in accordance with the plans presented to you tonight. If they altered those plans, particularly with statements on the particular articulation of the building, I believe it would require a new modification application. Commissioner Kranzley clarified that if a future homeowner wants to build a house that is under the 60% coverage that now requires no modification because we have already established a new setback. Ms. Temple answered that you are not changing the setback, you are allowing an encroachment in to the established setback. That encroachment is strictly for the garage as presented tonight. Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern that the approvals in the past established that 65% of the setbacks were less than 18 feet that establishes 18 feet as a new setback. I will support a 20 -foot setback. Ayes: Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Excused: Kiser • Noes: McDaniel, Agajanian Exhibit No. 6 Findings and Conditions of Approval Modification No. 5145 • FINDINGS The 7— 5-foot encroachment of the proposed •°°',�Q building as designed will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further, the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: a. The general purpose of front yard setbacks is to preserve open space or views, security, creating a pedestrian scale relationship at the sidewalk and the preservation vehicle sight distances. The structure does not significantly impact open space due to the setback from the street and the residence is designed in manner as to be consistent with the adjacent properties. b. The encroachment of the residence does not negatively impact the abutting pedestrian sidewalks due to the fact that the request is constant with the setbacks of other properties on the street and the area in general. The setback will be consistent and comparable to INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 the other properties on the street and will have no effect upon vehicle sight distances. CONDITIONS 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, drawings and photographs dated December 19, 2000. Except that the building as proposed shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from the front properly line. 2. This Modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. The property owner shall obtain all applicable permits for the construction of the proposed single family residence. SUBJECT: Ahr /Ampersand Signs, Inc. on behalf of The Irvine Company • 810 -984 Avocado Avenue • PA2001 -003 (MOD 2001 -003) Modification of the Planned Community District regulations to allow 30 -inch high letters for the existing identification sign for Corona del Mar Plaza where the Planned Community District regulations limit the height to 24 inches. The existing identification sign is comprised of 18 -inch high letters. Mr. Campbell noted that this application had been called up by Commissioner Kiser because of his concern of the sign size approved was too large. This is an existing identification sign that faces MacArthur Boulevard that does not provide for a significant amount of site distance and visibility. The exisitng sign has 18 inch high letters and the applicant is proposing to take those down and replace them with 30 inch high letters. Presenting a slide demonstration he noted the following: • Driveway off MacArthur Boulevard, with existing signed wall. • Location is difficult with the current vegetation. • Application will include lighting for the sign with halo lettering styles. • Other signs in the neighborhood depicting size and how they fit on their buildings. The sizes range in size from 30 inches to 21 inches high. • Applicant has a rendering that compares the two sizes of the lettering. Public comment was opened. INDEX Item 4 PA2001 -003 (MOD2001 -003) Denied City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Chairperson Selich noted for the record that Commissioner Kiser had contacted him regarding this item and expressed his concerns as stated by Mr. Campbell. Rob Clark, representing Ahr /Ampersand Signs 350 Duroko Ave., Long Beach presented a couple of drawings. Noel Davies, 942 Dayton Way noted that the logo presented for this project is a slender letter spaced for apart to create a more elegant look to the sign. In looking at the readability of the sign, it was determined that it was not large enough to get people to recognize the entry to the project and to negotiate to the right lane to get into the driveway. Looking at the drawings and photographs shown previously, the existing sign is extremely small and not functioning as it should. If this was a large blocky type letter it would have a concern with the size, however, it is a very thin lettering. It is our intent to use this style but push the size up so that people passing by can see the sign and recognize that the project is there. The sign is proposed to have a halo inside. In the evening it will be backlit and will not put out a lot of light. The typeface style is the same as the existing; it is proposed only to be larger. Commissioner Agajanian asked what was going to be done about the visibility issue, as most of the sign can not be seen by southbound traffic on MacArthur. He was answered that there will be some maintenance on the trees to mitigate . that problem. Mr. Davies commented that from a greater distance back with the larger lettering, motorists would know that something is coming up. There needs to be some tree maintenance to allow for visibility. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker commented that the existing sign is out of scale for that wall. It is not going to be a big sign considering the location on the wall and not terribly intrusive on the street whereas some of the signs shown in the slide presentation along Coast Highway are 30 inches right on the street. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to sustain the action of the Modifications Committee and approve PA 20001 -003 MOD 2001 -003). Commissioner McDaniel, clarifying that the motion meant to put 30 -inch letters there, stated that he did not see where that solved anything. You can only see the letters C, O and R as you come down. I am not convinced that it solves anything. I would just as soon leave it alone. Looking at it from all the different directions, 50 -inch letters would not solve the problem. It is not the lettering; there is something else wrong. Changing the sign does not resolve the problem. Commissioner Gifford noted that it is well within the PC regulations that exist currently to have 24 inch letters, I don't see the benefit of going to 30 inches as • 8 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 really that is being something that is required. I understand that may be desirable from the management company's point of view, but my conclusion is that it is not necessary. Substitute motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to overturn the decision of the Modification Committee and deny the modification. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the substitute motion. He stated that driving by to check this signage out, his biggest problem was not so much the landscaping that got in the way of seeing the sign, it was the cars ahead of him. He simply could not see the sign until he was well past the exit area and even then, the landscaping blocked it. I am not sure this is a sign letter size issue, but I have no problem allowing the 24 -inch letters as I think the sign could be better proportioned. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: Tucker Excused: Kiser Exhibit No. 2 Findings for Denial • The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed sign will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood for the following reasons: a) The proposed sign is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Newport Village Planned Community, which limits lettering to 24 inches in height. b) No evidence has been identified to indicate that a sign comprised of 24- inch high letters is less effective than the proposed 30 -inch letters. The lettering style can be changed to a thicker letter, which would achieve the applicant's objective of increasing the visibility of the sign. C) The proposed 30 -inch high letters do not show restraint and are excessive and aesthetically unappealing due to their size. xss SUBJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Cont'd from 02 /08/2001) 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive • Amendment No. 909 • Lot Line Adjustment 2000 -13 Establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting Map along Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish an existing duplex, adjust the existing lot configuration creating two lots facing Bayside Drive and the construction of two • duplexes. 9 INDEX Item 5 A 909 LLA 2000 -13 Recommended for approval City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Mr. Campbell noted that he had sent a late fax to all of the Commissioners with the revised drawings prepared by the architect showing the proposed buildings on the lot. Continuing, he reported that there was a meeting between the applicant and the residents. Transportation /Development Services Manager stated that one of the topics not directly connected with the application is that of access. There has been a tremendous amount of activity since the last meeting between the property owners and myself interacting with various departments over this issue. There are clearly some conflicting ideas on the amount of access and how it might be provided. Last summer, the Publics Works Director met with Mr. Welton at the site and walked the site and gave him what he felt was the amount of passive open space that could be infringed upon with access. The plans that have been submitted go considerably beyond that and may have been drawn up in an attempt to satisfy concerns of the Fire Department. Because the structure is more than 150 feet from a public street, typically that department would want a minimum of a 20 -foot access and a turn around. The Fire Department is suggesting that in lieu of a turn around the buildings could sprinklered. The 20- foot access could partially be provided for in the park and partially in private property if the setback were greater. Additionally, the General Services Department, who has maintained that open space area, had written to the • Public Works Director two memos recommending that this approach to access be avoided and some other system identified, preferably accessing off Goldenrod from above. One of the outcomes of the meeting last week was an agreement between the property owners and adjacent neighbors that would call for a brand new driveway to be constructed to these two properties via across the open space from Bayside Drive. This would have significant impacts on the open space and would require building a driveway that would require a grading of nearly 150 -foot section that would rise to 5 feet. It would create a mound in the open space area that is currently flat and has a pedestrian pathway that is in constant use. The Public Works Department has not resolved the best approach to access and, therefor, the item that was going to be before the City Council next week has been pulled from the agenda to allow staff more time for review of the various options and have further discussions with the owner and architect. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Edmonton noted that there has been nothing approved by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Director confirmed that mature trees would be impacted and that the access should not extend beyond the relatively beyond the flat section that is front of the property now. We had seen site plan proposals on earlier submittals by the architect that appeared to more closely correspond to those criteria, although it was unusual and required the garages to be at an angle to the house so that they could be entered from a narrower driveway. It was only at the last meeting that I began to see these revised drawings that showed a much greater encroachment into the open space area. 40 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Chairperson Selich noted that its basic to have the access issue worked out prior to the lot line adjustment considerations. Mr. Edmonston noted his concern with the conflicting requests from groups like the Fire Department. Their desire to have 20 feet is met on private property so in this case, that would interface with the request you have for the 4-foot setback. I realize it puts you in a tough position and we've spent some time discussing with staff a better way to do this and what order these approvals ought to be processed. It is potential the Planning Commission could approve this and the City Council may or may not approve the access because that is their issue to resolve. They will probably have different opinions from different departments and we are trying to work to resolve them. Commissioner Tucker asked if the applicant proposed anything different than what was proposed several months ago on the access. Mr. Edmonston answered that different people in Public Works had different contacts with the applicant. I had seen other plans prior to the ones two weeks ago that you had that were different. I did not realize the full extent of the impact of those revised plans until subsequent to the meeting when I was able to talk with representatives from other departments. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston stated that the Public Works Directors issue is the extent to which the encroachment permit would take out some vegetation. He had met Mr. Welton on site, walked the area and out onto the Goldenrod footbridge and looked down on the site. The concept of that meeting was to discuss the feasibility of re- orienting the lots as it is now proposed. At that time, the Public Works Director indicated to Mr. Welton that the two criteria he had was not impact any more onto the park in terms of having to fill any additional park land area nor to remove any mature trees. So, there was an intermediate plan that saved one mature free but that was then impinging on the twenty -foot area that the Fire Department was looking for. There was another plan that I first saw two weeks ago that showed that tree removed and that would be something to be addressed and the value of that tree and /or any replacement trees in the encroachment agreement. Commissioner Tucker clarified that the applicant came forth with a proposal that was consistent with what the Public Works Director had requested and then when the plan got to the Fire Department they did not agree with what the Public Works Director had suggested. Mr. Edmonton answered that there may have been more steps than that because the copy of a plan shows an island around the tree to protect it and did show the full extent of encroachment that is on the plan you saw the last time. Somewhere along the line between the original plan we saw with a narrower driveway, that access area has grown. It may have grown to address the applicant's issues and some of the changes may have been to address some of . the issues of the Fire Department. 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Commissioner Tucker noted that we do not know whether the applicant was told to make the area larger in order to get access into the garages or carports. Mr. Edmonston answered that when subsequent plans were submitted, staff was not informed that the submitted plan was contrary to what the Public Works Director had indicated to the applicant very early on in the project. tt may have gone to other staff people who were not aware there was an issue. Commissioner Agajanian asked if the possibility of reconfiguring those three parcels was an option looked at? Staff answered that it was an issue that was discussed, but it wasn't something that the applicant is proposing. Ms. Temple noted that there is another area along Bayside Drive where three lots fronting towards Bayside with access from the hillside above was implemented a very long time ago with a lot of cross easements, etc. That type of solution has been done and could be investigated by the applicant and his architect. The only implication that I would observe is that solution will tend to force more of the structure down on the slope and towards Bayside Drive because the upper area would be reserved for some type of a motor court yard. Chairperson Selich noted that he had received a fax from the architect who stated that they had studied those altematves. He then asked about the Encroachment Agreement and this item. Mr. Edmonston noted that the applicant had requested with two encroachment agreements, one for the extension of the alley that would serve the uphill lot of the adjacent project, and this encroachment off the parkway area along Bayside. Public Works is processing those two agreements with draft reports and a Council Memo prepared for this upcoming Council meeting. Friday of last week it came to my attention that there were these issues from other departments. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Selich stated to the applicant that this meeting had been continued so that he could meet with the neighbors, would you report on that and comment on the access issue. Mr. Eric Welton, applicant stated that a good portion of the meeting did involve access alternatives. Among those mentioned previously, turning three of the lots sideways and extending Goldenrod was one we looked at early on. However, as you are aware there is a stairway adjacent to the footbridge. That would be removed and would be a major disruption due to the hillside. My recollection of the meeting with Don Webb when we walked the property, his admonition was • centered on not moving the footpath that is at the toe of the slope adjacent to 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 the parkland. I thought it was clear during that discussion that there would be an extension of the driveway to whatever minimum extent would be required to facilitate access into the garages down below. Creating three lots would cause more traffic. This is a public access way and there is no exclusive control over it. There are seven dwelling units to be served by this road and at the conclusion of this project there will be nine. We are talking about a net increase of two units. I met with the neighbors but there was no mutual agreement. They asked about screening the retention wall at the end of the upper alley extension and I am willing to talk to Mr. Webb. As to the access, the angled parking referred to by Mr. Edmonston didn't work for a variety of reasons. In order to minimize the grading of the site, we only took as much in back or in front of the project as was necessary to meet the back up and Fire Department requirements. The enlargements from some original versions were to accommodate those requirements. Chairperson Selich noted that it was stated that if the project was moved back, you would not need the four foot encroachment and the encroachment would be less into the Bayside Drive right of way. What constraints are you faced with there? Andrew Goetz, architect for the project answered if the recommendation was to have a greater setback versus the three -foot side yard setback, which simply • would mean we would have to dig deeper into the hill. If we would have taken the three lots and had tandem, which is typical in Corona del Mar, we would have gone 40 feet into the hill resulting in 22 -25 foot high retaining walls. Mr. Welton stated that access is a major concern. Retaining walls of those proportions would also create aesthetic issues as well. I understand your dilemma with the access question remaining open, I would suggest that if you were to act on this tonight with an approval, it would then fall in the lap of City Council. We would have to demonstrate to them that we have satisfied the access issues, but I am not sure how they relate to the lot re- configuration. Chairperson Selich asked how can we address a lot line adjustment when the access is not resolved. That is a basic component to a lot line adjustment as there is. Chris Taylor noted a letter that he faxed to the Planning Commission and noted: • Going from 7 to 9 units is a 29% increase for that access way. • Direct access off Bayside is not ideal but is acceptable by people who are most impacted. • Lowering the pad grade so that it is closer to the park would have less an impact. • It is either park and no more of it should be given away to exclusive use, which would be an indicator to do a lot merger, or that it is parkway and direct access. Pick one or the other. • Remain opposed to this application as it is. 0 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 INDEX Chris Cushman, 2700 Bayside Drive noted: Direct access from Bayside Drive was agreed upon by the neighbors and the applicant and should be one of the alternatives to be more strongly considered. • Footbridge on Goldenrod has many chips in the stairs and is uneven; the retaining wood and poles are not safe and it is the stairway that was asked to be fixed. • Security and safety are being loss by the current residents. • 1 will lose 15% of the adjacent park view if this proposed driveway is extending. • Construction pad will degregate my pad with the heavy construction equipment traversing across the way. • The Fernleaf project construction across the street directly impacted my income as I work out of my house. • 1 am losing value. Susan Caro, 2710 Bayside Drive thanked the Planning Commission to meet with the applicant to learn more about the project. At the meeting held by the applicant she noted that this project is eight condominiums to be built at the same time. She then presented her notes after making several comments similar to previous testimony. • Lisa Cushman, 2700 Bayside Drive noted similar opposition as previously stated. Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel asked what are we actually voting on tonight, are there issues that need to be dealt with prior to a vote? I met with the applicant and I have received faxes from some of the others. I understand what the project is, but I am not sure what the vote is going to be on. Chairperson Selich stated that the issue is that the properly has legal access because it fronts on the right of way of Bayside Drive. The difficulty is that it takes an encroachment agreement to get all of the driveway and circulation aspects taken care of. What the applicant is desirous of is that we take our action on this and move the item on to Council and let the Council work out the final details with the Public Works Department. I have mixed feelings on that myself because I certainly would not be in favor of a new and separate access point off Bayside Drive; it should take access from the existing drive. It is much better to have a continuation of that access point than to create a separate access off Bayside Drive. It sounds like the Public Works department is in concurrence with that position. It is a matter of where else this whole access issue may go in front of the Council and whether working out the final details of that access is something that we should do at this level or allow it to go on to the Council for them to work out. The thing that is disturbing to me about this application is that I know that it has been going on for a long time. Mr. Welton has been following the procedures and provisions of the Zoning Code and filed the proper applications. This • application has been in the works since October 11, 2000. 1 have a favorable 14 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 INDEX position on the lot line adjustment. I am in favor of a condition that the exhibits submitted to us tonight be attached as part of the application approval and would be in favor of an approval on that basis. I don't like the idea of sending this on with the access issue not quite tied up, but in deference to the time the applicant has spent processing this application, I would be in favor of moving this on to Council and letting Council make the final resolution on the access issue. Commissioner Tucker agreed with the previous comments adding that a lot merger is not a fair resolution. Commissioner Agajanion noted his agreement with previous statements adding his concern of direct access off Bayside Drive. He commented that three lots of 90 by 40 solution would be the best possible approach from a planning perspective and for the benefit of the City. That would allow access off the alley and off Goldenrod for all three lots. I agree that we should move this forward to Council, but I prefer a merger over this current proposal. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the best idea is to initiate merger proceedings. I am concerned with the lack of direction to the issue of access. The Planning Commission first saw this two weeks ago and we have questions again that have been brought up tonight and need to be answered before we vote on this item. • Chairperson Selich stated that other than what the extent of the encroachment is going to be in Bayside Drive he is satisfied with the project if we attach some additional conditions to it. If we approve this with the recommendation to Council that the encroachment into Bayside Drive be minimized as much as possible taking into consideration the concerns of the Public Works and Fire Departments, I don't see what we gain by continuing this item. It would be unfair to the applicant to continue it. In the end Public Works and Fire Department criteria will probably overrule any of our aesthetic concerns. Chairperson Selich noted that the Assistant City Attorney has advised us that we can condition this project so far as it conforms to building and zoning regulations and to the degree that the Commissioners feel that adding the plans to the conditions satisfy those regulations then it can be so conditioned. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to deny this project and recommend that City Council direct staff to initiate merger proceedings. Substitute Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Amendment 909 and Lot Line Adjustment 2000 -13 with the findings and conditions as recommended by staff with the inclusion of the site plan and elevations submitted this evening and titled LI, PW -1, A -2, A -2a, and A -3 be adhered to as a condition of approval. The recommendation to the City Council will also incorporate a recommendation that in approving the encroachment agreement that any encroachment into the landscaped parkway area on Bayside Drive be minimal. 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 INDEX Ms. Temple asked to be added to the motion that since we have not done a full zoning plan review of these new plans, that also to the extent that they are in compliance with Title 20. Chairperson Selich agreed to add that to the substitute motion. Ayes: McDaniel, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: Agajonian, Kranzley Excused: Kiser Findings and Conditions of Approval Amendment No. 909 8 Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013 Findings: 1. The site is designated for two- family residential uses by both the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. This designation permit the construction of a single family or a duplex on each legal lot. The project will result in the construction of two duplexes on the project site in conformance with density requirements. • 2. The project site is comprised of two legal lots within the Corona Del Mar Tract. In 1981, the boundary between the two lots was adjusted through the recordation of N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1. The resulting lots are legal lots and are presently built upon, and therefore buildable. 3. The land taken from each lot will be added to the adjacent parcel and no additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment. 4. The parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all applicable zoning regulations, and that there will be no change in the land use, density, or intensity on the property. The lots are exempt from the minimum area requirements of Title 20 pursuant to Section 19.08.050 of the Municipal Code as a nonconforming lot may be adjusted provided that the lots are no smaller than the original lots of a final map that created the nonconforming lots. The two original lots of the CDM Tract are both 30 feet wide by 118 feet deep which is 3,540 square feet. Each of the two proposed lots will be 59 feet wide by 60 feet deep and 3,540 square feet. Several conditions of approval have been required which will ensure minimum vehicular access require pursuant to the Zoning Code is be provided 5. The lot line adjustment results in the need for additional improvements for vehicular access. Conditions of approval have been included that will ensure that the driveway is provided in accordance with applicable standards. 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 6. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act Implementing Guidelines. This exemption permits the construction of up to three single - family dwellings or up to 10,000 square feet of commercial structures. The project consists of two residential units. Amendment No. 909 establishes a 4 -foot front yard setback for the reconfigured lots associated with Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013. The suggested setback is very similar to the setbacks of 2700, 2706 & 2710 Bayside Drive which use the same access driveway. The suggested setback will not create a larger building than what a typical CDM lot would allow. Using the 20 -foot default setback standard would limit the development of the subject lots unreasonably and create units are not typical of the area. These facts suggest that the 4 -foot front yard setback reasonable. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Lot Line Adjustment and site plan dated February 8, 2001. 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department standards. 3. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 4. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the driveway access. 5. Each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems. 6. The final design of the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Planning Department and Traffic Engineer. 7. The proposed driveway shall be designed so that existing trees shall not be disturbed except as required by the Fire Department and that the slope adjacent to the City Park is not disturbed. 8. The developer shall execute an encroachment agreement with the City of Newport Beach to guarantee maintenance of the proposed driveway extension in the city park. The agreement will require the owner to maintain the nonstandard improvements and protect the City from liability for injuries 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 caused because of the existence of the proposed improvements. The encroachment agreement shall be reviewed in accordance with all applicable procedures and requirements and shall be recorded prior to the recordation of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013. A drainage and utility plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the drainage and utility plan or as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and or movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the City park except where the driveway extension proposed. 1 l The site plan and elevations submitted this evening and tiffed L1, PW -1, A -2, A- la and A -3 are adhered to as a condition of approval to the extent that they are in compliance with riNe 20. The recommendation will also incorporate that in approving the encroachment agreement that any encroachment into the landscaped parkway area on Bayside Drive be minimized to the maximum extent. UBS JECT: Proposed Development Plan Review Procedures Initiation of an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to establish procedures for development plan review. Information on development review procedures in other California cities. Following a five - minute break the Planning Commission meeting was resumed. Senior Planner Patrick Alford gave a brief summary of the staff report. He stated that there was additional information provided tonight based on Commissioner Kranzleys request to see similar development review procedures in other coastal cities in California. Chairperson Selich suggested that the discussion be of the concerns with the major concepts and then actually get into the wording of the proposed ordinance as appropriate and necessary. 0 18 INDEX Item 6 Continued to 03/22/2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Commissioner Tucker noted his concerns about: • Applicability of CEQA to projects where they are not applicable now. • Would not support putting applicants through any more than they do now with the exception of substantial projects i.e., The Shores. • Comments on text change - at what level do we jump in? I would look at a 2,500 square foot expansions, or 50% of an existing floor area, etc. He indicated that he would like to have a discussion on the level concept. • He then asked the City Attorney if the Planning Commission could specify that the review is not a discretionary review for CEQA purposes and, if it were deemed to be, then these provisions would not apply to the project., • He then expressed his concern of telling the public about a discretionary review and the ramifications. Commissioner Kranzley noted his concerns about: • Design review with regard to aesthetics, quality and compatibility. • Planning Commission is not qualified to make determinations regarding styles, designs, colors, etc. • We are asked to do a lot of things as citizens by the City Council with the advice of the planning and legal staff to help us make these decisions. • The City does not have the professional help. Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood noted that she had worked in a city that had design review with no one on staff who had any formal architectural or landscape architecture training. Those staff members learned those things so that they could do the review that was required and write the staff report. We did, in that case, have an architectural commission and by code it had three of the seven members as design professionals. Commissioner Krardey continued by noting for discussion a suggestion that there be a committee, similar to the Modifications Committee, that is a design review committee to be comprised of professional and staff members who will review projects. The decision of this new committee could be subject to appeal or call up to the Planning Commission. One thought would be to apply a higher threshold and look at the larger projects rather than the ten units. If it works then the threshold could be lowered. Commissioner Gifford noted her concerns about: • Adding a new residential threshold of 5,000 square feet for new construction as a general concept is too broad. • There are some instances where we should have some square footage limit. i.e., tonight's project for Port Weybridge. • 1 suggest that whatever the number be it would be in the case of a certain size lot. Or, if there are certain parts of the city where we feel that over X number of square feet would come in. • 1 object to having this completely exempt a single family residential. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concerns: • Supports this development plan proposal. 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Any additional project review would be beneficial. Commissioner McDaniel noted he hates design review based on his past personal experience. He is not opposed to having some sort of control over the larger construction items. He noted that he is in agreement with starting at the top to see if that is an answer. Chairperson Selich noted: • This is not design review. • As a developer, he stated that he has never developed without some type of development plan review procedure that is tied into either a use permit, shopping center approvals, apartment complex and or condominium complex. Generally, the only things that may be exempt are small residential projects, duplexes, triplexes and single family homes that are not part of a planned community. • Planned communities usually have development plan review procedures built into them. • This process would bring the City up to contemporary standards. • 1 don't believe that we need to have design professionals. I think that staff training is sufficient; this is just another part of what is being done. • 1 would not want a process that just because of the development plan review puts more applicants subject to CEQA. Maybe the solution is not so much in the design guidelines, but that we go back and look at what projects require discretionary approvals and approach it from that direction, i.e., the shopping center that is going in at the Speedway restaurant. • We need to look at the code and reach a level of comfort on the CEQA compliance issue. Ms. Temple noted that in regard to the CEQA review it is of great importance to identify the thresholds of projects that you feel you want to put under this new scrutiny, looking at those considerations in relationship to CEQA exemptions, and the possibility for environmental affects because most of those projects might be at or near the exempt category anyway. Hearing what your desires are, being willing to use greater application of the general rule exemption is also a possibility for the city to build in some manner into the procedural process of this requirement. If the project clearly would not have any environmental affect, its CEQA process is likely to be modest at best. Weighing those CEQA issues in relation to the thresholds is something that you might want to investigate as well. Chairperson Selich noted that if we are going to do a CEQA review we should identify it in the Zoning Code as a project that is clearly discretionary and put it under CEQA review and not look at trying to get a CEQA review through a design review procedure. (he then presented examples) Commissioner Tucker added that it is not the ones that are categorically exempt or otherwise exempt that 1 am worried about, it is the ones that aren't exempt and wouldn't be otherwise exempt. If they are exempt we haven't exposed 20 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 somebody to something that they would not have otherwise been exposed to. Ms. Temple agreed and suggested looking at the thresholds, as it could be that because of the scale of the projects, they should be subject to CEQA anyway. I believe that through this development plan process it is your intention to impose conditions of approval, that is discretion and that means it is not a ministerial project. Chairperson Selich noted that on the issue of thresholds, we ought to look at where we have the most need for development plan review. I think it is generally on the non - residential projects and in large residential projects. Getting into single family homes worries me, irrespective of the size. I know that is going to continue to be an issue as we get into these neighborhoods such as this transition in Harbor View Homes. There are two levels here, one is you have areas like Harbor View where there is an association with an architecture review board that is knowingly changing the character in the neighborhood and two, getting into areas like Newport Heights or the Peninsula that don't have homeowners association where we have the large home issues. I am not sure that is something I am really prepared to tackle at this point in time within the context of these regulations. Where do we set the threshold, is 3 too low or should it be higher? My own basis historically, if I were to draw the threshold down that low I would tend to go more towards a four -plex or larger. I would still feel more comfortable with the larger residential units, whether ten units or whatever. Usually these smaller projects are being done in an area that is already subdivided and the land character is established as opposed to something like the Shores Apartment project of about 8.5 acres was pretty large. Chairperson Selich noted the following: • Expansion of local government bureacracy. • Development plan review procedures are incorporated in Zoning Code. • Some communities have set up design and architecture review boards, some broader than others. • Personal experiences on a design review board. Commissioner Tucker noted he supports a development plan review because the Planning Commission has had projects to review and had no idea what they looked like. No one had a duty to submit anything for the review. The office building came in for a variance that was a mid 70's style cube and the question I asked is what is it going to look like? That is what I would like to have, a development plan review process so that we can at least take a look at the project. I do not want professionals on the review committee, that is a mistake in my mind. Agreeing with the Chairman, he noted that they should not get involved with single family residences. Commissioner Gifford noted the following: • Triplexes or four - plexes on the Peninsula on small lots and close together, my sense is those are the very projects that tend to be builder designed. The land is expensive and everyone wants to utilize it to the max. You tend to get 21 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 the huge bulk and mass with minimum articulation. Buildings that are big boxes have a huge impact in communities like the Peninsula by the fact that you never have big setbacks or a lot of landscaping to soften the appearance. My view is that we are not triggering CEQA review where it would otherwise be unnecessary, we are not trying to get into people's hearts, minds and dreams and tell them they should do contemporary and not an Italian villa. We are talking about whatever style they choose that it takes into consideration the concept of mass, bulk and articulation. I would like to look at the idea of carefully selected thresholds for smaller projects. Chairperson Selich noted his agreement with the intent on these lots but stated this should be done through the development plan regulations and set our zoning standards so that we do not end up with the big boxes. There are criteria for those lots to prevent that from happening. Commissioner Gifford suggested that the Planning Commission submit in writing their conflicts, deadlines, word changes and any other details regarding the Ordinance to staff. Ms. Temple added whether they be broad and general that we would need to further analyze in the staff report or specific wording concerns we can incorporate everything and bring this back for another hearing and advertise it to the public. Chairperson Selich suggested that this is a radical and bold approach. In deference to the Council rather than the Commission initiating the Zoning Code change, I suggest that when we get the proposed amendment into the best shape possible to not advertise it for public hearing but that we send it to Council along with a report on why we are doing it and recommend that they initiate the resolution of intent and let it be their call. The Council would probably appreciate that a little more rather than the Planning Commission taking the initiative. Commissioner Tucker noted his agreement with the previous statements. Ms. Temple clarified: • Highlights of major issues • Commissioners who have more detailed comments or wording issues will provide those to staff • Staff will go ahead and make more editing type changes to the draft ordinance and bring back to the Commission. • Schedule this item for an initiation discussion at City Council. • 22 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 SUBJECT: Corona del Mar Review and approve letter of support for the proposed plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve letter of support. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Excused: Kiser ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the last meeting of the Council the appeal on the Starbucks, the condition that required the change to the front of the building was eliminated and the parking condition was modified; the appeal on the Buzz Use Permit revocation was referred back to the Planning Commission and is held in abeyance pending consideration of a new application for the property. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan program - the committee is close to making a recommendation to the City Council. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. I.) Status report on Planning Commission request - the Main Street fichus trees are being studied by a consultant with further direction from staff. g.) Project status - Ms. Clauson provided a copy of a summary of the newer adopted Conflict of Interest regulations dealt with by the Planning Commissioners on a regular basis. Commissioner Gifford noted that she has been receiving the blue cards of notice quite regularly. h.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioners McDaniel, Kranzley and Gifford asked to be excused from the meeting on March 22nd Commissioner Tucker noted he would be late for the meeting of March Bm, Sk 23 INDEX Item 7 Corona del Mar Vision 2004 Plan Discussion Item only Additional Business 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 INDEX ADJOURNMENT: 10:05 p.m. I Adjournment STEVEN KISER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 24