Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/2008CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes December 4 2008 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren— Commissioners McDaniel and Hillgren were excused. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Traffic Engineer Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on November 26, 2008. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of November 20, 2008. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Approved Commissioner Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter and Toerge Noes: None Excused: McDaniel and Hillgren OBJECT: Big Canyon (PA2007 -210) ITEM NO. 2 The project site is located on the north side of Big Canyon Drive, PA2007 -210 between the Rue Biarritz and Rue Villars. Recommended Request to develop a single family dwelling on a portion of the Big Canyon for approval golf course, which includes a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Planned Community Development Plan, and Parcel Map. Area that is generally bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Birch Street. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/04/2008 Russell Bunim gave an overview of the staff report adding there are two easements on site that will remain clear of development. At Commission inquiry, staff noted: • The site is not on a knoll and discussed the placement of the project. • There had been one fill project on the site in 2006 that was a City project done under City management; no evidence of hazard material deposited; temporary roadway placed on site as part of a 2006 project is not an official easement; • During the process of building, coring samples will be done and if something is discovered to be a contaminant, it will be addressed at that time; • Some of the soil will be removed and replaced on the site; • Big Canyon is a private street and the project site has access that is required as part of Title 19 Subdivision Code; • Annexation into an association is not a City matter. Larry Tucker, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project: • An anonymous letter was mailed to all residents in August about the proposal; • Regarding the creation of the only residential driveway onto Big Canyon Drive, the developer of Big Canyon Planned Community (The Irvine Company) has written a letter of support to the City for the proposal; • Club's proposal uses an easement that has existed for thirty -four years; • Location of the lot is in a lightly traveled area; • No impact on Big Canyon Drive from the lot as the City's trip generation rates would be 10 to 12 ADTs; • Location of the driveway does not present any danger; • City staff has required that the user of the lot not back out onto Big Canyon Drive; • Club has many curb cuts on Big Canyon Drive for its maintenance vehicles, which are used continually all day, along with regular vehicular traffic; an additional curb cut will have very little effect on Big Canyon Drive; • Site has had some authorized discard of construction debris over the years and during the City's sewer replacement project; the Club has put minor amounts of vegetation in there as well as the excess soils from its own operations; the site has never been used as a'dump'; • Club will conduct an extensive soils investigation required by a map condition to determine the work needed to be done to create a buildable pad if this proposal is accepted; • There is no evidence that the site houses hazardous material whether brought into Big Canyon or from Big Canyon; • CEQA Guidelines outline reasonable assumptions; • Mitigated Negative Declaration recognizes soils import and export that can be accomplished without a significant environmental impact; no substantial evidence is in the record to the contrary; Page 2 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/04/2008 however, in their letter, they only; one • The granting of this approval would not preclude the Commission from denying any subsequent similar request; • This is the only property the club owns that fronts Big Canyon Drive that is not part of the Club's golf course; • There is no limitation on the ingress /egress easements access to the club house and use of the roads for maintenance; • The building pad on the lot is 240 feet from the home at 22 Rue Villars and the vegetation will afford privacy; • The land is not designated as open space under the General Plan and there has been no commitment by the Club or predecessors to dedicate it as open space; • The Club has the right to use the property anyway it sees fit as long as it is approved by the City; • Parking for the lot will have an additional 4 parking spaces in addition to the 2 required by the Planned Community Development Plan standards; • There will be parking on the lot for construction vehicles during the project; • There is support for the Club's project from the Canyon Crest HOA in Big Canyon Planned Community. • He then provided a copy of the referenced letter for the Commission and staff. Commissioner Unsworth, referencing the conceptual site plan, asked for and received clarification. Public comment was opened. Mr. W. Layman, local resident, noted his support of the project stating there will be no problem with the curb cut for the proposed residential structure. Mr. G. Brooks, local resident, as president of Canyon Crest Community Association noted their support of this project and is an excellent land use for the club. This proposed residence would probably come into their association as it is close in proximity. There has been no official attempt at this point; however, all members would have a say through the board. Roland Osgood, local resident, noted his support of this project, it will create more property tax instead of remaining a vacant lot. Dr. Deborah McWilliams, local resident, noted she is not in support of the project due to quality of life issues such as views, noise, property values and soils in the area due to erosion problems. She asked that there be a mitigation measure requiring some additional testing to be done to evaluate the erosion that is taking place along that side. Terry Hackett, local resident, noted his support of the project stating any soils problem will be found out with the core samplina to be done: the oroiect will Page 3 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/04/2008 be included in an association; traffic is not problematic; there is no reason not to approve the application. Mary Jean Simpkins, local resident, noted her support of the project and asked about the height and lot size of the proposed project. Mike Levin's, contractor for 11 Rue Biarritz, noted the unknown factors associated with this proposed project and asked that the owners receive pertinent information. He asked if motor homes or trailers would be allowed to park on that proposed residential site as well as the height of the trees that would interfere with views. William Mauerhan, local resident, noted the slope in question and asked that the soils engineers look at it and make recommendations. He supports the development and feels there would be no traffic impacts. Gary Singer, local resident, noted this will be an improvement for the community as currently it is bare land. Tom Foster, local resident, noted his support of the project for similar reasons as stated. He noted that trucks are constantly coming into the area as homes are remodeled. Karen Batson, local resident, noted her support of the proposal as it is a wonderful addition to the community. Todd Meyer, local resident, noted his support of the proposal for similarly stated reasons adding there will be no detriment to the value or enjoyment of his property. Kevin Hayes, local resident, noted his support of the proposal for similarly stated reasons. In viewing the lot, unless you were to build a structure of 8 stories or greater, it wouldn't encroach on views. He expressed support for a covenant stating the building should be less then 7 stories. This will be one of the premium new lots in Big Canyon with new construction and will enhance the surrounding values. Dwight Ryan, local resident, noted his support of the project. As president of the Canyon Hills Homeowners Association the board members have discussed this project and agree to the proposal. Jan Vandersloot, local resident, spoke on behalf of SPON noting: *The concern of converting park space into residential space and wonders if that is going to be mitigated. *There are two areas of biological significance on the site. One is the steep slope area called mixed sage plant community and another area called Southern Willow Scrub. This is a significant natural plant community and ought to be recognized as such in the MND and there should be mitigation directed to it, which there is not. The MND needs to address better the Southern Willow Scrub and how it fits in Page 4 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/04/2008 the California natural diversity database. *There could be a condition where the plant material on the steep slope portion will not be removed. Bernie Rome, local resident, noted: • Over the years several of the lakes in Big Canyon area have been filled in by the country club for their benefit; • The land that the proposed project is to be on was at one time a lake and now we are being asked to use that property for a house for money to be used by the club; • Several residents have asked if there are going to be more houses built bedside this one; • If this is the only piece of property to be developed, put it in writing; • If this is approved, it should have a caveat that this is a one -time approval that is attached to an association and has guidelines for architectural control; Michael Brewer, local resident, noted his support of the Club's proposal. Frank Hughes stated he purchased his property over thirty years ago. At that time, he was assured there would be no residential use on the golf course. The CCR's require that an annexation have approval of 213 vote of the association. The membership of Canyon Crest should have a vote on this matter. The issue of dirt on the streets to date has not been addressed. Now with more trucks bringing in more dirt. The site is a "dump ". The applicant needs to address the issue of the dirt removal and fill and truck haul route to be used. Jerry Nourse, local resident, noted there is no issue of egress /ingress; over time, many more homes will be re -built so the dirt haul is not an issue and this should not be assigned to this applicant alone. Sonja Doder, local resident, stated she has remodeled her house twice in the past using the CCR's and City regulations. We had been told that there was to be no parking off Big Canyon as well as no egress off Big Canyon; however, the Club has been given a °special dispensation ". Other residents have asked for this "dispensation ", but have been refused. How is this going to be stopped? Russell Bunim answered some of the comments: • Height requirement is measured from existing natural grade and the proposed project will be 32 feet above grade. • Trailers and RV's — the City has no restriction for parking vehicles on site. • The Big Canyon Planned Community has setbacks which are twenty feet along the front setback and five feet along the sides and ten feet in the rear. • Southern Willow Scrub and Coastal Sage Scrub issues were addressed in the Biology Report. There is a mitigation measure included that Page 5 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/04/2008 Larry Tucker added: • Extensive discussions were done both with the master association, which own the spine street and the guard gates and the sub association, Canyon Crest. • There will be either a deed covenant or annexation. If there is no annexation, the deed covenant will be with the buyer and it will have a series of restrictions. • A deed restriction would be vested by the Club who in turn would assign the rights to enforce the deed restrictions to the master association. Commissioner Hawkins noted that the annexation would be the better way to handle all the issues that have been brought up. Discussion continued on dues, assessments, membership issues, etc. Mr. Harp stated that a condition can be added to address the issue of having a covenant or agreement in place. Mr. Tucker continued: • Building area on the plan does not include the slopes. • There is no development near the 18 Rue Villars unit so there will be no slope analyzing except to the extent the club has independent of this proposed lot. • This is not park space and is not public. It is private property. • The biologist was hired and came up with their opinions regarding the scrubs. • A covenant not to build more houses - this is the only area adjacent to Big Canyon Drive that is not used as part of the golf course. Restriction affects values and value affects how much can be borrowed against a property. We would not want this as an additional condition as it is not fair to bind something in the future. • The Negative Declaration has covered the haul trucks; how much material will be removed is unknown at this time. There will be a series of soil tests done and we will see what the recommendations are. • There have been no prior commitments other than the use as a golf course from The Irvine Company that will relinquish that restriction to the proposed residential project site. • The property will have a lot of frontage that could accommodate additional parking on site as long as it was designed for with turfblock but that will be up to the new owner. Mr. Brine noted that Big Canyon Drive is a private street. The width is such that parking could be allowed on the street but it is up to the master association as to how and what they want to enforce. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Toerge noted: Page 6 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/04/2008 • Mitigated Negative Declaration could be enhanced a bit regarding the construction period of fifteen months and should probably be increased; • This lot is currently part of the golf course and it is required to have a conceptual site plan to be used to render a decision whether it is appropriate to convert. The site plan we have is inadequate; however, it should be meaningful. • There is no public review process and there is a potential for something to be built that would be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood and there is no association overseeing it now. • There is no way for the Commission to determine if the development on this lot is consistent with other lots in Big Canyon. • There should be a requirement for a conceptual site plan. One way would be to amend the Planned Community Development Plan to require it. • He suggested a conceptual site plan should be reviewed in a public setting. • Absent an HOA or a deed covenant that is in place, the project should have a conceptual site plan review. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to recommend that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2008 -003; and approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2007 -008, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2007 -005, and Parcel Map NP2007 -029 with the findings in the resolution with the added condition that: • Prior to the issuance of building permits, a conceptual site plan review is conducted before the City, or a deed covenant could be in place, or the site gets annexed into the HOA. Commissioner Hawkins noted the conceptual site plan would be necessary is when the deed restriction is triggered. Mr. Bunim noted the guideline to review a conceptual site plan is in Chapter 20.92 of the Zoning Code. The process would be done as a condition of approval for a tentative subdivision map. Mr. Lepo added that the process deals with design conformity within the PC text and compatibility with the neighborhood, reasonable amount of grading, etc. Chairperson Peotter noted there could be an additional condition to require the Conceptual Site Plan to come back for review by either the -Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission. The condition would also indicate that membership in an association is required or if the club wants to put a deed restriction that would be similar to the CCR's. The club would then enforce the compatibility and other issues the City would not have to. The club could also pass on those responsibilities onto Canyon Crest that would be acceptable. Page 7 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/04/2008 Mr. Lepo noted a deed restriction is not viable as there is no way to enforce it. Mr. Harp opined there could be third party beneficiary for enforcement purposes. Mr. Tucker noted the site plan condition to the map is acceptable. However, he questions if they were going to be unable to record the map. Following a brief discussion it was determined that there be a condition to record a covenant in favor of the City that requires site plan review before building permit issuance as a condition to recording the map. However, the preference is annexation of the lot. The maker of the motion agreed. Commissioner Hawkins noted he would not support this condition. Chairperson Peotter noted he would second the motion as proposed with the additional condition. Commissioner Hawkins noted the concern of the slope and should not be compromised and left alone to the extent feasible as is and proposed that this be added as another condition. Commissioner Toerge did not accept this amendment to his motion as there might be some advantage to maintaining the slope and this is too broad and too restrictive. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion. Ayes: Hawkins Noes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter and Toerge Excused: McDaniel and Hill ren Vote was taken on the main motion. Mr. Harp noted added Condition 20 could include a recorded covenant to mirror the CCR's and have Canyon Crest as the third party enforce them or the City would require a conceptual site plan review. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter and Toerge Noes: None Excused: McDaniel and Hill ren ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up — Mr. Lepo reported that the Council heard the appeal on the Shorehouse Cafe use permit denial and upheld the Planning Commission decision without prejudice; a General Plan Amendment to allow construction of a new City Hall on Avocado was also passed. Planning Commission reports. - Commissioner Eaton noted the General Plan Implementation Committee will be looking at revisions discussed at prior meetings. Page 8 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/04/2008 Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report — Commissioner Toerge asked about the report on the Accessory Outdoor Dining permits. Mr. Lepo stated he would bring that report back. Requests for excused absences - none ADJOURNMENT: 8:50 p.m. BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 of 9