Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_02-19-2009CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 19, 2009 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, Toerge, and Hillgren- present. Commissioner McDaniel excused STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Traffic Engineer Makana Nova, Assistant Planner Fern Nueno, Assistant Planner Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Gaylene Olson, Department Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 13, 2009. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 8, 2009. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was " >fmade by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Approved Commissioner Eaton to approve the minutes as written. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter,Toerge and Hillgren Noes: I None Excused:1 McDaniel SUBJECT: Seaward Road (PA2009 -008) ITEM NO. 2 494, 496, and 498 Seaward Road PA2009 -008 The application is for a coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to Approved allow the demolition of a triplex in the Coastal Zone. Pursuant to the Mello Act and Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code, a CRDP is required for the demolition of three or more dwelling units in one structure in the Coastal NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009 Zone. Fern Nueno, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report. Mark Teale, architect representing owner Marilyn Fox, noted the existing structure was not salvageable, and due to the parking requirements and the location of the existing garage, it was not feasible to build a new triplex; therefore, they decided to go with the alternative of building a duplex. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Hillgren asked staff to clarify the following: 1. A person can let a piece of real estate go fallow and then come back and demo the property under the guise of being unoccupied. 2. The reason for hearing this item is to recognize that the three units are not occupied by a person or family of low or moderate income and there are no other planning issues to be approved. Ms. Nueno said that was correct. Commissioner Hawkins asked in order to free units from the Affordable Housing obligation, what was the time period between taking affordable units off the rental- market and being able to demolition them. Ms. Nueno answered she believed the Mello Act states that if a unit has been vacant for over a year it is consider not occupied by a person or family of low or moderate income. Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney, noted the Mello Act creates a presumption that if someone was evicted in the last year, the unit is considered occupied by a person of low or moderate income. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to adopt the resolution approving Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2009 -001. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: McDaniel SUBJECT: McKeehan Residence (PA2008 -193) ITEM NO. 3 16 Bay Island PA2008 -193 The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for an existing single Approved family dwelling to exceed the 24 -foot height limitation in association with Page 2 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES remodel and addition. The application is filed in accordance with development regulations of Use Permit No. 3618 to implement a Plai Residential Development (PRD) Overlay on Bay Island. Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report and brief presentation showing the location of Bay Island, its uniqueness, and 0 project's location. Commissioner Hawkins asked about the height of the adjacent houses. Mr. Bunim answered the height of the property to the left, 15 Bay Island, 29 feet 4 inches to the mid -point and approximately 31 feet 9 inches to roof ridge. Commissioner Hawkins then asked if both of the residences that abut 16 Island are higher than the proposed height limit. Mr. Bunim answered that was correct. Commissioner Hillgren asked the following: 1. Were the homes adjacent to this property built after 1997? 2. What is the history on why the height limit was 35 feet and was red to 24 feet? Mr. Bunim answered the adjacent homes existed before 1997. The zoni prior to 1972 was a height limit of 35 feet. Use Permit No. 3618, approved 1997, applied the height limitation of 24 feet; however, if deemed compatit and consistent with the surrounding properties the height limitation could exceeded and go to 28 feet. David Lepo, Planning Director, noted that before 1972 the way measured height was different. In the current Zoning Code the I limitation of 24 feet is measured to the mid - point; the 35 -foot- height lim was measured to the ridgeline. They effectively brought the permitted down by the change of how they measure. Patrick Alford, Planning Manager, noted the Home Owners Association Bay Island was concerned about the loss of character of the island due larger buildings and requested the implementation of Use Permit No. 361 That may have played a role in the height reduction. Commissioner Unsworth wanted to know why put anyone through process, as it seems these projects would always be able to get the varia of the maximum of 28 feet, unless there are some homes that would qualify for the variance. Mr. Alford noted he felt the process was intended to provide a way checkina that the heiaht limits were not abused. compatibility of 01/08/2009 Page 3 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009 surrounding development, and the character of the island was maintained. George Seitz, architect for the project, asked if there were any questions him. There were no questions. Burr McKeehan, owner, noted they have the smallest and the shortest on the island. With the addition of 655 feet, they will still have the sn home and be lower than the adjacent homes. Public comment opened. Mary Ann Miiier, owner of property on north west comer of Island Edgewater, which is adjacent of Bay Island, did not have any spe concerns on this project. She wanted to note her concerns about construction on the island and the problems of all the trucks, w sometimes block her driveway, the traffic, parking, storage of an ofi construction project, and killing trees. Public comment closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to adopt the resolution approving Planning Activity No. PA2008 -193 subject to the conditions attached to the resolution. Commissioner Hawkins asked staff if the application could be conditioned for management of traffic, construction, etc. Mr. Lepo answered yes. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, Toerge, and Hillgren Noes: None Excused:1 McDaniel SUBJECT: Richard Moriarty (PA2008 -207) ITEM NO. 4 2128 Mesa Drive The applicant requests a parcel map to combine existing portions of lots and parcels into a single parcel of land for single - family development. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission in order to remove conditions requiring the establishment and improvement of an ingress /egress access easement to the property and Coastal Commission approval prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map Makana Nova, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report. Nova provided copies of the revised resolution and conditions, H incorporated revisions provided by the City Attorney that clarified Page 4 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009 conditions were revised: 1. Condition 16 - revised language for clarification 2. Condition 17 - revised language for clarification; details of the acce: easement that would be required by Public Works that includes a 20 -foc wide driveway with a trench drain at the end of the driveway. 3. Condition 22 — the requirement for Coastal Commission approval w; revised to permit the applicant to receive a waiver for the requirement f the permit from Coastal Commission. Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney, expanded on Condition 22 stating it the opinion of the City Attorney that under the Coastal Act this project wou constitute a development. The applicant does not believe this is development under the Coastal Act and the condition should not appl therefore, a provision was included so the applicant can get a waiver from tt Coastal Commission stating a development permit is not needed or that thr do not need Coastal Commission approval. Commissioner Hawkins asked if the applicant decided to get the permit ar not seek a waiver from the Coastal Commission, would that satisfy Conditic 22. Mr. Harp answered yes Commissioner Unsworth asked how long it would take for the waiver permit from the Coastal Commission, and would the applicant be in jeopa of losing time to file the parcel map or the building permit expiring. David Lepo, Planning Director, said it would take two to three months for Coastal Commission's decision and he would not lose any time. Mr. Harp pointed out that Condition 23 gave the applicant 3 years from date of approval to record the parcel map. Ms. Nova noted that the building permit is still open and will not have expiration date until it is finalized. General discussion continued noting the following: 1. Parcel map was required as a condition of approval for the building per for the house, to satisfy the requirement of the Subdivision Code comply with the State Law. 2. Coastal Commission approved the Coastal Development Permit in 2( for the new single - family residence. 3. Coastal Commission permit is required, prior to the recordation of Page 5 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES does not have approval authority. 4. Condition 16 and 17 was revised to allow applicant ingress /egress acce to his property as long as he proves he has access rights, and makes 1 required easement improvements, whether it is through Jackass Alley the abandoned Birch Street. 5. The property owners and easement owners have been unsuccessful negotiations to establish a recorded easement from the subject prope to Mesa Drive. Public comment opened. Paul Rafferty and Patrick D'Arcy, attorneys representing owner Ric Moriarty, made a presentation on the applicant's position for the appeal the history on the property. Chairperson Peotter asked Mr. Rafferty if it was his opinion that they legitimate legal access via Birch, but cannot prove it. Mr. Rafferty said yes it was his opinion, but contends that the record proves that access. No title company will certify this parcel with the past suits among the adjacent property owners, and the County of Orange sta that Mr. Moriarty has no rights on any of the roads. Chairperson Peotter asked where the negotiations between Mr. Moriarty Ms. Brockman stand. Mr. Rafferty said the negotiations were close and noted the following: 1. The County claimed easement rights on Birch and wants Birch improved. 2. He believes Ms. Brockman would like the County to take Birch. She c not want the liability of the equestrian traffic and he thinks the County indemnified her of the liability. 3. Mr. Moriarty had been working on a plan with the County, but was that the City would be driving the development of Birch because it redevelopment funds and would take over the horse trails and the an so he stopped the plan with the County. The City has since scrapped redevelopment plans and told Mr. Moriarty he may try to redevelopment funds from the County. 4. There is also the fear of what the Coastal Commission would do with plan of improvement on Birch because of the water runoff problem the flood basin. Commissioner Hillgren asked why they did not go to court to finalize settlement. Page 6 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Rafferty responded that Mr. Moriarty feels he is close to finalizinc negotiations with the County, with the assistance of the City and Ms Brockman, and it is a lot less expensive to settle directly than going to court. David Cosgrove, attorney representing Carla Brockman owner of 2100 Mese Drive, supports staff's recommendation to deny the appeal. Mr. Cosgrove continued with Ms. Brockman's issues, concerns, and differences with Mr Moriarty. Ms. Brockman is willing to give the property over to the County subject to conditions discussed with Mr. Moriarty, the City, and the County so it can be publically owned and improved for public use. Commissioner Toerge asked for clarification if there is a formal between Ms. Brockman and Mr. Moriarty Mr. Cosgrove said there was a signed letter agreement in May 2003, and they go to court the letter will be tested if it is a full agreement. Commissioner Toerge questioned if Jackass Alley was limited to access. Mr. Cosgrove said he feels there is a question about the emergency acc that has been given and there is a question about the Tennison's prop access over Jackass Alley. Ms. Brockman did not grant Mr. Moriarty aca Mr. Moriarty went to the neighbor property and got them to grant the City emergency access. Additionally, the County condemned an acc easement over the abandoned Birch Street, in 1997, and paid Ms. Brockr for it. Mr. Moriarty did not pay for access. Harry Huggins, representing the County of Orange, asked that ti Commission and staff refer to the letter he sent dated February 10, 200 Part of his role with the County is being responsible for asset manageme and watching for the rights and public's rights for all their public parks. F involvement in this issue is making sure of the public's access rights throul the questioned area. The Orange County Flood Control District does have condemned easement through the property. The permit that Ms. Brockmr entered into with the County parks is for pedestrian, regional riding, al hiking trail purposes through this area. He became involved in working wi the attorneys and Mr. Moriarty and thought they had come to a conclusion 2008. After receiving and reviewing the "Notice of Appeal" from the Zonir Administrator on December 22, 2008, it was evident the Mr. Moriarty had n presented any new evidence to establish legal access to his parcel. Commissioner Hawkins asked Mr. Huggins if the public had the right to use the County's easement. If the public had access rights, why didn't Mr Moriarty have those rights? Mr. Huggins said the flood control easement is not the same as what public can use. The Orange County Parks secured, through their real e: division, a permit that gives the public rights to access the property recreational purposes only and indemnified Ms. Brockman for that purr 01/08/2009 Page 7 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES only. The indemnification was not for any particular individual to use for other access purpose. Richard Moriarty, owner, noted his issues with Ms. Brockman and settlement agreement. He has been working with the City trying to get permits finalized and would just like to get this finished and not drag it out further. His house is finished, he is living in it, and thinks he has a tempos permit. Public comment closed. Commissioner Unsworth asked if there was a copy of the 1924 deed. Mr. Rafferty said there was a copy of the 1924 deed in the packet out. Commissioner Toerge thought this was just a common sense issue since property has had access and people have been using the access. Can eliminate any of the requirements without breaking any State law? Is it c that recorded access is mandated and required? Mr. Harp stated requiring access to the parcel is an appropriate condition The reason for the rule is if Ms. Brockman changes her mind and denies access to the parcel, making it land locked. General discussion continued on supporting a continuance for 60 c possibly longer if needed, for all parties to try to work out the issues come up with a workable negotiation. Commissioner Toerge asked for direction from staff on the possibility of a line adjustment to consolidate the property into a single parcel. Mr. Harp noted that the Subdivision Code requires a decision be made w 10 days of hearing the matter, with the applicant agreeing with continuance, other wise it is deemed the decision of the Zoning Administr would be affirmed. In addition, a lot line adjustment is for four or less lots. Chairperson Peotter noted the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66451.1 states you are allowed to merge parcels without a map. Commissioner Hawkins noted Subdivision Code Section 19.68.060 voluntary mergers specifically requires access issues and may not specific for some parties or prohibited for others. Access is key in this m; and Conditions 16 and 17 are not unreasonable. Public comments opened. Mr. Moriarty said this issue has been going on for 11 years without settlement, just wants it resolved. 01/08/2009 Page 8 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009 Mr. Cosgrove said his client, Ms. Brockman, was okay with the 60-c continuance. Wanted to note that an impasse was reached on negotiations in 2005 and he has tried to restart them five or six times sir then. He thinks they are close, and the City and /or County needs to step and a take the lead with public improvements and some funding. I Brockman has indicated to Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, she wo waive the $65,000 that Mr. Moriarty was to pay her for access over property so he could invest into the improvements. Chairperson Peotter asked if Ms. Brockman was requiring the County to c the property and it be a public right -a -way or be a private access over County's easement area. Mr. Cosgrove said with the appropriate indemnifications all parties think t the better proposal is to have it be a public right -a -way. It would eliminate potential liability issues that Ms. Brockman originally had when she closed the area. Mr. Rafferty was concerned that 60 days would not be long enough. believes that they are very close to an agreement and thinks that all parti including the City, should get together a come up with a solid plan to pres to the Planning Commission. Mr. Harp said he spoke with Mr. Huggins who believes there is progress that 60 days may be too short of a period. The City would be willing facilitate a meeting and volunteered Mr. Kiff to host the meeting. Mr. Huggins said the County would be pleased to host a meeting to he resolve all the issues. 60 days may not be long enough for a finalize agreement, but at least they could have the framework and formula for wh would achieve an agreement. 90 days would probably be the better choice. Public comment closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Hillaren to continue this item for 90 days. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: McDaniel ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up— Mr. Lepo noted City Council initiated an amendment to the General Plan for Newport Beach Country Club and the Newport Beach Tennis Club to a proposed development plans for clubhouses and tennis courts to go forty and it was approved. We have entered into an agreement with LSA Associ; Page 9 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009 for the EIR for the new City Hall, for which the Planning. Department is taki the lead. At the February 10"' meeting, the City Council had the second readi on the ordinance for General Plan Amendment, and Planned Commur Development Plan Amendment for the Big Canyon. A Professional Servi Agreement was approved for the EIR on the historic resource Neutra buildir at 1901 Westcliff. The Interim Study Overlay for the Avis Rental Car Facility, 4200 Campus Drive, was also approved. Planning Commission reports. — Commissioner Eaton reported the GP /LCP Implementation Committee spt most of the meeting looking at the bluff and canyon setbacks a encroachments. Staff came up with an elaborate procedure, setting diffen standards for almost every situation. There were limited aerials to validate hi they would work on the ground and more detail was requested. Commissioner Hawkins reported on EDC. A presentation on Banning Ran was given by Christopher Bunyan of Banning Ranch Conservancy and MI Mohler of Brooks Street. Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on future agenda for discussion, action, or report — none. Staff noted there is r meeting scheduled for March 5"' due to lack of business. Requests for excused absences - none ADJOURNMENT: 8:47 pm. BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 of 10