Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES (2)Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes September 21, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 6 file: //F: \Users\PLN\3hared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \09212006.htm 03/01/2007 INDEX OLL CALL ommissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Peotter, McDaniel and Henn - ommissioner Henn was excused, Commissioner Peotter arrived at 6:37, all thess were present. STAFF PRESENT: atricia Temple, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation and Development Services Manager Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on September 15, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 7, 2006. ITEM NO. 7 Commissioner Hawkins noted that he had agreed one of his suggested changes Approved to these minutes referring to statements by an applicant was not included. OBJECT: The Koll Company (PA2006 -095) ITEM NO.2 4450 MacArthur Blvd. PA2006 -095 General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Plan Amendment to transfer n -built retail and restaurant and office square footage from Office Site B to Recommended Office Site A of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -11) for the for construction of a 21,375 square foot, two -story office building over one level Approval subterranean parking structure. Adopt Resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 006 -008, Planned Community Text Amendment No. 2006 -001 and Use Permi No. 2006 -095 to the City Council, OBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485) ITEM NO. 3 2920 Newport Boulevard Page 1 of 6 file: //F: \Users\PLN\3hared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \09212006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 The Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpub Continued to pursuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City October 5, 2006 in 1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. City has received several omplaints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission will valuate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the condition under which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission may require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions of approval. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary and revocation of the Use Permit is not being considered -at this time. Staff requests to continue this item to October 5, 2006. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the consent calends as modified. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge Noes: None Absent: Peotter and Henn Abstain: McDaniel HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 ITEM NO.4 (PA2006 -173) PA2006 -173 Amend the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to Recommended for Approval decrease the maximum density permitted in Planning Area 5 from 48 dwelling units to 47 dwelling units and to prohibit subdivisions that would increase welling units. Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff review: • This item was initiated by the City Council in response to a letter from the Belcourt Master Association. • The original amendment would reduce the number of dwelling units from 48 to 47 to be consistent with the number of existing lots and to prohibit future subdivisions. • A second amendment has been proposed that would allow language from the General Plan to allow for reverting back to the underlying lots and the is okay with the Homeowners' Association. • The new recommendation on the resolution attached as exhibit A show the Planned Community Text, which remains at 48 units and allows for reverting back to the underlying lots. Ms. Temple noted that, should the Commission decide to pursue the origins anguage, it is included in the staff report of the previous meeting. Commissioner Hawkins asked if anyone had spoken to the Council. Assistant City Attorney Harp answered this fully addresses the Council concerns. Ms. Temple noted that the alternate discussion came about after question relating to how this fits within the just adopted General Plan. Should th Planning Commission adopt the new recommendation with the new resolution, i Page 2 of 6 file: //F:\Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \09212006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 0912112006 be staffs intention to show to the City Council both options at I. They could approve either action. Choosing the r nendation with a statement of your rational of the citywide 1 envy would be helpful. ssioner Hawkins asked staff to discuss the 48 lot preservation Bunim noted the language of the General Plan it allows for reverting back underlying lot lines, which would be 48 lots. If we decrease the number s to 47 from 48, there is one property that is currently the size of two lots shire there would not be a dwelling unit for them to revert back to if , rease it to 47. It would require another PC text amendment to allow for tl i lot. on Cole noted it is also consistent with the proposed General F that requires no subdivision of existing lots with the exception purposes only. Bunim answered it is consistent with the existing language in the eral Plan. Peotter arrived at 6:37. Harp noted that the current plan allowed 39 units and the current L Ives potential conflict between what the General Plan currently says. person Cole stated this would be consistent with the intent of what :iation requested, which is not to further subdivide any lots that have subdivided already for additional units in the community. 3ioner McDaniel noted he was not in attendance at the last i , he has listened to the recording for this item and is able to vote Hilton, member of the law offices of general counsel for the )ciation, noted: . He has been in contact with staff and has reviewed the proposed with the association board president. . They agree that the language satisfies most of their concerns. They would like to add a sentence if the Commission feels it would be benefit. 'The above right of re- subdivision is not transferable to other li or between lot to lot.' Some owners have been talking about not wanting re- subdivide and have spoken to other owners about transferring rights. the General Plan precludes that sufficiently, then the language is r necessary. If it is not the case, we submit to adopt this language to t end of the proposed resolution. Temple noted it is staffs opinion that no additional regulation could I ieved by adding that language. If someone sold the rights to their unit ie other person, it could not be utilized unless the rules that are left in affe dd allow subdivision because you could still only have one unit per lot. It necessary to preserve this protection. Hawkins added that the lot itself is transferable and that Page 3 of 6 file: //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlGvarinlPC min eta112 0 0 610 92 1 2 00 6.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 go along with that sale. His concern is this language would trip up sales tv in the association. Helton noted this language is transferring rights lot to lot. Owners transfer rights to subsequent owners for purchase certainly. The idea is to make it r to anyone who is considering a transference that this is not allowed. He noted he and the association are in agreement with staffs recommendation. comment was opened. comment was closed. Harp noted minor edits in Exhibit A. nmissioner Hawkins offered modified language: "Except as authorized amendment of the General Plan (GPA), new residential subdivisions t u/d result in additional dwelling units are prohibited." He asked s gut the second sentence. a. Temple answered that it means that the General Plan assumes the numt units for purposes of the citywide densities in each area. The number of un at would be supported by the original subdivision. This is actually the policy s new General Plan. Bunim added that the current General Plan allows for 39 units. If you were to art back to the underlying lot lines on the one property you would need 48 s. It does need an exception and does need to be exempt from the current feral Plan requirements. This current language is consistent with the existing feral Plan because it gives that exemption and it is consistent with the )osed General Plan. Temple noted the number of lots in the old General Plan was in error ause the number that was established did not account for the fact that the as of lots that were intended to be a neighborhood park for serving the ate community ended up using the subdivision instead. That is something we would correct through a normal course of action which, depending on the frame and what we were dealing with, might have been a General Plan mdment, but it would not have been considered one that is a true ndment that increases entitlement because the homes were already there. sioner Hawkins noted he is suggesting that the General Plan set at 48. a. Temple answered this is not a General Plan Amendment consideration, this an amendment to the Planned Community. There was an amendment asked to allow one of the original lots to be further subdivided with a General Plan iendment. At that point, the City Attorney's office said no, that was not propriate under the existing General Plan. Harp noted that before 1988 there were originally 39 lots. The park that was e got subdivided and the 9 additional lots were added to make it 48 lots. i of those was merged so that brought the total down to 47. The 1988 feral Plan came about and the number that was used was 39. When an licant came in to see about subdividing a lot that previously had not been ged, they were told they would need a General Plan Amendment because General Plan said that there could only be 39 lots total. The ambiguity that ted at the time was whether or not when they adopted the 1988 General Plan Page 4 of 6 file: //F:lUsers\PLMSharedlGvarin \PC min eta112006109212006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 intended to go with what was on the ground (47 dwelling units) or wt intended to mirror the PC text of 48 and that is why a General idment is needed. iairperson Cole noted this was discussed at the last meeting and is the staff report. was made by Commissioner McDaniel to adopt resOIL nding approval of Planned Community Development Amendment to the City Council. ommissioner Peotter noted that the applicant has eliminated the ability jbdivide in their CCR's. They are asking us to police their association. It is good policy for the City to do. He noted he does not support this application sets a precedent. Cole noted: . This was generated by the City Council. This will be consistent with the new General Plan, which would not for subdivisions anyway. So it is reinforcing something that is al theoretically approved. . Have we done this for other communities where we are enforcing policy? Harp noted that there was an ambiguity here and a problem that we ig by clarifying. He affirmed that the motion included the language the the first sentence in Exhibit A. The maker of the motion agreed. Temple answered that the City has not to date actually adopted any six s that were originated within CCR's in any planned community or comma Bred by covenants, codes or restrictions. However, the City has t roached at least three times to consider such an action and the City Coui imon response was if you as a community can agree to apply for it, mea all the community members would sign the application then we w we it as a normal application. They had to show that consensus % ins a 100% concurrence. In this case though, we are not just enacting zoning something which is solely within the CCR's, it is also in our prop( feral Plan. missioner Eaton noted because this language of the General Plan is in t General Plan, if the new General Plan is ratified by the voters, I think ti tion will come up again in order to be consistent with that language. It is t t of the State Law that zoning, be it a PC text or conventional zoning, istent with the General Plan so I think our action with this resolution :ly consistent with that. er Hawkins noted he shares some of the concerns raised er Peotter. However, he supports the motion for reasons with the new General Plan. Peotter Henn Page 5 of 6 file : //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlGvarinlPC min eta112006109212006.htm 03/01/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - At the last City Council agenda the approved General Plan Update Implementation Program. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Development Committee - no report. c. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Loi Coastal Committee - Ms. Temple noted that staff had circulated a re -dr of the implementation plan and there was still concern about the level detail. There was another meeting with two of the committee membf (Selich and Toerge) to get a feeling of what areas and magnitude th Would like to see this scaled back. It was concluded that sot modifications to the information presented needed to be made for furit feedback from the committee members. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Hawkins noted he had received call from a member of the public regarding copies of draft minutes. M Temple said she will look into the matter. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a futt agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Peotter would like talk about the organization, number and language of the conditions a how they should be accessed. Ms. Temple noted that other issues consideration by the Planning Commission for the by -laws may inclu procedures and will be brought forward at some point in the near futt and possibly at the same time. Discussion continued. f. Project status - Chairperson Cole noted that with the workload that is to addressed it would be helpful to consider having two meetings November instead of the one that is listed. Following discussion, it v agreed to call for two meetings in November on the 2nd and the 16th. g. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 of 6 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Gvarin \PC min etal\2006\09212006.htm 03/01/2007