Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-20_Meeting Minutes APPROVED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 Building and Fire Board of Appeals Minutes Building and Fire Board Regular Meeting Zoom Meeting November 17, 2020, 3:00 p.m. I.) CALL MEETING TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 3:01 p.m. II.) ROLL CALL Present: Jeannette, Ahlke, Caskey, Luehrs, Nour, Walz Absent: Pulaski III.) PUBLIC COMMENTS IV.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of October 21, 2019 Minutes Recommended Action: Approve October 21, 2019 Minutes In response to questions, Chief Building Official Samir Ghosn explained that the 3-year timeframe is initiated at the time that the Building Permit is issued. For projects that have already received a permit, the start of construction must begin within 3-years of when the Building Permit is issued. If there is a desire to make the 3-year time period begin when construction begins, the ordinance would have to be modified and brought before Council for approval. Board Member Nour believed that if the construction of the exterior of a project is completed quickly, then there would be no nuisance to the neighbors. Chief Building Official Ghosn disclosed that there is code language that states that if there is an inspection every 6-months, then the Building Permit can be extended. Council decided to put the 3-year time limit in place to respond to projects that have extended construction for years. The time limit does not apply to commercial buildings. In reply to Board Member Luehr’s inquires, Chief Building Official Ghosn confirmed that the 3- year limit applies to any permit that is issued. There was consensus among the Board Members that Staff investigate appropriate timeframes for delayed projects. Chair Jeannette expressed that the minutes indicate that there needs to be approval from an HOA before the City can move forward with plan checks and that is not correct. He suggested that the minutes be amended to reflect current practice. Motion made by Chair Jeannette, seconded by Board Member Ahlke, and carried (6-0-0-1) to approve the Minutes of October 21, 2020, as amended. AYES: Jeannette, Ahlke, Caskey, Luehrs, Nour, Waltz NOES: None ABSENT: Pulaski ABSTAIN: 2 V.) PUBLIC HEARING 2. 7210 W. OCEAN FRONT - APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL’S DETERMINATION TO REQUIRE DRAINAGE AND REMOVE SLIDING GLASS DOOR TRACK FROM AN UNENCLOSED LOGGIA ON THE THIRD LEVEL Recommended Action: Uphold the Chief Building Official’s Determination Board Member Nour recused himself from the item and declared that he would not make any remarks regarding the project. Chief Building Official Ghosn reported that the applicant had received approval to build a three- story home and on the third level there is an area that is defined as a loggia or outdoor living space. Right before the completion of the project, it was determined by staff that the outdoor living area had been enclosed by adding two windows and a sliding glass door. Final approval was revoked and an inspection of the site took place to come up with possible solutions. It was confirmed that the area could not effectively drain water as well as the sliding door track created a water damming effect inside the room. For these reasons, Staff proposed that the applicant obtain a Variance so that the building issues would be resolved and the applicant would not have to reconstruct the space. The applicant did pursue a Variance but it did not receive staff’s recommendation. In reply to questions, Chief Building Official Ghosn explained that the waterproof, flashing, slope, and drains were not indicated on the plans because it was understood by staff that the area would float which would initiate water drainage to the outside drain. The Door Schedule indicates that there is a cased opening in the space. There was a verbal approval, but it is unknown who gave that verbal approval to the applicant. Chair Jeannette pointed out that the submitted plans indicate that there would be no windows installed or a sliding door which would facilitate flowing air through the space. Board Member Caskey agreed that the ruling made by the Chief Building Official is right, that the room was not built to be enclosed. Steven Brower, litigation counsel for the applicant, emphasized that the Board can only make decisions regarding Building Code issues. There is a formal Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) that was signed by Chief Building Official Ghosn on September 23, 2020, which certified that there are no Building Code issues with the building other than removing the threshold for the sliding door and the fact that the covered porch does not drain. The project complies with all other City Codes and regulations. The existing plans show no sloping, no drainage, and no floating floor. If the Board finds that there is a Building Code issue, the applicant is willing to install glass in the window and door casings so that rain cannot enter the room. Kyle Reeves, the applicant, disclosed that Chief Building Official Ghosn has never visited his property. Due to a major rainstorm, glazing was installed 2-years before finalization of the project. The home was inspected seven different times by three different inspectors and the concerned area was never called out. He explained that the definition of enclosed is a space that contains walls and the California Building Code clearly states that walls and roofing assemblies enclose a space. Mr. Reeves stated that the City has never provided him with any definition of open, what must be open, and what must remain open. The exterior decks have been waterproofed, but the interior space in question is not waterproofed and is built exactly to plan specifications. He concluded that glazing the openings in an exterior space does not change its occupancy or its 3 definition. He requested that the Board approve his alternative means of protection by installing the glazing and not require a full rebuild of the area. Chief Building Official Ghosn believed that the applicant was mixing the requirements of the Planning Department and requirements of the Building Code. If the space is enclosed then the Planning Department would need to reevaluate the Floor Area Ratio. Also, heating, insulation, and glazing are requirements of the Building Code. Chuck Daleo understood that the existing space is already enclosed with glazing and a sliding glass door. He concluded that the room would fall under the definition of an enclosed space and recommended that the Board approve the project as a room. Jeremy Jung, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the issue before the Board is the determination made by the Building Official that a drain is required. The Board could either support or disagree with that determination. In response to Board Member questions, Mr. Reeves could not confirm that the calculation of Title 24 reflected the glazing in the room. There is no heating or ventilation inside the room. He confirmed that there are linear drains outside on the deck and that there was no Finishing Schedule for any flooring in any portion of the house. As advised by staff, Mr. Reeves confirmed that a revision to the plan set was submitted to the City a couple of months before finalization. In response to Chair Jeannette’s inquiry, Jamie Murillo, Project Planner, announced that a formal revision set was never submitted to the City for review for either Building Code Compliance or Zoning Code Compliance. Chair Jeanette advised Mr. Reeves to submit plans to the City Building Department that showed the modifications that have been proposed. He emphasized that the Board cannot approve alternative methods. Board Member Nour stated that if the room falls under the definition of an enclosed room, then the room would have to comply with all sections of the Code. Jim Mosher did not agree that the structure was built 100 percent according to the plans and that it was clearly labeled on the plans that the openings would remain open. Motion made by Board Member Waltz, seconded by Board Member Ahlke, and carried (4-0-1-1) to uphold the Chief Building Official’s determination. AYES: Jeannette, Ahlke, Caskey, Luehrs, Waltz NOES: None ABSENT: Pulaski ABSTAIN: Nour VI.) STAFF AND BOARD MEMBER ITEMS None. VII.) BUILDING AND FIRE BOARD OF APPEALS ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT. None. 4 VII.) ADJOURNMENT Chair Jeanette adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.