Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/1998CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1998 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Kranzley, Gifford, Adams and Ashley - all present Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Ciauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes ofJanuarv8.1998: Motion was made by Commissioner Selich and voted on to approve, as written, the January 8, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Fuller, Selich, Kranzley, Ashley Noes: Absent: Abstain: Adams, Gifford, Ridgeway Public Comments none Posting of the Agenda The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, January 16,1998 outside of City Hall. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1998 INDEX SUBJECT: Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Inc. Item No. 1 (Richard Bluth, contact A867 4311 Jamboree Road • Amendment No. 867 Amend the Koll Center Planned Community District Regulations to Recommended for increase the height limit within Light Industrial Site 1 from 75 feet to 90 Approval feet. Ms. Temple stated that this proposal has been discussed with the neighbors of Rockwell Semiconductor, resulting in letters of support from the adjoining property owners. Clarifying language regarding the proposed air separator plant being accommodated by the increased Wight limit is proposed. This change, which is suggested to be incorporated into the resolution, would place under the Building Height section after the words ....Air Separation Plant (the function is to extract gas, i.e., nitrogen, oxygen, etc., from air). Public Comment was opened. Alan Chirola, Rockwell Semiconductor Systems, Inc., 4311 Jamboree Rd., as applicant, spoke of the plant function. He went into specific detail about the air separation process, ascertaining that it was neither noisy, toxic nor explosive. At Commission inquiry, he stated that he has • read, understands and agrees to the findings related to the height limits of the amendment as noted. Public Comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to recommend to City Council approval of Amendment No. 867. Without objection and by acclamation, the Motion passed - all Ayes. SUBJECT: Southern California Liberty Baptist Church Hem No. 2 (Doug Miller, contact) UP 1726 A 1000 Bison Avenue • Use Permit No. 11726A A request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted Continued to 2/5/98 a church with a kindergarten through sixth grade elementary school and extended day care on -site. The proposed amendment is to expand the operation of the school to allow the addition of seventh through twelfth.grades, and increase the number of students to 260. 2 City of Newport Beach Planning Comrnlsslon Minutes January 22, 1998 Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue this item to February 5, 1998. Without objection and by acclamation, the Motion passed - all Ayes. YYY SUBJECT: Losey Residence 319 Carnation Avenue, • Variance No. 1217 Request to allow retention of or modifications to a building currently under construction which does not meet the standards previously established by the City Council in the approval of Variance No. 1202. This previous Variance allowed construction of a residence which exceeds the permitted floor area, does not meet the requirements for the location of open space, and encroaches into various setbacks and abandoned right -of -way. The portion of the building under review is a central stairwell area which provides access to a bedroom and roof deck, which encroaches into a view the City Council found of importance in its approval of the previous Variance. Ms. Temple noted: • original approval was granted in 1995 after substantial amount of consideration by Planning Commission and City Council • original approval allowed the building to exceed the permitted floor area by two times (approximate) due to constrained nature of the site, orientation and setbacks - extreme slope and limited building area from a structural standpoint • original approval (variance) was to conform with the 28 foot height limit as set forth in the MFR Zoning District • the building mass, bulk and height is a result of the approval of the increased floor area • photographic information depicting the anticipated impact of the new development particularly to a view available from an adjoining resident's home was submitted by the applicant as part of the original consideration • building is now framed, partially wrapped and roof installed on the bulding - it is noted that that particular view which was originally anticipated to be almost completely preserved is in fact almost completely blocked (view of lower Newport Bay and horizon) • this issue was brought to staffs attention resulting in a construction halt as it was clear that a substantial consideration of approval was the photographic information provided by the applicant to preserve this particular view (photo was specifically referenced in the motions to approve the variance) and that the implemented project is not consistent with the City Council's granting of the Variance and the 3 Item No. 3 V 1217 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1998 property owner was directed to either amend the project to comply with the photo or, apply for a new variance to the Planning Commission exhibits on the wall were referenced - set of drawings from the original Variance 1202 file shows the home's relationship to the 28 foot height limit and a set of actual construction drawings with the some elevations whether the building was built according to plans or if there were discrepancies on the plan is still to be determined - staff has not received a complete roof certification and still cannot verify the actual height of the building. Chairperson Kranzley asked Ms. Clauson, Assistant City Attorney to speak to the issue of view planes. Ms. Clauson stated that, in reviewing variances, to make the findings related to the adverse impacts on property in the area or the general welfare, view planes and private views can be a factor that the Commission can consider to make those findings. Chairperson Kranzley asked for Commission opinion regarding the height limit and if they wanted to continue this item to obtain this information or hear the item. Commission agreed that there is a 28 foot height limit and if found non- conforming, staff will have the applicant alter the building to conform. Public Comment was opened Mr. Robert losey,19700 Fairchild, Suite 280, Irvine, applicant stated: • that the house is built according to the plans approved by Commission and Council and the building conforms with the height limitations • a mistake had been made with the photographic information. • the photos submitted are a best effort to provide a fair representation of what has happened and what is being done to correct the obstruction. • the part of the element of the house to be higher is due to the modification of the driveway to the garage which raised the garage by 1 foot. • redesigned the house to mitigate the view obstruction • alternatives one and two as listed in the staff report would create undue hardship • alternative three is a fair and reasonable solution and mitigates the view plane even though it will costs thousands of dollars to demolish and reconstruct that portion of the house. • should Commission require the roof deck to be constructed with see is INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1998 through elements, that is agreeable In closing, he asked that Commission consider alternative three as the reasonable solution to correct an honest mistake. Commissioner Ridgeway stated for the record that he had met with the applicant, Mr. Billings and staff. He had attempted to negotiate a compromise with the parties involved. The following also had meetings and phone conversations with the parties involved: Commissioners Adams, Fuller, Selich and Chairperson Kran7ley. Commissioner Adams asked for clarification of what is being done tonight, acting on a previously granted variance or a new variance. Ms. Temple noted that this is a requested modification by the applicant to a previously approved variance. With certain courses of action, the Commission could reduce the allowed Floor area of the building which would modify the original approval. The existing construction is not in substantial conformance with the original approved variance and in order to have found in conformance, the view from the location originally depicted in 1995 was substantiallythe way as shown in the photograph. Public Comment was opened. Mr. Ross Billings, 314 Carnation Avenue spoke in opposition to this application asking that the original variance remain in force for the following reason: . Mr. Losey agreed to build the project to a certain height - instead he built 6 feet over that height Referencing correspondence that he sent to the Commission (pictures both pre- constniction and of today's construction) noted that there was an agreement to preserve his view, and now, the construction obstructs the upper most level. The exhibits were explained in detail and the impact on his residence and its view planes. He asked that none of the over -built construction be approved saying this is a very valuable view plane to him from a monetary and emotional standpoint. He asked to be able to retain some of this view, as the street level and second level Views are totally gone and now the view on the third level is three quarters or more gone and this over - construction obstructs the upper most level view. Commission ascertained that the exhibit photos had been supplied and marked by Mr. Losey and his architect. The photos were taken by Mr. Losey from Mr. Billings patio with his permission. These were part of the prior variance and were intended to show the maximum limit that was • 5 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1998 going to be built. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Billings stated he is not satisfied with the compromise proposal shown on Exhibit 4 because if the project was built according to the original specifications, he would retain portions of his views from the various levels at his residence. Commissioner Ridgeway clarified with staff the height violation and was answered that the roof element in question is in part a flat roof section over a sloping lot section, so the height of that particular part of the building is different at almost every point. 22 feet is the lowest dimension at the Carnation Avenue frontage. For flat roof structures the measurement is from the lowest point of natural grade below that section, so the maximum is 28 feet if it is flat (no averaging on a flat roof). The following people appeared in opposition to this application: Dr. Ron Willner, 302 Carnation Lela Force, 311 Carnation Bill Spurill, 401 Femleaf Dr. Lila Cripton, 2600 Bayside Colleen Jeffries, 216 Carnation The following reasons were given for their opposition: • Previous compromise has been violated by the applicant • • Another person's view has been blocked • A long term value would be lost • Possibilityof heightwar • Project is overbuilt • Lot has limitations • Not fair to Mr. Billings • Errors on property should be absorbed by the applicant • A lot of time has been spent on these plans by the Planning Commission and City Council • No more variances on this property should be allowed • Important to make builders abide by the decisions of City Council and Planning Commission Eric Mossman, 2800 Lafayette, Suite A, architect for the Losey residence explained that the original photograph did not show the 22 degree side angle view of the garage. The intent is to remove that area of the building to preserve that are of view for Mr. Billings. He would like to make it conform more to the photograph and the height of the building. He stated that the area over the garage was never story poled so he did not know the height and did not take into consideration the 22 degree angle which cuts off the portion of the view in question. He stated that the building is not over the height limit and is in conformance. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if the deck above the garage was always part of the original process and was answered yes, it had a solid wall 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1998 around it with a roof line with a roof well in it. Continuing, Commissioner Ridgeway asked if the driveway did not work and if the garage went up by one foot. Mr. Mossman stated yes. the garage came up 12 inches. The original design of the garage was with an 8 foot 1 inch ceiling. He added he has never measured the interior of the garage. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the ceiling now measures 9 foot 7 inches from the floor of the garage to the ceiling in the garage as he measured. With this extra measurement it is critical to realize that with the additional 12 inches and the garage height is interior another 18 inches it is now 2 and 'A feet higher than was originally presented. Chairperson Kranzley noted that when Traffic came in and said the grade was not proper and that the garage would have to be built up by a foot. When the garage was raised by the 12 inches, why didn't you condense the interior ceiling height to accommodate the discrepancy, especially with the sensitivity issues raised during the public hearings in 19958 Mr. Mossman answered that the area over the garage was never a • question regarding views. The areas over the main structure were in question to preserve for Mr. Billings view planes. Commissioner Ridgeway noted that when he approved the original variance, he worked off a photo and the garage was part of his consideration. During that deliberation there was an overall analysis of the impact based upon that photo. Mr. Billings view was impacted more by that garage, than the rest of the structure. Commissioner Gifford asked for and received clarification of the impact of the construction on the garage (stairwell, chimney stack, etc.) and its extension from Mr. Mossman. Public Comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford clarified the view impacts that were significant to protect from the previous variance consideration. Discussion continued with the dimensions of the plans, exhibits and measurements. Staff also noted that parts of the plans which need to be further researched for the actual compliance of the building both to the height limit and whether the structure is built in conformancewith the plans. 1 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1998 Commissioner Ashley stated that when the Planning Commission and then the City Council award a variance and then it is disregarded and violated and that person comes back and asks for a new variance to allow changes to be made based upon photos and drawings. The Commission and Council were deceived the last time by photos and drawings which turned out to be different than what was constructed. He stated he was not in favor of these new drawings submitted with proposed alterations and therefore is not in favor of this application noting that the Commission should require full compliance with the original approval. Commissioner Adams noted that a mistake had been made. The applicant and his architect were cooperative to attempt to preserve the view planes. Technically a long skinny house could have been built that would have obliterated all view planes. Any discrepancies of the building height will be corrected. He supports the acceptance of the proposal of the applicant with the deck railing a see - through element to further mitigate the view impairment. If option three (in the staff report) was granted, he asked staff how it would be implemented and the measurements of conformance. Ms. Temple answered that the requirement would be a submittal of plans to meet the criteria of conditions and they would be field checked once, the project was built. Commissioner Ashley noted that when the building was under construction, the building inspectors were to impose conditions of the variance and they did not. If alternative three was granted and as a result of a field inspection, the construction exceeded what was being imposed this time, the building would have to be altered once again in order to conform. Why not when it is constructed? Ms. Temple answered that the building inspectors check the building for compliance to plans not with conditions of approval on variances. Staff checks the plans before permits are issued for substantial conformance with the variance as approved. In this case, we had a reasonable anticipation that so long as the building was designed substantially similar to the actual plans in the fie, we would achieve the result of the photo that was originally considered. An error in the depiction was made, so the plans were issued substantially similar to the plans in the file, the building inspector checks for the building to be built substantial and compliant to that and prior to final framing, the planning staff will go out and look to determine if all the criteria are met. In this case, Mr. Billings being in the field at that time the portion of the building went up, notified the.Planning Department and said something was not right. 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1998 ::ommissionerGifford noted the following concerns: • building was built in conformance with the plans • approval of those plans was based on input of photos and a representation of how the building would affect views which turns out not to be accurate • the photo information was controlled and prepared by Mr. Losey • doesn't know the information about the garage measurement but appears to be 1 '/t higher than should be • doesn't know if the building as it affects the garage and staircase meets the height limit or doesn't • very reluctant to make decision without all information pertaining to height of building and staircase and whether they are in conformance or not She concluded that she favors continuing this item until there is information on precise height limits, whether interior garage or any other spaces were built according to plan, and provision of a depiction and photograph that would show the extension of the roof line of the condo and the chimney element with clear material used. Commissioner Selich stated that the way this house was constructed it fits in the neighborhood. Nevertheless, the applicant agreed to what was submitted in the photograph and he agreed to a building bulk that of would not exceed the lines he drew. The applicant should have frequently check during construction to be sure he was in agreement with the photo representation. The applicant received a lot of compromises at the hearings and he has the responsibility to live up to what he agreed to. He concluded noting that the Commission should require full compliance with the original approval. Commissioner Ridgeway noted he tried to negotiate a compromise earlier with the applicant to no avail. There is nothing exact in the photo and errors or variances will occur from the original representation. Referencing the photos, he showed where there were acceptable errors and what is definitely not an innocent error. The problem area is the new tower element and could be reduced. Further mitigation should be made in this area. Discussion followed on mitigation of garage elements, roof deck, and /or potential redesign, impact of garage, stairwell design, roof element and violations. Commissioner Fuller noted that there was compromise in the prior approved variance. Photo one was the basis of the decision of the Planning Commission. To the extent the building is constructed now, it does not meet what is in photo one. The applicant should comply with the original variance approved. The plans should have been drawn to 0 Ililr1� 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1998 depict the view as portrayed in the photo that the applicant made. Mr. Billings has the right to expect no less than what was approved. Mr. Losey should expect no more than what was approved. He concluded that Exhibit C should be implemented. Chairperson Kranzley stated that the original approval was a compromise that gave Mr. Losey essentially what he wanted and gave the neighbors essentially what they wanted. Photo one was critical to the favorable vote on the original variance. It is apparent that the building does not come close to what was promised. If the stairwell and deck are removed then it would be closer to the original variance. He concluded stating he supports a continuance. After discussion, Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue this item to February S, 1998 to allow time for staff and the applicant to complete a certification of height and verification of construction as to plan, create an exhibit without the third floor roof deck over the garage, and an exhibit with the roof deck with an open railing, and the chimney elements of the condo with a clear overlay. The applicant agreed he will provide the necessary re- design information by Tuesday, January 27th, or request a further continuance. Ayes: Ridgeway, Selich, Kranzley, Gifford, Adams, Ashley Noes: Fuller Abstain: none ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning - Ms. Temple reported that at the meeting of January 12th, City Council adopted the Ordinance regarding the Balboa Island Development Standards and approved with modifications the Balboa Island BID renewal. b.) Oral report by the Planning Director regarding the approval of Outdoor Dining Permits, Planning Director's Use Permits, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permits - Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 43 and Planning Director's Use Permit No. 13 were issued to 3448 Via Oporto, Suite 104; Condominium Conversion No. 44 was issued to 1810 West Ocean Front; Modifications were issued to 118 Coral Avenue, 409 Dahlia Avenue, 106 Coral Avenue, 1930 Port Nelson, 1939 Port Nelson,108 Piazza Lido and 3400 Quiet Cove. • 10 Additional Business INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1998 C.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee -none. d.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Ridgeway asked to be excused from the February 5m meeting and Commissioner KranAey asked to be excused from the February 191h meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m. THOMAS ASHLEY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 11 INDEX