Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2004Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes February 5, 2004 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 6 file : //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Conunission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \0205.htm 6/26/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate 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 January 30, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of January 8, ITEM NO. 1 2004. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve as written the minutes of January 8, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich and Noes: Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None None I file : //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Conunission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \0205.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004 HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Code Amendment to Chapter 20.65 (Height Limits) (PA2003 -298) Proposed amendment to Section 20.65.070 (B) of the Municipal Code to allow elevator shafts in excess of 25 square feet in area to exceed applicable height limits by no more than 5 feet when mandated by the Building Code and Fire Department. At Commission inquiry, staff noted that the term 'elevator shaft' as defined in the Code is interpreted to mean the entire enclosure. It is that which is needed to house the elevator and all mechanical equipment necessary to service a functional elevator and includes any extra places needed for equipment at either the top or base of the elevator. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kiser asked for and received clarification of terminology on Exhibit A of the Resolution. Staff concurred to delete the word, 'to', as it was redundant. Commissioner Cole noted that the current Code allows modest exceptions to the height limit, what is the genesis of why we are doing this? Ms. Temple answered when the Zoning Code was updated in 1997, new requirements for the mechanical equipment servicing elevator had become problematic. There was a greater and growing interest in the installation of elevators in residential buildings. Within the residential height limits it was almost impossible to do it without some form of exception. The City decided to actually grant accommodation for a small elevator as commercial properties did not have the same issues because those height limits were higher. We are now seeing in commercial properties that it is becoming an issue due to the Fire Department needs for egress and ingress of larger gurneys and their equipment. This amendment is therefore to address the gurney size elevator only when required by the Fire and Building Code. There is no specific size requirements of the Fire Code for mechanical equipment. The size of the screening of mechanical areas is what the Building Department determines is necessary to adequately service the building. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend approval of Code Amendment No. 2003 -010 proposed amendment to Section 20.65.070 (PA2003 -289). Ayes: I Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Page 2 of 6 ITEM NO. 2 PA2003 -226 Approval Recommended file : //F:IUsers\PLNlSharedlPlanning CommissionlPC MinuteslPrior Years\200410205.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004 Noes: McDaniel Absent: None Abstain: I None SUBJECT: Grade and Structure height (PA2003 -174) Discussion of the definition of grade and how building height is measured. Ms. Temple noted that recently when the Commission had seen an interest or need to make substantive revisions to the Code, we have found that it is far better to bring the issue to the City Council with the question as to whether both staff and the Planning Commission should spend some time on it. This is how we dealt with the questions on changes to the Modification Permit findings. Staff has some administrative problems with some of the verbiage and concepts in the Code that were introduced in 1972 in terms of height measurement. In these days, with the pressure to optimize height and floor areas, we are starting to see pressure on how we administer the Code on a consistent basis. Staff would like to have a system that is straight forward and easier to administer as a lot of staff time is expended to explain how measurements are done and what the words mean. If we could find an acceptable firm bench mark that is not disturbed by construction and makes sense for at least the flat areas in town then the answer is the answer, and there is no equivocation. We would end up having a bifurcated height measurement provisions because we do need special provisions for slope and cliff areas. One thing the Commission could do would be to agree with staff that the item is worthy of discussion and ask staff to carry a report to perhaps a City Council Study session and ask for their direction of staff and Commission involvement. Commissioner Eaton noted that the staff report does a good job of illustrating what the problems are and recommends that this item be brought forward to the City Council. He then asked about verbiage regarding using a basement for height limits. Ms. Temple answered the reason for that language is because they didn't want to have to measure height from a basement. Therefore, it said that if you have excavated for a basement, you go back to what would have been the original grade. A brief discussion followed on: . defining the problem, . involving research both internal and outside sources for model codes, . staff time, . existing status, Page 3 of 6 ITEM NO. 3 PA20 Discussion file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \0205.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004 . use of grade benchmarks, • use and means of permanent benchmarks, • increasingly burdensome problem particular to sloping properties, . use of artificial surfaces, . alteration of natural grade, . limiting amount of soil export/import, . flexibility within the standards, . Code interpretation, . clarification issues, . terminology definitions, Commission Kiser noted his support of this item being presented to the City Council for their direction. Commissioner Tucker, referencing an application of setting a grade recently, noted that it was unusual way to do business to try to figure out what natural grade was for something that had been altered so many years ago. The way it seems to work, if you do some alteration on a lot that an earlier alteration occurred prior to 1972, you are operating under one standard. If your lot next door has had no alteration and now you are ready to remodel, you will have a different standard. That is exactly what we grappled with when we tried to make a decision looking back into the past. I am supportive of the Council looking at this issue and deciding whether they think it is worth our while or not. He noted that he believes the big issue is determining natural grade for post 1972 non - subdivision properties where there has not been alterations occurring prior to 1972. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend that the City Council have a study session to consider if changes in the manner in which permissible height is determined under the Code is warranted. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich noted that the problem seems to be that people Page 4 of 6 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2004 \0205.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004 are trying to push how much floor area they can get in these structures and are trying to get the third story or partial third story. Consideration should be given for a two story height limit in the non - cliff areas where there is cascading down the hill. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Noes: Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the Council ! adopted on second reading the changes to the Zoning Code regarding landmark buildings; ordinance was passed to second reading on the pre- zoning of Annexation of Area 8 and the Emerson Street Tract; adopted on second reading the areas of annexation; letter to City of Irvine regarding transfer and conversion of commercial entitlement to residential just below the 405 Freeway. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - Committee reviewed final changes to Chapter 4, and directed staff to prepare a final draft and commence the public hearing process with the Planning Commission. This item is scheduled for March 4th. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted that this list will be prioritized per staff research allowance. h. Project status - Marina Park EIR is scheduled for mid April publication; St Mark's and St. Andrew's is scheduled for mid March publication. Copies will be sent to the Commissioners as Page 5 of 6 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS file: //F: \Users \PLMShared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \0205.htm 6/26/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004 quickly as possible. South Coast Shipyard will be scheduled during the summer months. i. Requests for excused absences - none. Page 6 of 6 ADJOURNMENT: 7:30 P.M. JADJOURNMENT MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years \2004 \0205.htm 6/26/2008