Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/2002• 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley and Selich - AII present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve the minutes of May 23, 2002 as amended. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Noes: None Excused: Tucker, Kranzley Public Comments: Posting of the Agenda: Agajanian, Gifford, Selich The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, May 31, 2002. INDEX Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 201 Apoleno Avenue • Modification Permit No. 2002 -032 (PA2002 -001). Request to construct a new single - family dwelling, portions of which would encroach within the required side, front and rear yard setbacks. A front entry, kitchen and second floor balcony are proposed to encroach between 2 and 4 -foot, 6- inches within the 10 -foot setback adjacent to Apolena Avenue. A two-car garage and a portion of the first and second floor living areas are proposed to encroach 15 feet within the required 20 -foot front yard setback adjacent to Park Avenue. A 7- foot encroachment for the building is proposed within the required rear yard setback along the northerly property line. Chairperson Tucker stated that this item had been before the Planning Commission for a floor area variance that was approved. The variance was not appealed or called up by the Council, so it became final. Coupled with that was a modification, which was for variations from the established setbacks for the lot in question. The Planning Commission felt at the time, that the matter should go back to the Modifications Committee because they are the entity within the City that has the most experience dealing with those types of situations. We had hoped the parties would have resolved their differences. The applicant made some changes to the proposed design of the project. That design went to the Modifications Committee and they further modified the changes and then unanimously passed the request as modified. Commissioner McDaniel called up the matter for further consideration by the Planning Commission. Commissioner McDaniel noted he had met with the applicant and with the two homeowners' associations as well as some of the neighbors following the meeting. There are some issues that are still outstanding that they would like to have considered this evening. We had sent this application to the Modifications Committee but it was not resolved. The neighbors have a concern with the curb cut and the massing, which we cannot affect at all this evening. However, the two homeowner associations have been remained opposed to any encroachment into the 10 -foot setback on Apolena. I think we have granted the applicant the opportunity to build an acceptable project within those lines and the architect has opted to encroach outside those, which is objectionable. That is the situation. I was hoping to be able to solve that this evening. My position is, the compromise Is if the applicant can build within the 10 -foot setback, I believe the homeowners' associations find that acceptable to that otherwise think there will be further appeals. The only modification in contention by the homeowners' association is the 10 -foot setback on Apolena, and I am seeing no compelling reason why that cannot be complied with. That is why I brought this up. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Tucker stated that the issue before the Planning Commission is the modification, we are not talking about curb cuts or variances because they have • already been granted. ^ INDEX PA2002 -001 Denied • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Craig Paige, 200 Opal, speaking for the Balboa Island Improvement Association referenced his April 2nd letter. He summarized that this is a situation where the applicant asked for a driveway relocation, which was granted, from Apolena to Park the applicant then asked for a variance and modification based on that relocated driveway. The Planning Commission approved the variance to allow for 2495 square feet, which is about 189 square feet more than would have been allowed if you created a building envelope using the existing lines of development, 5 feet on Park, 10 feet on Apolena and 3 feet interior setbacks. That yielded a floor area ratio of about 1.04 compared to about 1.067 on a standard lot. The Modifications Committee then established the 5 foot setback on Park, and 3 foot interior setbacks, confirmed the 10 foot Apolena setback but allowed some encroachments on the lower floor in the kitchen, entry and in the balcony and some roof eaves. The applicant asked for and received an additional 189 square feet through the variance and is now looking for a place to build it. He is asking for a modification for an encroachment into the 10 -foot setback on Apolena. If a standard lot with a floor area of 1.067 can be built within the prescribed building envelope, it seems to me that this particular house can be built with a slightly less 1.04 within the prescribed envelope, which is 5 foot setback on Park and 10 foot setback on Apolena and 3 foot interior setbacks. • At Commission inquiry, Mr. Paige stated that there could be articulation along the 10 -foot frontage on Apolena without encroachments. The coverage percentage is slightly less. The applicant should go back and redesign the project. The Planning Department has prescribed that 10 -foot setback on Apolena as the building setback. With a design that acknowledges that 10 -foot setback and provides some type of articulation, maybe it becomes a little more linear without these cutouts on either end. I think it can be done. There seems to be no compelling reason for the encroachment, I think the house can be redesigned and have a wonderful house without those encroachments. This house is built on the front half of two lots; it is much larger and can accommodate a redesign and preserve that 10 -foot setback. Hall Seely, 1006 Park, the adjoining party that is the back half of the two split lots and has alley access. Our square foot ratio is .91. We did not realize the massiveness of the construction at 201 Apolena, and feel there is room to accommodate the 10- foot setback on Apolena. We are concerned that many of the problems are from the curb cut established by the City in September last year. The architect, in the first submittal to the Planning Department, stated that the project had been approved because the curb cut had been moved from Apolena to Park Avenue. I believe that the Park Avenue setback is also an issue, due to significant traffic. The existing Apolena driveway offers a more feasible and safer alternative. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Seely stated that the Park Avenue setback causes the garage to go 15 feet into the 20 -foot setback. By situating the garage where it is, it tends to put in place other design elements of the house that lead to the problems . that are being faced on Apolena. ^ INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Commissioner Kiser noted that the home as proposed will come to a setback that is in line with the Seely home and is not proposed to be any closer to Park Avenue than the front of the Seely home. I did a lot of walling there on the island and it is difficult to tell where setbacks would place a building. Bill Pierpoint, 124 Apolena stated his concern about the setback on Apolena. It is not only the setback on Apolena on the ground floor, but the request to go with balconies for an upper area that will also encroach into that setback. I think the homeowner has the right to build as large a home as possible within the restrictions. However, they are getting massive looking and if we allow setbacks to be eaten up, especially on what I call on the side streets, that feeling the island has had for many years will be lost. That is, the smaller cottage type of community. The architects are maximizing the square footage and that is great as long as they adhere to the restrictions, etc. The setbacks are critical, 1 would like to get some consistency especially now as these new homes are going in. I hope you fight for the community and keep the island looking a little cleaner, a little neater, not as massive and not have the mansionization look that we are starting to get the feel of. James Dunlap, 201 Abalone spoke as a member and representative of the Little Island Board of Directors. He stated their major concern is the smaller corner size lots and the setbacks on the side street. The 10 -foot setback on the side street should not be encroached upon. Lyle Dawn, 106 Apolena noted his concerns: • Building into the setback on Apolena will set a precedent and other people will follow suit. • The island will lose its cottage feeling. • The setbacks vary on the older homes that were built long before there were standards and are generally smaller, lower and single story. If two story, they are not as massive and have less volume. • Bigger homes are built to the maximum and if you let them go into the setback it's going to feel very crowded. Ari Katz, 1006 Park Avenue: • At the Modifications hearing, I presented a petition with 50 signatures of neighbors in the area who are opposed to any change in the setback on Apolena. • People are upset on the island with the construction of large homes. • There are certain changes and variances that should not be granted. The one on Apolena will set a precedent on the island. • The house that can be built given the other three variances will be quite large and spacious. If the 10 -foot setback on Apolena is encroached, you will be setting up an issue for our Island. At Commission inquiry, he answered that he has a problem with the curb cut that has created a situation to build the largest house and causes him to come in and INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 get a variance into Apolena. We are all here tonight, basically as a result of this curb cut change on Park. I urge you to take that into account. Mr. Ian Harrison, architect for 201 Apolena Avenue noted the following: • Designed a building that did not have a single faQade and tried to give the house some dynamics to the Apolena elevation to give it excitement. • The revised first floor plan is an average of greater than 10 feet except for the balcony off the bedroom; it is all behind 10 feet. • Some of the setbacks on Apolena are varied as well as the south and the north. The encroachment is for the kitchen area. The island should retain the 'look' and not have the buildings pushed out and I try to design the porches by pushing the buildings back. • The curb cut that I originally asked for was only to define where the curb cut would end up being so that I didn't design the building and then have to go back and change it. • The curb cut on Park Avenue Is the better solution because we are not backing up into cars on the opposite side of the street. Commissioner McDaniel noted that a lot of time was spent getting curb cuts and making the lot change so that it faces Park Avenue. One of the things I heard was that you went to all that trouble to change it so that you could get a bigger house and more variance, and yet it still faces Apolena. Mr. Harrison answered that the definition from the City is that Park Avenue is the front of the house. 'I didn't go to the trouble to change it. Council would have had to review the driveway on either street, because it is a nonconforming one on Apolena Avenue. I just needed a definition of where I could put this driveway and make it work so that when I design the building I don't have to go back and redesign it. I wanted to go on good faith and put it one place or the other and then proceed with the design of the building. Commissioner Selich noted that the design has about 60± square feet of encroachment. The area on Apolena Avenue and Park Avenue that sits behind the setback is roughly 60 square feet and then there is a little cut out on the bottom floor back by the dining room that is close to 60 square feet. My question is why did you design it that you took the front area to encroach into the setback area when you had an area in the back of the corner of the house that has almost the same amount of square footage? You could have stayed within the setbacks on Apoleno Avenue and still get the square footage that you were allowed to do the variance. Mr. Harrison answered that we wanted to keep the corner open as much as possible and thought this would have the least amount of resistance from the neighbors by having the open comer patio. The original design used the reverse setback delineated in the Zoning Code that I didn't know it was going to be an Issue, that is why I approached it in that way. The house was designed with the kitchen on that side to take advantage of that comer patio and to push it back 10 would make it too narrow. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Commissioner Selich asked why didn't you design it so the 60 square feet that is projecting beyond the setback line would stay within the setback area, which is equivalent to roughly 60 square feet back in the corner? There are a lot of different ways to design the building, and I understand by where you have the garage and if you want the kitchen on the corner to orient towards that corner open space, you have backed yourself into a corner with the narrow access from the kitchen to the corner patio. It seems to me quite frankly you could have just as easily designed it to have the living room orient on the patio and come up with another configuration with how the dining room and kitchen relate to each on the inside. It seems that there are other design options in there. Another thing that appears to me is that much of the 60 square feet back in the corner is covered by the second story with a corner post, which is kind of ripe for someone to come back in later, and close it in without a building permit and no one will even know it is closed in back there. Mr. Harrison answered that he took comments from the previous meetings about getting variations on the look of the front and pulled back the second level and some of the first level quite a bit and came up with what he thought would be an acceptable alternative. Chairperson Tucker noted the amount of encroachment on the first floor is not a lot but having the articulation is an important feature. The way the comer is designed is • an amenity; I am not wed to 10 feet on typical lots. I am not so certain that you could not have gotten a little further towards the goal with a little redesign and still gotten the footage. I don't think it is any great service to the neighborhood to have a monolithic setback as well. It is a tough design Issue. Commissioner McDaniel noted that the applicant was quite aware how volatile this 10 -foot setback was. I don't know how I could have made it more clear than I did. We met with him and the neighbors after the previous meeting to let him know that it was a significant concern to folks and we still find ourselves in this position. This could have been dealt with way back. Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel stated there is no compelling reason that a beautiful building could not be built within the setback. I believe that many issues have come forward and as much as I am in favor of those, I think we are beyond that. I think this may be able to be resolved here, if we indeed request the applicant to come back within that setback, because the neighbors want it. I would also mention that there are different setbacks on different streets, but reasonably uniformly, each street has its own setback and the neighbors are trying very hard to keep that. Those setbacks, as we continue to build bigger houses, become significant on each street. I am in favor of trying to resolve this by asking the applicant to go back and design the project within the envelope. The setbacks on Park Avenue and the interior setbacks are okay and are a compromise. The only one I firm on the one on Apolena Avenue. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Commissioner Kiser stated he had no problem with the encroachment Into the setback on Park Avenue or the rear yard, but has a problem with the one on Apolena Avenue. There is certainly a variation on the island with setbacks, but I find that most of the newer structures have a consistency and conformance. I have a concern with the corners, although it seems at the end of the streets many of the structures have encroached into the setback. While it may be true of a lot of the structures, I think the ends of the streets may be more important than those in the middle. I would like to see a design with an architectural and pleasing look with the 10 -foot setback. The building could be made to conform and I see nothing compelling that makes this lot so unusual given Its general size and shape that would require that variation in that setback. I would approve the other encroachments, but not the one on Apolena Avenue. Commissioner Agajanian noted that he had originally voted to not add the square footage to the parcel in anticipation of these kinds of problems. He stated he is not sympathetic to encroachments in general and not sympathetic to encroachments in this particular project. The architect has done a fine job and can construct and design something that could be worked within the envelope. I am not in support of any encroachments at all. Commissioner Gifford stated that the design of the building looks great in architectural terms, I raised, at the last meeting, the matter of the cutout at the rear • left portion of the lot, looking at it facing Park Avenue. I think that is a nice feature, it Is quite clear that there is a trade off going on here. The trade off is encroaching Into the setback on Apoleno Avenue. I was in favor of the variance because I think the lot needs help, but I would like to see it brought into line. The cut out at the corner is great but I am not in favor of this extent of a modification on Apolena Avenue. Commissioner Kranzley concurred with the previous comments. He noted that the building can be set back. We are dealing with about 60 square feet and the 10- foot setback on Apolena should be maintained. I am in favor of the encroachments on Park and on the rear, but not on Apolena. Commissioner Selich noted that the public testimony is asking for a standard of consistency with the 10 -foot setback on Apolena Avenue. We are looking to find equity in these properties that are configured in unusual situations. The front yard setbacks on Balboa Island are all over the place, so where do you find the equity? think you look at Apolena Avenue to find the equity. Looking at the proposed project with the setbacks on the front side and rear yard, this property is burdened with 44% of the properly in setback. It is not an equitable situation that we have two lots on the some block one a lot in the middle of the block that has to provide 36% and another a corner lot has to provide 44% setback area. That gets to the heart of what we are supposed to look at in these situations and while I am somewhat bothered that the cutout was left on the back off the dining area and I can see other design solutions that would allow for reorientation of the living room, dining room and kitchen and still have a well designed house and stay behind the • setbacks. They can come up with enough ways to provide enough Interest and INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 articulation on it. Looking at all of that to me I can't see I have a problem with the encroachment into the 10 -foot setback on Apolena. I can support the proposal as it stands. Chairperson Tucker noted support of the proposal for similar reasons as stated by Commissioner Selich. He added that the architect could have designed the project to fit within the setbacks. He continued by saying the corner element is something he would prefer over the solid 10 -foot setback because the 10 feet is honored at both the comer lot and at the north part of the lot and provides interest. It is a better project. I would support this modification request as submitted. Commissioner Gifford stated she would not be against some degree of a variance. This will probably go to the City Council and that will be another opportunity for all the interested parties to talk together. Commissioner Selich noted that this setback issue has nothing to do with the size, bulk or massiveness of the project. To deal with those, you have to deal with the floor area. There is a 1.5 floor area ratio and pushing this building back into the setback area for any practical reason will not change the mass of the building or the Impact it will have on the neighborhood. Commissioner Kiser added that this property has been given some help via the smaller setback on the rear of the property and less of a setback on Park Avenue. It is not as if by requiring the 10 foot setback strictly on Apolena Avenue that either the Planning Commission or the Modification Committee would have been applying the rules strictly. The variation and interest of the treatments need to be done within the buildable area. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to uphold the decision of the Modification Committee on Park Avenue and interior setbacks but not the Apolena Avenue setback. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: Agajanian Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to reverse the decision of the Modifications Committee on approving the encroachment into the 10 -foot setback of Apolena Avenue, Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Kranzley Noes: Tucker, Gifford, Selich do I 11 *1 9 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 1324 W. Balboa Boulevard • Modification Permit No. 2001 -109. (PA2001 -193) Request for an addition and alteration of an existing nonconforming triplex. The existing triplex is nonconforming because it is located in the R -2 District where two dwelling units are the maximum allowed. The triplex is also nonconforming in that the property provides only three parking spaces where the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of six spaces (2 per unit). Ms. Temple noted that this item is to be continued at the request of the applicant to June 20th. Commissioner Gifford stated that this is the final continuance. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to remove this Item from calendar. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley Selich Noes: None xs* SUBJECT: MFR District Height Limits in Corona del Mar Code Amendment No. 2001 -004. (PA2001 -209) An amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise the height limits for Multiple Family Residential (MFR) District properties in Corona del Mar. Chairperson Tucker noted that this item was at the City Council in 1998 and before the Planning Commission in 2002. This is a response to some members of the Corona del Mar community that had some concerns about the height of the MFR properties. Ms. Temple noted that the City had received contact from persons related to the Sailhouse project, which is the former Shores Apartment project in that they did not receive direct mail notice. We checked into that in terms of the sources used to devise the mailing list. Due to the lag time between times of recordation at the County Tax Assessor's office that information is not currently present in our tax records and therefore we had no direct mail information for those property owners. Per our Code, technically this does not create a flawed notice and you can proceed with the hearing. However, after discussion with the City Attorney, if the Planning Commission chooses or seems to go in the direction of wishing to implement the height limit change including that particular property, which is discussed in the staff report, that perhaps you should continue the matter and give us the opportunity to try and find an alternate means of providing notice to those property owners so that they receive good notice. If either tonight or in later decisions you find that is property that really doesn't need to be changed, then the issue would be moot at that point and we wouldn't need to do that. INDEX PA2001 -193 Continued to 06/20/2002 Item 3 PA2001 -209 Disapproved . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that properties effected and within a 300 -foot radius were notified as well as a notice in the Daily Pilot. The zone change referred to in the letter sent by Mr. Kent Moore appears to refer to the noticing on the original height limit change that established the curb height limit on Ocean Blvd. in Corona del Mar. The contention by them is that the City really intended to include Carnation and it was just omitted due to an oversight or error. Our research doesn't indicate that, but the individual may have reason to believe that. Commissioner Kranzley commented that on something like this where there doesn't seem to be a huge rush to take action on this that if there have been even minor flaws in the noticing that we do everything possible to get everybody at least an idea of what is going on. Again, there is not a huge rush on this item. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner gave a presentation noting: • Proposed amendment applies to Section 20.65.040. • Places all MFR properties in Corona del Mar to the 24/28 height limitation zone. • These MFR zones would be the same height limitation zone as the R -1 and R -2 districts. • Properties involved are the Sailhouse Project, on Seaview and Carnation and 300 block of Marguerite and multifamily properties in Corona • Highlands. 0 Views of Sailhouse project, Seaview /Carnation area, Ocean /Carnation, Marguerite /Coast Highway, Corona Highlands area were displayed. • Topographic separation was highlighted during the slide presentation. • Separation by topography or by intervening rights-of-way where the 4- foot difference is somewhat mitigated, with the possible exception of the Marguerite area. • If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this amendment, staff suggests that this be limited to the 300 block of Marguerite. Commissioner Selich asked about the large property at the corner of Carnation and Ocean that goes down the bluff that Is currently fenced off and was zoned R- 4. What kind of scenario do you see for the development of that property with and without testing the height limit on it? Ms. Temple answered that the property is extremely large. There is about a third of the lot area actually not on a level place as it relates to Carnation, but definitely there is a flat pad area at the top of the lot. While it does go down somewhat in a sloping configuration is still a fairly level building pad area and is where all the existing buildings are today. There are no building masses down towards the beach and the bay entrance. In terms of the scenarios of development, I have seen basically two general concepts, a single - family house subdivision and attached townhouse type condominium project. The analysis related to what the difference in the height limit would be really has to do with the scale relationship with the homes across Carnation. As was noted at the corner of Carnation and doOcean, the right -of -way is extremely large so there is a great separation and 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 makes it hard to discern the height limit regardless of which height limit was implemented on that property in my opinion. Commissioner Selich asked about the reference in the staff report about the predominance of the height limit on the bayside of Carnation as 24 feet and there are not many /any situations that are built above the R -1 height limits. Mr. Alford answered that there was only one that was above the 24 -foot height limit in the last ten years according to records. He believes the development was single family. Ms. Temple stated that the height of the area Commissioner Selich questioned was approximately 22 or 23 feet at the maximum. Ms. Temple stated any project currently under construction could proceed to completion. The ordinance would not affect It. Any building permit that has been issued and which has proceeded In a regular manner can continue to completion. The issue of whether someone has submitted plans into Plan Check and has not yet received a Building Permit can be determined by the Planning Commission. Many times the Planning Commission will have ordinances affect only submittals after the effective date of the ordinance or beyond a certain period of time. It is like a mini grandfathering clause. Without such a grandfathering type of provision in the ordinance, then any building that had not actually had the building permit issued would have to go back to the drawing board. The ordinances are effective 30 days from the City Council approvals. The Sail house project proceeded under the 28 -foot height limit and that is what it is being built to. The Planning Commission saw only the landscape and tentative map. If provisions have been made in the CCR's regarding height, the City is not a part of those CCR's and would not enforce them. If they built to a maximum ridge height of 31 feet, that would be higher than the 24 -foot height limit, which allows the maximum ridge height to be 29 feet. It would not currently conform to our 24 -foot height regulations. It could be in their CCR's offer they designed the project and established the specific height limit that really related to the design of their project and wanted to make sure the subsequent owners didn't breach those limitations and therefore put them in their CCR's. If the ridge height is 31 feet, that could only be achieved under the current MFR height limit. 'Chairperson Tucker noted that the Sailhouse project was recently approved and built and would not be in favor of changing the ground rules on that project. This particular location is unique so he would not be interested in seeing any changes to the height limits. Commissioner Selich asked that the public during their presentation point out the public necessity and benefits of adjusting these height limits. The last discussions that we had on this were about private view preservations and that is not something that is in our purview. I would particularly want to hear the public benefit reasons. 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Chairperson Tucker added that there has to be some public policy reason to change, it is not a question of appropriating one person's property right in favor of the property rights of the person across the street. Public comment was opened. Amy Moore, 895 Dove Street project manager with John Lange Homes for the Sailhouse project requested that the Sailhouse project be eliminated from the new height limitation. The reason is if any of the new homeowners if their homes are destroyed in any way and they have to rebuild, they would not then be able to build the same building. At Commission inquiry, she stated that the height limit is 31 feet and there is an agreement with the Harbor View homeowners above the project. Chuck Sydell, 4332 Shorecrest Lane, president of the Corolido Community Association noted that their main concern is If there was a structural failure in one of their units they would not be able to rebuild what was there originally. If this should be passed, they ask that their project be eliminated from these restrictions. Twelve of their buildings face Coast Highway that is on quite a slope. Measuring from the average level of land, they would be quite low. Our height has been established for quite a while. Another concern is that some people have made improvements to their property without enlarging their footprints and they are asking that not be restricted as well. There are 24 buildings built in 1960 and are all basically the some height. Mr. Alford added that if a structure is destroyed less than 90% of the replacement value, they could rebuild by right to restore it to previous conditions. If it is over 90% of the replacement value then they are required to obtain a use permit approved by the Planning Director. John Siple, 452 Seaward Rd. stated that he had been involved with the changes in the density since 1982. He noted that the notice for this evening's meeting had been postmarked May 25+^ and received his Friday night. Because of the shortness of time he did not have an opportunity to bring in background materials. The twelve properties on Shorecrest Lane did not get a notice. The way the change is these property owners would be affected the most. If you lower the height to 24/28 -foot height limit, the changes would affect 7 units (they could not be re- built). In conclusion he noted that he is against this proposal as it would devalue his property and asked that their development be excluded from the height restriction. At Commission inquiry, he noted that there are building heights ranging from 25.4 to 27.6 feet high. John Martin, 207 and 329 Carnation asked for a denial of this proposal for the following reasons: • Neighborhood aesthetics. • Social justice /equity. Economic impact, 12 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Design considerations. Plans to redevelop his property. Brion Jeannette, architect noted that for a particular client at 215 Carnation there was a small tower that went up to 31 feet In height, the rest of the building was generally in the 24/26 -foot height range. He suggested that the height limits be left where they are. One of the critical issues is as you take the flat pad and descend down that slope you can't go out more than a few feet before you go through a 24 to 29 foot height limit in an instant, which is why the Commission has seen and granted a substantial amount of variances to the homes built on the bluff. On that project we have completed the plans, into the Building Department and presently it is taking anywhere from 6 to 8 months for plans to come back from the City for building permits. If this goes through some course that is adopted, I have two approvals and am in this limbo period before I actually obtain a building permit. I would like the Commission to allow us to move forward If this changes in any fashion. The second property I am representing is the parcel at the corner of Carnation and Ocean, the fenced in apartment complex. I realize that any effort to work with the neighbors in the area to respect the R -1 height limit is something 1 have indicated and would be involved in doing for the flat portion of the property. I understand the complexity and the neighborhood fabric, but I am not the architect for this property. As you go down that hill you instantly get into limits and variance requirements. I ask that you leave the heights as they are as it gives more flexibility to the design of structures to cascade more comfortably down the hill. Rich Bitaglia, 233 Carnation spoke in opposition to the change in height. He has been in design on his complex for over a year now and is at 31 feet in design. We have had preliminary meetings with Planning staff to get all the information to abide by the existing rules and now it sounds like they may be changed. We would have to redesign our concept if you change the limits and the complex will become more boxy and unappealing to the neighborhood. I urge you to not pass this. The complex is multifamily and has three units. Bud Razner, 2500 Ocean Blvd., spoke in favor of this amendment. He gave a brief history of the issue and noted a petition signed by 30 homeowners who are for this height limitation and concluded asking that this be allowed. At Commission Inquiry, he noted his opposition is primarily based on aesthetics and character of the community. Chairperson Tucker noted that a good point was made in terms of the houses that are on the bluffs. The 28 or 32 feet may not be anymore visible depending on where it is placed on the lot than the 24/28. We have had situations where people on bluffs have their houses go down on the hill, and on the front they are actually a lot lower and down the hill they go beyond the height limit. 28/32 gives flexibility on the lots without having to come in for a variance. 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Mr. Rainer answered that Mr. Jeannette will have to come in for a variance for things like the underground parking, which is a wonderful idea, that he has done at 215 Carnation. His idea(s) is no more valid than mine except the credentials. Chairperson Tucker answered that we are looking for a reason to change something that has been in place for thirteen years that people have bought properties and relied upon. It is not too late to change it if there is a good reason. We need to hear that good reason. Mr. Razner answered that there are good reasons for each different person. Commissioner Selich asked staff what year the height limit was set on Ocean Boulevard? Staff answered in 1972. Commissioner Selich continued that since 1972 we keep hearing that a mistake was made that they were going around onto Carnation. In 1972 most of those properties had structures on them, they may not be the structures that we have today, but do you recall any mistake being made on that? Ms. Temple answered that she has tried to research that but there is not that much detail in the file records from that time. 1 find no evidence to say it was a mistake in the sense that we found a staff report that said it would apply to Carnation but the legal description didn't, or any discrepancy of that nature. So, I can only go by the fact that the area subject to that amendment was defined by a legal description and that they knew what they were doing when they wrote It. The MFR was adopted in 1989 and would have been another opportunity to review this. The MFR height limit was probably the principle issue discussed in the actual part of the Code because we were taking the R -3 and R-4 lots and turning them into one designation, where R -3 and R-4 had two different height limits. The Planning Commission recommended to council that they adopt 24 feet, but the Council elected to move in a different direction. They felt that the combination of the 28 -foot height limit in association with the six -fold Increase in the open space requirement would produce a better architectural result for multi family properties. So, not only was it an opportunity, it actually was discussed. Mr. Frangois Dadeaux, owner of 215 and 309 Carnation and built 221 and 223 Carnation as a condo and the height is 31 feet but they look like just a one family house. I have an offer on the big piece of property next to 215 Carnation. Believe me, if you put the height down, it will help my negotiation and I will support It because the value won't be the same. The reason I am concerned about that property is because it will be my neighbor. I want to be sure that I build something extraordinary. I love that street and the location. We need the height. If we win that corner, I guarantee everybody will love the project and will be the most beautiful landmark. 40 Andrew Goetz architect, stated he has a project that will be before the 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 Commission at 308 and 312 Carnation. This project has been designed to the maximum currently allowed height limits and hopefully my client Is against the down zoning of this area. It seems the perception of this was to bring "In the neighborhood compatibility. On the slides presented, the properties on Marguerite are old and will eventually be turned over and rebuilt. I think in the event the Commission goes ahead and adopts this ordinance, perhaps there could be some other interpretations added. May I suggest that to take away the entitlement would truly hurt a lot of people on Marguerite, which nobody specifically addressed tonight. To keep it compatible perhaps the height could stay the same but just not pushed into the front yard part of the project. In other words, maintain the height but put in the center or towards the rear so that the street scene could be designed in a nice articulated manner. Perhaps there are some other mechanisms in the language of this draft that still could give owners their entitlement and reduce the scale if that is what the true intent of this ordinance is. Commissioner Gifford affirmed that the suggestion for Marguerite the speaker's recommendation would be to leave the heights the same, but change the setbacks? Mr. Goetz answered that perhaps if the heights stay the same, the portion that goes up to 32 feet be demanded to be farther back from the front yard setback. In other words, the allowable height cannot be achieved in the first 20 feet of the building area. Not change the footprints setback, just the massing. Art Pease stated he is opposed to the height restrictions. He then read from a staff report of 11 /13/1989 of the City Council meeting referring to A 687 and Ordinance 89 -98. '...the MFR properties 28 to 32 foot height limitation district while increasing the required open space to six times the buildable area of the lot. This would result in similar building bulk but increase flexibility in design...' Orville Myers, P. O. Box 1034, Idyllwild, stated his wife is the owner of a parcel on Dahlia Place, which is a private street. The lot currently has a 1914 house occupied by family members. The basic parcel is unique as it starts at three feet below the level of Dahlia Place and slopes down towards Bayside to an elevation 14 feet below Dahlia Place. We delivered our letter of protest to the Planning Department today. We feel if this height limit is reduced from 28132 to 24/28 that we would be building down in a hole. It would almost appear the top of the house would be 10 to 12 feet higher than the access driveway. This would not be in keeping at all with the surrounding properties that are already developed. So, we either ask that you deny the request to reduce the height limits or that you send it back to staff and ask them to investigate these unique properties that present a totally different problem than basically flat land parcels. Public comment was closed. Ms. Temple stated that is the language in the Code, but in reading the Section, I now understand what the calculation means. What they did was it's the 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 buildable area times 6 feet to define a cubic volume area. The buildable lot area is a flat dimension, so it is really that dimension times 6 feet creating a cubic volume area, then there are specifications in that section as to certain percentages of that volume needing to be adjacent to the front yard setback and the rear yard setback. If you were to build that square box with a flat roof, and build out to all the setback lines, the only way to achieve the volume would be to lower the building by 6 feet below 28 feet. That interpretation applies to any structure in the MFR district. Commissioner Selich stated that he does not see any real compelling public reason to institute these height limits. I think it would cause more disruption than we can imagine, anything from newly constructed buildings such as the Sailhouse project, the Corolido properties anchored by condominium projects they would all be faced with the same situation. It seems that there would be more disruption of properties and situations by adopting this ordinance than any benefit that could be gained from instituting it. I am leaning towards not changing these height limits at all. Commissioner Kranzley noted his agreement with previous statement, as did Commissioners Gifford, Agajanion, Kiser, and McDaniel. Chairperson Tucker noted his agreement adding that there is not much a . difference in terms of public views or private views other than a particular lot that might benefit from this. I agree with Mr. Rosner on the three -story look, but I don't know if that is something that we will see a lot of especially as you get to some of those prime views of the ocean and the harbor. The one house that we did get to see recently was one that was designed by Mr. Jeannette that basically did not have a lot of height. I don't see a compelling reason to change everybody's expectations at this point. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to disapprove Code Amendment No. 2001 -004. Commissioner Selich clarified that this was sent down to the Planning Commission by the City Council. Staff made a report to Council and gave them a couple of options for directions to go, and then it was shifted to us. Should this go back to Council with a report on what we found on it? Chairperson Tucker answered that it will be on their agenda and they are capable of calling it up if they want to deal with it. Ms. Temple noted that per the Code with a denial by the Planning Commission, that is where it stops, although we do make the Planning Commission report and they can call it up, it does not automatically go to them. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Kiser, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None 4 *xr 16 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6. 2002 (PA2002 -038) Request to amend the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Planned Community Development Criteria and District Regulations pertaining to floor areas that apply towards the established maximum development allocation. The applicant seeks to exempt out floor areas that are used to construct structural systems, store mechanical equipment or otherwise not regularly occupied. Ms. Temple noted that as the Principal Planner she was involved when the Development Agreement for Hoag Hospital when it was approved in 1992. This is one particular type of land use and one particular type of project where what was known about construction needs and infra structure needs for the type of land use that we were considering, were considered to be rather ordinary and typical to most office development at the time. However, in the intervening years it is clear that times have changed and things have changed. Our codes in many ways have not kept pace with some of the changes in both how buildings are built and how building infrastructure is housed. Two particular things that really bring this amendment forward are the fact that the basement that houses the base isolation seismic facilities, or supports of the building, technically are defined as floor area and it is really not useable, it is really just the building on wheels so that when the ground shakes, the building rolls back and forth and does not collapse upon itself. These are new seismic requirements that have grown out of the Northridge earthquake and the failure in several hospitals in the northern part of LA County. In addition, technology has rapidly grown in the health care industry and particularly in the intensive care portions of the hospitals and the amount of electronic infrastructure that these buildings need to provide for all the monitoring and other types of devices are just so much greater than we ever thought would happen when the original entitlements were established. Staff feels it is appropriate in particular since this is a planned community applicable only to this hospital use site, that for this use the exclusion of these support areas, these non-occupiable areas, could be something considered by the Commission. Public comment was opened. Bill Jennings, 280 Cagney noted he is not against this project. Continuing, under discussion for the east tower is 89,000 square feet. How will that be re- distributed in the rest of the project? Will that give them further area to increase the envelope of their project? I had been involved with the original Development Agreement representing our group living next door to Hoag Hospital. I would like to know how this area will be reallocated. Ms. Temple answered that the project conforms to all elements of the Development standards, i.e., building heights, setbacks, etc. If we do not change the definition, we will have to reduce the size of the project by the square footages because they would count as useable square footage area. John Chamberlain, 260 Cagney Lane asked that the City be more definite. The 17 INDEX f7_F�i.if��?cI•? Approved . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 hospital is not filling its envelope so far, so for the staff to say it's all going to be within the project limits, there is so much space in the project limit. It is a question of where this space is going to be used. There is going to be more physical building within a pre- approved envelope that was a hard fought bloody battle in the early 90's. I think the City owes it to its citizens to give it notice to get an understanding of what the consequences are of approving this is going to be. Lido Island gets impacted when this large giant structure comes up and out to the east. Another issue is one of quality of life in terms of light and air. We live adjacent to the hospital and as things close in and go higher on either side of the main structure, it constricts the air, changes wind flow, changes light and changes the ability to have plants grow. Then it is a function of knowing where we stand in light of what is really proposed. Typically we have been told they don't know yet, they just want the freedom to build and conform to the changes in the laws and hospital requirements. Commissioner Gifford clarified with the speaker that he is suggesting that there is a possibility that there is available square footage that presently doesn't have a specific plan that could be used for these purposes and his concern is because this purpose seems relatively innocuous, extra square footage is being asked for this and then the other square footage will be available for whatever. Mr. Chamberlain answered that Hoag Hospital did not want to have a general plan and have it all done at once. In the early 90's and late 80's the Council wanted to develop this envelope program so that they could set the parameters once and for all. The hospital plan at that time got certain height limits, broad based footprints limits and did not completely fill the envelope. It wouldn't be in their purpose to completely fill the envelope. There are pieces of the envelope like south of the tower that only goes four stories high. Now, are they going to come out from that tower with the extra thousands of square feet and come south towards to the main parking lot which will narrow the gap between the two buildings 280 and 260 Cagney and create a greater wind effect? Chairperson Tucker asked if changes in law have resulted in more area being required for the structural, safety and mechanical purposes than what would have happened back when the plan was originally approved? In my mind, that is the issue. If those have increased and we are just stuck with the limits as defined now, Hoag is actually getting less area than what was originally anticipated in terms of being occupied. Mr. Chamberlain stated that they have the same area; it is just how useful that area will be for them. The meetings established area and at that point and still today, normally when you develop an envelope it includes hallways, Includes basements and includes non - useable space. It is a legitimate request to ask for an amendment and I think it is a legitimate request to say what is going to be the affect of that amendment on the homeowners and we don't have that half. Peter Foulke, Executive Vice President Hoag Hospital noted that he went through those extensive hearings back in the early 90's. The issues were discussed in terms 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 of setbacks, heights, etc. There have been changes in laws that we have to comply with. The base isolation is a method of securing this building in an earthquake to make it safe and that is the entire subterranean basement floor space. We are not going any higher, not going any wider, and not going closer to any setbacks. It is space that would come out of our allocation, which is nothing but a bunch of shock absorbers sitting down there. There have been a number of changes since legislation went through in terms of changing structure requirements for hospitals in the last few years. We believe this request will not have any impact on the neighbors in terms of additional height or bulk. The additional 89,000 square feet Is in the ground. There will be an interstitial floor as well that is all mechanical and will be 53,829 square feet. The subbasement Is the sub - isolation floor is 35,777 square feet. The whole Development Agreement had no plans for this type of requirements. Instead of putting it on the roof, we have put it on the interstitial floor, which does a nice job of hiding it and makes It more aesthetically pleasing. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the floor area is established via a floor area ratio. The size, height, setbacks of buildings and other structures on the property are governed by the other development regulations. For instance, the parking structure is not floor area. They just built a brand new 6 story parking structure and that did not count at all against the floor area but it still had to maintain the building envelope. On the upper campus, those envelopes recognize that was in a high -rise area and so the height limits are quite high. The other parts of the hospital campus (lower) against Coast Highway have a much lower height limit and different setbacks than are present on the upper campus plan. There is no direct relationship between the allowable envelope for building for this site and the permissible floor area. Commissioner Selich asked when the specific plan was approved was there a plan for this tower? Mr. Foulke answered no, and there was no square footage defined for this tower. Each of the campuses has separate limitations on square footage. All of the square footage on both the upper and lower campuses was defined in gross terms and there was an overall building envelope for the property and within that envelope different buildings at different heights were constructed. There were additional restrictions on the lower campus such as no emergency rooms and no helicopter pads. Commissioner Selich asked if the floor area goes underneath the building in the mechanical utilities room, that is about 13.5% of the total square footage of the tower, so presumably if these regulations wouldn't have come into place there would have been a regular floor there encompassing that 13.5% of the building, where do you plan now to put that square footage? Mr. Foulke answered, he didn't know yet. The concept we have is the buildable envelope and square footage bulk so if we build within our allotments we would have the approval to do that. On the upper campus, we have approximately 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 150,000 more square feet to build out. We expect to end up with the same ratio for mechanical and electrical similar to this as well as the sub - basement. Commissioner Selich noted that building(s) would probably translate to an above ground square footage would be about another 150,000 square feet to the upper campus area. Mr. Foulke agreed. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford noted that the 53,829 square feet will be extra space and is it likely to be a separate building or part of a building already on the site? Mr. Foulke answered it will probably be included in an existing building on site as there a lot of small buildings within the building envelope. Commissioner Kiser asked that if this was not within a Planned Community Development, a substantial portion of that 89,606 square feet would be exempted under our Zoning Code. Ms. Temple answered the Zoning Code for all commercial development allows an exclusion of up to 10% of a building for the purposes of mechanical and support spaces. That would mean approximately 39,771 square feet would be exempted for the hospital. Mr. Foulke noted that the way the lower campus is approved with the setbacks that it has as well as the height limitations and allowable square feet, they are basically allowed to fill in a large part of that lower campus. So if this additional square footage went anyplace there it could only go down. Commissioner Agajanian affirmed that the amount of additional square footage that is being permitted with the adoption of the redefinition is roughly 300,000 square feet remaining in the lower campus and about 150,000 square feet remaining in the upper campus. That totals to about 450,000 square feet of space that remained yet to be developed. Of that if we apply this 22% figure (exclusion sub -total square footage) that would be adding about another 89,000 square feet of space. What we are approving with the redefinition then is the reconfiguration of this 89,000 square feet and then potentially another something less than 90,000 square feet remaining. Mr. Foulke agreed. Commissioner Kiser, referencing Attachment A to the Resolution, asked if the measurement of '....8 feet from finished floor to ceiling and Is not occupied...' be changed to 7 feet to conform that measurement with Chapter 20.03 of our Zoning Code, which provides for exemptions for basement or attic areas. Ms. Temple answered that if the applicant can work within that 7 -foot space that would be a good thing to do. • Randy Regier, with Taylor and Associates, Architects 2220 North University 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 INDEX representing Hoag Hospital answered that the reason it is 8 feet is that in Title 24 we are required by Code to not make any space less than 8 feet unless it is like a janitors closet, which is the only exception that allows us to reduce the ceiling height to 7 feet. This particular instance, our concern is the base isolator level actually has an 8 -foot floor height. With base isolator technology you extend the floor -to -floor heights and gets you beyond the 8 feet that throws it into the calculated square footage. Commissioner Kiser thanked Mr. Regler stating he had answered his question. The measurement will remain 8 feet. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve Resolution 1560 with the change suggested on page 5 of the staff report having the definition state that the areas are not for continuous or regular occupancy and the additional condition prohibiting the excluded spaces from being converted to useable space. Commissioner Kiser noted that Attachment A to the Resolution incorporated those specific statements. He offered additional language to Definitions number 2., 3., and 4. ....... not for general or routine occupancy. This was acceptable to the maker of the motion and the applicant. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None SUBJECT: Bernard A. Leckie on behalf of Robert Butler, property owner Item 5 911 W. Bay Avenue PA2002 -037 Modification Permit No. 2002 -018 (PA2002 -037) The permit requests the retention of a deck extension completed without benefit of Continued to a building permit. The deck area was formerly a solid roof patio cover that 06/20 /2002 encroaches 2 -feet 10-inches into the required 10-foot front yard setback. The extension increases the depth of the deck 2 -feet 10- inches and maintains the required 3 foot side yard setbacks. The property is located in the R -2 District. Ms. Temple noted that this item is to be continued at the request of the applicant to June 20th. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanlan, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None SUBJECT: JWA Settlement Agreement Extension Item 6 General Plan Amendment, GPA 2002-001 (PA 2001 -222) PA 2001 -222 An amendment to the Land Use Element and Noise Element of the General Plan Continued to relating to the extension of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement. 06 /2012002 • 21 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 2002 INDEX Ms. Temple noted that this item is to be continued at the request of staff to June 20th. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Y Y ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council reviewed and approved an amendment to the contract for MIG, the General Plan Vision consultant to account for the extension of the timeframe of the visioning process, and the enlargement of the sample size of the telephone survey, as well as the report on the Planning Commission meeting. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich stated that on June 19th the full Economic Development Committee meeting will have a business update on tourism industry. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no meting. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. e) f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. 9) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. h) Status report on Planning Commission requests - no updates. i) Project status - Ms. Temple reported that EZ Lube appealed the denial of their use permit; and there is to be meeting on June 17th at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Users Group to explain the permit streamlining process. D Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m. Adjournment EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 22