Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/24/1997CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fuller, Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich and Ashley - Commissioner Gifford arrived at 7:15 p.m. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chairperson - Michael Kranzley Vice Chairperson - Ed Selich Secretary - Tom Ashley STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager, Community and Economic Development Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Daniel Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary U Minutes of July 10. 1997: Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway and voted on to approve, as amended, the July 10, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes. Ayes: Ridgeway, Kranzley, Adams, Gifford, Selich, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: Fuller Public Comments none Posting of the Aaenda' The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 18, 1997 outside of City Hall. 40 Minutes Public Comments Posting of the Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 SUBJECT: Aubergine Restaurant(Tim and Liza Goodell, applicant) 508 29th Street • Use Permit No. 3611 Request to change an existing restaurant to a full- service, low turnover restaurant to accommodate additions and alterations to the building which include the expansion of the area devoted to dining. The application also involves the incorporation of previous conditions of approval imposed by the Coastal Commission in conjunction with the existing restaurant establishment and the approval of an off -site parking agreement fora portion of the required parking. Also included in the application is a request to approve a modification to the zoning Code to allow the use of a tandem parking space on site. The applicant has requested that this application be continued to the meeting of August 7, 1997, to allow staff additional time to modify and re -post the notice of public hearing to accommodate changes to the application. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue Use Permit No. 3611 to August 7th. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Kranzley, Gifford, Adams, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none SUBJECT: California Fresh Mexican Grill (John Petry, applicant) 4341 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite F • Use Permit No. 3610 Request to convert a specialty food service establishment (No. 50) to a full service, high turnover restaurant facility; and to alter the operational characteristics to add alcoholic beverage service (beer and wine) as incidental to the primary food use. The applicant has requested that this application be continued to the meeting of August 7th to allow for additional time to address issues which may affect the design of the project. The applicant was unable to resolve the issues with the business owner since he is out of the country. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue Use Permit No. 3610 to August 7th. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Kranzley, Gifford, Adams, Ashley INDEX 0 Rem No. 1 UP No. 3611 Continued to 8/7/97 Item 2 UP No. 3610 Continued to 8/7/97 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none SUBJECT: Kimberly Walsh and Steve Frazelle 2208 Margaret Drive Variance No. 1213 To permit alterations and additions to an existing single family dwelling which will exceed the allowable 2 times the buildable area of the site. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to allow the proposed addition to encroach 1 foot in the easterly 3 foot side yard setback, 5 feet into the 10 foot rear yard setback, and 2 feet into the 20 foot front yard setback in front of the garage. The existing dwelling encroaches 3 feet into the required 3 foot westerly side yard setback, and t feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. Ms. Temple stated that this particular Variance has resulted from discovery of construction that has occurred without permits. This lot is a small lot and, as noted in the staff report, is located in the Newport Heights area. Main components of the staff report: Buildable area of the site - A comparison of proposed total building size to the lot size as a proportion and an analysis compared to reasonable setbacks given the size of the lot has been presented. The proposed new construction in both cases is substantially less than seen in a comparable situation elsewhere in the City. Therefore, staff feels that the approval of this particular variance to exceed the allowed building area would be appropriate. The physical encroachment of the building into the rear yard normally requires a 10 foot setback, the existing structure is built 5 feet from the property line, some of the new construction has encroached to within 18 inches to the property line, but the staff recommendation is that the 5 foot setback be maintained. The front part of the property includes 7 foot parkway and within the parkway exists a 6 foot 6 inch high garden fence which is constructed right on the curb line adjacent to Margaret Drive. The Planning and Public Works Departments suggest a condition which would require location of the fence. Staff also suggested a change to Condition No. 6. An explanation of two scenarioswas given referencing photos taken by staff Commissioner Selich asked staff about the duplex adjacent to the property and it was noted that lot was within it's property lines due to the irregularright of way in that location. It was noted that the curb line will not be changed as there are no plans to eitherwiden the road or install sidewalks. 3 INDEX Item No. 3 Variance No. 1213 Modified and Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 INDEX Discussion ensued with regard to the fence and setbacks. It was noted the Fire Marshall has reviewed the report and have not indicated any problem with the request of 2 foot side yard. Commissioner Fuller noted a complainton the building permit and asked of the neighborhood response to construction at this address. He was answered that the original construction was brought to the City's attention from a complaint in the neighborhood. The improvements and /or additions that were built have been constructed by the applicant without building permit(s). Public Hearing was opened. Kimberly Walsh (owner and applicant) and Steve Frazelle, 2208 Margaret Drive - in response to Commission inquiry stated they have read, understand and agree to the findings and conditions of Variance No. 1213. Ms. Walsh stated that the purpose for making the additions and changes was to improve the original building and increase the overall value to the neighborhood and to the property's. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Ms. Walsh why construction was done without a set of plans approved by the City? Ms. Walsh stated that she did know permits were required but the construction started with the garage and escalated from there, and she did not take the time nor stop to obtain the necessary permits. Commissioner Adams, when you were red tagged for not having the building permitswhy did you ignore the stop work order? Ms. Walsh answered that she did not receive a stop work notice - she received a 2nd stop work notice and at that time all construction stopped. Commissioner Fuller stated that there is some remodeling that will have to be done. The garage door will have to be moved in, the fence torn down as well as the back part of the house to bring it back to the 5 foot setback. She answered that she was aware of all this and has reviewed all of the findings and conditions. Mark Dwyer, 645 Irvine Avenue - neighbor on northeast side next to the site stated that construction work on this site has continued all along. It has continued late at nights and on weekends. He explained he had talked to the owner and told them they needed to have permits for this building. He continued saying that the variances they are asking for, except for the rear yard and west side setbacks, are unreasonable. There are skylights now in the garage and they are within five feet of the setback and the building code states that anything within five feet on R -1 occupancy must be protected with 4 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 one hour, no openings are allowed, how is this possible? He noted the applicants should have done research on this property to see what could or could not be done. Referencing the plot plan on the board, he noted none of the neighbors knew there was going to be second story built until tonight's meeting. He concluded stating what is being done will not enhance the neighborhood and what the applicants have been doing has upset the neighborhood. Commissioner Selich asked for and received clarification on the planning issues as being reviewed by the Commission and any building issues will be reviewed through the Plan Check review by the Building Department. Staff answered that the applicant will be required to submit regular plans to the Building Department and will be required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Staff will also take care to assure that the applicant is aware of the Municipal Code regarding hours allowable for construction. Mary Lee Taylor, 639 Irvine Avenue - neighbor to the applicant opposes this construction and is concerned with the tall building and fence that have been constructed so close to her back yard. She is very concerned with the potential of fire hazard to her. At Commission query, Mrs. Taylor stated her duplex is single story. • Ms. Yuri Mukai, 635 Irvine Avenue - neighbor on s/w corner of Margaret Avenue and Irvine spoke in favor of Mary Lee Taylor and Mark Dwyer statements. Wayne Stewart, 2212 Margaret (manager) - west of the 2208 Margaret residence. He voiced concern with code violations, disclosure during buying /selling of property so the owner knew what could or could not be done, construction being done after the property was red tagged, second story would not fit on that small a lot and would be a detriment to the surrounding properties, and ended stating that any construction should be done according to code and that all should be done with the proper permits by the City. Mark Courson, 647 Irvine Avenue - property owner and tenant stated that his major concern is the setback in the back yard with the overhang, decrease of property values, fire concern (buildable space has been exceeded) and the construction that has occurred may not have been done to code. Personally has observed embers from the new fireplace falling on his and neighbor properties in an unsafe manner. He concluded that this residence has been built out as for as possible with. no concern to adjacent properties, hasn't improved any property values except possibly their own, and that this should have been researched because this type of home should be built on a different piece of property. At Commission query, Mr. Courson said his building sets back five to six feet at the closest area from the applicant's residence. • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 INDEX Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Ridgeway asked about the overhang and was answered that the typical overhang can encroach up to a maximum of 2 '/2 feet into a required setback with provisions for a minimal distance from a property line. In this case since the building is already encroaching it would be appropriate for Commission to establish a maximum eave overhand. Commissioner Gifford asked staff about granting a variance to restrict construction to one story with a two foot setback? Staff answered that part of the addition that encroaches to within two feet of the side yard setback is the new construction and that is the proposed location for the future second floor. If the concern is.the maintenance of a setback on that line at a two story elevation, it is within the power of the Commission to require that it maintain a three foot setback. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that if the Commission was to approve the Variance as requested, and ten years later someone requests to demolish the house, do we have to respect that two foot side yard setback and do we have to respect the zero yard setback? Will they be grandfathered? Staff answered that if the building is torn down, they are a new application and would have to come in for a new Variance and modifications for setback • encroachments if they were desired, so there is no grandfathering on setback encroachments or variance itself for new construction. Commissioner Fuller stated his concern with the setback of 3 feet on the east side to which staff answered that this is the setback Code requirement for a 40 foot wide lot. His second concern is of increasing neighbor values, is there any support for this to which staff answered that if a property is improved pursuant to the Building Code and in a manner acceptable to the City it should improve the property value of the property itself and therefore the surrounding community. Ms. Temple stated that the square footage could be cut back by the amount of the second floor and in essence would eliminate the second floor. Discussion continued on subsequent construction, variance and plans submitted. Motion was made by Commissioner Adams to approve Variance No. 1213 with the staff recommended change to Condition 6 to add ..... and that a minimum distance of S feet be maintained between the fence and curb.. and to incorporate that.... The 2 foot easterly side yard setback variance would be granted for a single story structure, but should the applicant wish to build a second story, they must maintain a 3 foot easterly side yard setback. He noted that he appreciates the fire issue concern raised by the speakers, but he agrees with the Fire Department's recommendation that this is reasonable. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 Staff ascertained at Commission inquiry, that the Variance is being granted only for an increased floor area and the rest are modifications which are minor variances. The existing garage is on the property line and is existing legal non- conforming. Discussion continued on new construction /remodeling, volume, interior height, required parking, guarantee changes to come for Commission review. Staff recommend adding to Condition 1 ....Any changes from the approved floor plans would require approval of the Planning Commission. Call for the Motion: Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Kranzley, Gifford, Adams, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Findings 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single family dwelling is a permitted use within the 'Single- Family • Detached" land use designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class (Existing Facilities) 3. That exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, building and /or uses in the same District since the subject property is smaller than the typical lot in this area, and is subject to greater than normal setback requirements which restrict the buildable area of the site. 4. That the approval of Variance No. 1213 is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant since the proposed project is generally proportional or smaller in size, bulk and height than other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of setback requirements would result in an even smaller building. 5. That the granting of a variance to allow the structure to exceed the permitted gross structural area will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to • the public welfare of injurious to property improvements in the 7 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 neighborhood because the proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the property and enhance the overall neighborhood. 6. The granting of a modification to allow encroachments into setbacks will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the modifications as approved are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because: • The existing dwelling is encroaching 5 feet into the rear yard setback and the addition will continue with the same building line and will not intensify the nonconforming setback. • The 2 foot garage extension into the front yard setback will not impact the required space in front of the garage for the parking of a vehicle because the garage door is being moved back to provide 18 feet clear in front of the garage. • The 2 foot easterly side yard setback provides adequate passage through the side yard for access to the rear yard. • The 3 foot encroachment into the westerly side yard will not create any additional problems as it is a continuation of an existing nonconforming setback. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development since conditions have been included in regards to development within the public right -of -way: 8. That adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed use. Conditions: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. Any changes require approval of the Planning Commission. 2. That the gross square footage shall not exceed 1,039 square feet. 3. That two parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 4. That the garage door shall be moved back to provide a clear distance of 18 feet from the back of curb face to the garage door and a roll -up door shall be installed. 5. That the existing fence located in the front yard setback and within the public right -of -waybe removed. INDEX 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 6. That any fence located within the public right -of -way shall be limited to INDEX a maximum height of 3 feet and that a minimum distance of 5 feet be maintained between the fence and curb. That a corner cut -off of the fence shall be provided at the intersection of the driveway and the public right- of -wayto the satisfaction of the Public Works Departmentto provide adequate sight distance, or, if the applicant desires a 6 foot fence, the fence shall be located at the property line with a corner cut- off at the intersection of the driveway and the property line to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department to provide adequate site distance. 7. That all work within the public right -of -way and the public easement be constructed under an encroachment permit/encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 8. The 2 foot easterly side yard setback is granted for a single story structure, but should the second story addition be implemented, a 3 foot easterlyside yard setback must be maintained. 8.9. That building permits shall be obtained for the as -built construction in accordancewith the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. 9. 10. That all public improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4-8. 11. That the rear portion of the as -built addition be removed to provide a minimum of 5 feet clear to the property line. 44. 12. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. saa SUBJECT: Circulation Element, Newport Beach General Plan item No. 4 Traffic Phasing Ordinance GPA 91 -3'(G) • GPA 91 -3 (G) GPA 94 -1 (C) • GPA 94 -1 (C) GPA 96 -1 (A) • GPA 96 -1 (A) Amendment to • Amendment to Chap 15.40 of • Chap 15.40 of NBMC • NBMC Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to include the Continued to following: date uncertain 9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 • The establishment of five intersection groups to assess the over -all function of the circulation system • Trip summaries and average ICU information for the City and the intersection groups (existing conditions as well year 2000, year 2005 and build -out development scenarios) • An analysis of regional impacts to the local circulation system • The establishment of service levels over E for the Airport intersection group, and D for the other four intersection groups in the City • The identification of 5 and 10 year facility and intersection improvement programs to maintain the desired levels of service within the year 2000 and year 2005 planning horizons • On -going assessment of Transportation System Management strategies • Funding program for the improvement program which will shift the use of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to impact analysis and the Fair Share Ordinance as the tool for funding and constructing the improvement program • Participotionin regional transportation improvement programs and An amendment to Chapter 15.40, Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to disconnect specific off -site improvement requirements from individual projects, and assess project impacts for the purposes of defining the fair share contribution. ' Staff requests that this item be continued to a future meeting of the Planning Commission, with no specific date set. Staff will re- notice the public hearing when the item is placed on the agenda. Motion was made by Commissioner Ridgeway to continue Use Permit No. 3610 to August 7th. Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway, Selich, Kranzley, Gifford, Adams, Ashley Noes: none Absent: none Abstain: none DISCUSSION ITEM A: Environmental Nature Center Ms. Temple made a presentation on the Environmental Nature Center relative to the location, ownership, improvements and care. Ms. Temple noted that the Center includes example of a wide variety of natural habitats, including desert, wildflowers, fresh water riparian and redwood forest all of IP INDEX Discussion Item A Environmental Nature Center i 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 which are maintained through a separate volunteer organization. Also noted was the designation in the General Plan for Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities and that the site was recently rezoned from R -3 to GEIF. The Center is a permitted use within these designations. The campus houses the administrative offices of the school district, but they are currently in the process of moving to new offices in Costa Mesa and have indicated an interest in selling that portion of the school site occupied by the district offices for private development. Ms. Temple concluded her presentation noting that there has been some discussion of local fund raising to acquire both the Center area as well as the district office site. If this were successful, staff would recommend that a parcel map be processed and appropriate land use designations be established at that time. At Commission invitation, Mrs. Jean Watt came to the podium and discussed her conversations with School Superintendent Bernd regarding the potential sale of the property(ies) through a local fund raising efforts. Mrs. Watt discussed many issues involving preservation of open space, appraisals, funds, support and publicity. She was thanked for her willingness to share her knowledge of this endeavor by the Commission. DISCUSSION ITEM B: Automated Teller Machines Ms. Temple made a presentation to the Commission regarding automated teller machines relative to drive up or walk up facilities, Use Permit requirements and remote banking and automated teller facilities installations within established retail uses. In response to Commissioner Gifford's question as to whether such installations would change the operational characteristics of the business thereby requiring a new Use Permit, Ms. Temple will research and present additional information at the next meeting. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) City Council Follow -up - Oral report by the Assistant City Manager regarding City Council actions related to planning- Mrs. Wood reported that at the July 14th meeting, Council approved the Ordinance allowing alcoholic beverages to be served and outdoor dining on public sidewalk; approved the formation of a Business Improvement District for 11 INDEX Discussion Item B Automated Teller Machines Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1997 Corona del Mar; and the supplemental budget was discussed at length resulting in funding $10,000 for an inventory of existing signs. 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. 30 was approved for 2104 West Ocean Front (Rockin' Baja Lobster Restaurant) and Modificationswere approved for 1421 Bayside Drive and 1611 Kings Road. Commissioner Kranzley has called up Automotive Field of Dreams, Planning Director's Use Permit No. 7 which will be heard on August 21 st. 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 - Commissioner Gifford asked for and received a report on the Tuesday night meeting regarding the Traffic Management Plan. Mrs. Wood reported that the outreach meeting to review the request for proposals was successful. Virtually all the comments received were constructive ones that resulted in incorporated changes that will be presented at the Council meeting on July 281h. 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 - Chairperson Kranzley is excused from the August 7th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 p.m. THOMAS ASHLEY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION INDEX. 12 40