Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/04/2005"Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 20 'Tile://N:1Apps\WEBDATA\Intemet\PlnAgendas\2005\mnO8-04-05.htm 06/25/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director aron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on July 29, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM N 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of July 21, 2005. Minutee s Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to pull this item from the conseni Approved calendar and approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Henn and Tucker ITEM NO. 2 SUBJECT: 1401 Dove Street office building PA2003 -120 Request for an extension of the approval of Traffic Study No. 2003 -002 and Approved Modification Permit No. 2003 -005 for the office building proposed at 1401 Dove Street (PA2003 -120). Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve an extension of the expiratio 'Tile://N:1Apps\WEBDATA\Intemet\PlnAgendas\2005\mnO8-04-05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 2 of 20 ate of the applications an additional 36 months Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Tucker and Henn Noes: None bsent: None Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Domingo Villas, Inc. (PA2004 -243) ITEM NO. 3 757 Domingo Drive PA2004 -243 jest to approve a Condominium Conversion and a Tentative Tract Map that would Approved ert an existing 8 -unit apartment complex into 8 units for individual ownership and The project also includes the interior and exterior renovation of the existing ences and detached garages and the installation of new hardscape, landscaping new exterior decks. The application also includes a request for a Modification iit (MD2005 -066) to allow expanded decks, a fountain, vehicular gates and a trash )sure within the side and from setbacks. The project site is located within the MF :i- Family Residential) zone. Campbell noted that a dimensioned plan showing the parking area had bf ived late in the afternoon from the architect. It appears all the garage spaces t the required dimensions per Code, and that staff recommends approval of .ct. The notices had been sent to the tenants as requested at the last meeting. iissioner Hawkins asked if the actual number of garages had been verified is the ability to park 16 cars on site. Campbell answered that there will be the ability to park 16 cars within the ca are there today that will be modified to increase the width and provide ieuverina area. iissioner Eaton, referencing the new site plan, asked about the proposed kiosk that appears to encroach into the turn around area for the garage y across from it. Is that a problem, and if so, is there a way to fix it? Edmonston answered that in this residential area we look at the backing procedt the swerve around the kiosk. It does make the aisle less than desirable but it do :t the 20 foot residential standard. 20 feet has been made the standard a fires no setback. The kiosk also impacts the person backing up and appears people drive over what appears to be designated walkway. However, it do :t the minimum standard. Campbell added that there are two conditions related to the parking design. fiber 5 requires 16 spaces be provided and conform to Code. Number 6 states the plan shall be revised to eliminate any obstruction to vehicular maneuvering that thj Traffic Engineer deems necessary. sioner Cole asked about the permit having expired. Can an applicant if the permit is expired? Campbell answered yes. That particular permit mentioned by a speaker at the las sting was the permit that is applied for by the applicant through the Buildinc �artment for an inspection. That inspection was done and there is a correction list " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 3 of 20 needs to be addressed first and then the Building Department will again go her inspection. This will need to be finalized prior to the division of the prop, condominiums. Edwards, architect, speaking for the applicant, noted: . Graphic presented was a re -check of what is in the field relative to the as drawings showing walls that are existing and wall partitions in the carport proposed to be relocated. . There are seven garages at two spaces and 2 garages at one space each for total of 16 spaces. The applicant would look at slightly adjusting the kiosk location to create more a dimension for back up especially for the last space in garage 2 adjacent to t walkway. . The walkway leading into the kiosk is at the same paving level as the paving the approach to the garages. We could perhaps by paving definition shift location of the pedway and create more backup space for each of the two garages at the northwest portion of the property. . TThere will be low level planting to avoid any sight line obstructions. Mitchell, broker representing the ownership, at Commission inquiry noted they J, understand and agree to the findings and conditions of approval. comment was opened. Record, tenant, noted: • Submitted a written report of his testimony presented tonight. • There are currently no carports on site, only garages. • Major structural changes will be necessary in order to comply. • There has been no property upkeep since the present owner took over. . Code specifies what property notice is and specifies that something was to received by mail, which we did, however it was only a postcard. Code states 1 a letter is to be sent. . There is no compliance with the notification of people 300 feet within the property. . Approval of this project does not serve the people. Sandler, resident of Domingo Villas, noted: . The spa location is on Big Canyon that is full of waterfalls and rivulets. . The wildlife will be affected by the lights from the spa. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 4 of 20 • There will be a lot of noise from people at the jacuzzi with alcohol uses at parties. The sound will carry. • This is not something that is intended for that Back Bay use. • Concerned that this will impact the environment and asked that the spa no happen due to the environmental concern. comment was closed. Campbell, at Commission inquiry, noted the spa is on the site plan and depicted onal. Approval of the condo conversion would not authorize that spa to structed, nor would it hinder it from being constructed. They could build the ly, just by seeking the proper permits. The back slope area has shrubs and tre ently along with ice plants. It would otherwise be exempt from environmer sw as a separate and independent project. nmissioner Hawkins stated he had raised the issue of parking in the motorcourts last meeting. He noted he would like to add to condition 8 language, no parking wed In the motorcourts. Condition 8 that reads, ..' use of the garages for a >ose including the storage of household items that would preclude the parking cles in the garages shall be prohibited.' Temple noted that this addresses the concern of future tenants or their guests fr ing for an extended amount of time in that area. There are vehicular codes that allow us to prohibit the parking of a moving van for a significant period of ti fuse that would be their only form of access. >ioner Hawkins modified his language to say that, no guest or is allowed in the motorcourts. Mitchell noted his agreement to post into the CC and R's no resident or gues ing in the motorcourt and that resident parking be in the garages only. imissioner Tucker asked about the noticing. Temple noted that the Code language requires notice, it does not specify a letter. postcard methodology is a long standing practice and we did this exactly in th e way as we do for all noticing within the 300 feet. was made by Commissioner Cole to approve Condominium Conversion 1, Newport Tract Map No. 2004 -005 (PA2004 -137) subject to the findings is of approval attached with the two additional changes made by Commissi on conditions 7 and 8. oerge, McDaniel, Tucker and Henn None t: None n: None Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2005 -049 (PA2005 -082) ITEM NO.4 701 Begonia Avenue I PA2005 -082 " file:// N:\ Apps1WEBDATA \Intemet\PlnAgendas \2005 \mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08104/2005 Page 5 of 20 Condominium Conversion and a Tentative Parcel Map to convert a duplex into Decision mdominiums. Also included in the application is a request for a Modification Permit to upheld ow the division of a two -car garage into two single -car garages with a clear interior dth of 8 -feet 9- inches where the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 9 -feet 3- inches. waivers or exceptions to the Title 19 development standards are requested with the )plication. iairperson Toerge clarified with staff that he did not have to recuse himself from this :m as he is the appellant. •andon Nichols gave a history of the approved condominium conversion application rting: • The applicant was required to provide two separate garages with individual garage doors. • The physical separation of the garage requires the installation of a partition wall. • Installation of this wall results in the garage spaces not meeting the code required width of 9 feet 3 inches. • Separation of the garages into single car garages reduce the interior width of each garage space to 8 feet 9 inches. • The applicant considered the expansion of the existing garage infeasible and applied for a modification permit to allow the substandard garage width. • The modification permit was applied for concurrently with the condominium conversion permit. In this case it was the Zoning Administrator's determination that the findings required to approve the modification could be met and the modification was approved. • The approval is based on the design of the existing structure, the scope of work required to expand the garage and the loss of livable square footage required to accommodate the expansion. • Additionally, it was determined that the resulting 8 feet 9 inches spaces were functional parking spaces. • This determination was appealed on July 7th, 2005 by Chairperson Toerge. Toerge, as the appellant, noted the following: • The garage does not comply with the minimum width requirement of the current Code. • The narrow garage decreases the likelihood that the garage will be used for its intended purpose, to house automobiles. • The modification report justified the request by evaluating the physical hardship and loss of living space associated with the required alteration, yet, there was no detailed discussion in the staff report of the amount of living space that might be lost due to compliance. • It appears to me in reviewing the plans that less than 30 square feet would be los in the project should the property be made to comply. • The plans show that pursuant to the Code, the garage width is actually narrower than what was stated in the modification report due to the existing columns that are present, one of which is not shown on the plans. There are three columns in the garage, one sits in the middle and the other two are adjacent and attached to the side walls, but not flush with the walls, and encroach into the garage space area, which essentially reduces even less than the 8 feet 9 inches amount of the garage width that is available for each unit. " file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 6 of 20 • Staff had recently made the exact opposite ruling on a modification request that had similar characteristics. There was a condominium conversion in West Newport whereby the City required the applicant to alter the structure that did not result in the loss of living space. The applicant appealed that and the Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld staffs recommendation to require the 9 foot 3 inch garage widths. • This process that allows condo conversions to proceed without complying with updated parking requirements is an amendment to our Subdivision Code that occurred in 1994. It may be considered a loophole but more correctly stated it is our current Code. It is a concession created in our Code to foster the ease with which you can convert condominiums. • The proposed modification is a request to modify another Code, which would noun allow the required garage width to be shrunk from 9 foot 3 inches to 8 foot 9 inches and in the case of the actual conditions it is actually less than that. • It is using a loophole within a loophole, and given the amount of scrutiny that the City and the Planning Commission have had on condo conversions, I thought it would be appropriate for this Planning Commission, given the different recommendations on two projects proposed to us within the last two weeks, to hear this item. • If 9 foot 3 inches is the required width and we make an exception to go down to t foot 9 inches, who is to say that 8 foot 4 inches is adequate or not adequate? • The question I ask myself is, where do we draw the line for this kind of modification? • Cars are not getting smaller and the threshold in the Code is clear. We should uphold it and support it. • For these reasons I appealed this item. Nichols noted: • The Zoning Administrator makes a determination on the individual cases. • In this case, his reasoning was based primarily on the loss of the square footage and the scope of the work required to accommodate the proposed expansion. • The garage is a side access garage that is between two units. • In order to expand the existing garage, two walls would have to be moved into th livable space of each unit in order to accommodate the expansion. • Based on the design constraints and loss of square footage, the Zoning Administrator felt that the findings could be made to approve this modification. Tucker asked for the findings for the variance to be made. Campbell stated that findings 4 through 6 on page 12 of the staff report follow the e requirements. At Commission inquiry, he then read the findings as noted in the nq Code. ssioner Tucker noted that strict application of the Zoning Code would result in d hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning What is the physical hardships that are inconsistent? How does this tie into that Temple stated: . The Zoning Code is intended to provide development standards appropriate to " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 7 of 20 the community. • It is done based on the concept to protect the broader neighborhoods and the good of the City that those requirements should be met, hopefully in all cases. • However, the Code also has a number of provisions regarding the maintenance of non - conformities and the renovation of non - conforming buildings as well as the provision of the modification permit itself, which is intended to provide relief when circumstances warrant. • There were two reasons why the Zoning Administrator viewed this one differently than the prior consideration that you had this past summer. • One, was the loss of floor area was significantly different than in the other case because no livable floor area was being lost and was merely a situation related to the cost of moving a single wall a few inches out to accomplish what was desired. • In this case, because the walls which would need to be moved are load- bearing walls and so thereby making the change extremely more complex, plus of a totally different scale in terms of hardship in terms related to cost than the other case was viewed as representing. • Those reasons and in association that the City does have specific provisions for the maintenance of non - conforming structures, for instance, the applicant could renovate the entire structure and not make the parking spaces comply, it was felt in this case that the approval was justified. iissioner Tucker noted that there is no footage that finally makes something too v. The Zoning Administrator uses his best judgment on each case and each on is appealable to the Planning Commission, there is no hard and fast rule for that narrowness of that space gets to be too little. >. Temple noted that the City provides for the modification permit to allow the proval of garages which are narrower than the minimum required by the Code. It es not set a bottom line at which point for instance a variance would be required rich in a case like this couldn't be approved. It is a fine line in this area and we look as many factors as may be relevant including the access to those garages if it is tably wider or deeper, it means that narrower can sometimes be sustained. We ve a lot of small lots and old conditions where garages and parking lots in mmercial areas have been brought in. The City does the best it can and that is why s is a discretionary permit. ommissioner Eaton, noting the 8 foot 9 inches are functional per staffs opinion, there was an opposite finding in the Saywitz case where that modification was Temple answered that staff felt it is better for people to conform and it would be er if they could. Staff felt that because it was a much more minor modification to totality of the structure that the loss of the width in the prior case really couldn't be ified because it was easy to accomplish and the parking spaces would be Eaton asked if only one wall could be moved to achieve the >. Temple answered that both interior walls need to be moved on both sides because the centering support in place. It would be a matter of the level of structural erations you want to enforce upon the project. " file: / /N:\Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 8 of 20 ommissioner Cole asked that in the Saywitz case, the same condition was required separation wall. I assume the Code does not require that; however, what is said in e staff report is that it is needed to have that condition in order to meet the required idings for a condominium conversion. Is that the case? >. Temple answered, yes. A condominium conversion is different than a duplex sere you would have only one two -car in possession of one or the other of the cants and not shared by both. That would be the most common way they are rented t. Our experience with the condominium conversion is if the City does not actively look at the separation, make it a requirement and try and get those garages conform what will happen as soon as the permits are finaled it will happen without rmits because people do not want to share a garage. Harp, referring to page 6 finding 7, stated the Zoning Administrator is finding that roval of the conversion without the wall would be detrimental to the health, safety, ce, comfort and general welfare, so that in essence is how they are requiring it. nmissioner Cole asked if we didn't require the wall, would it meet the 9 foot 3 inch ih as there is still a column in the middle of the garage. I am not sure if either way meet the requirement. One of the alternatives is that we can uphold the appeal al ove condition 10. Temple answered no, it would not. irperson Toerge asked how much is the Planning Commission to consider the cost ,iderations when we are discussing land planning. The staff report did not get into factors, only the living space reduction without regard to cost. The house is 24 deep so how much space is that significantly reducing from the home? I recognize a are cost considerations but the merit of the argument that we are reducing livable ire footage is limited to roughly under 30 square feet. Henn asked if cost is considered to be a kind of hardship? Temple answered no. It had to do with the structural issues itself with the walls we thought of that as being physical hardship. Dworzak, owner and resident, distributed an outline with exhibits and noted: • He understands the parking issue in Corona del Mar. • He has lived at this address for the last two years and used that garage for parking their vehicles. • Referencing exhibit A, there are two vehicles with ample room for the driver to exit while in the garage. • The resident of a condo or a duplex will use the garage for their own desire regardless if the width is 8'9 ", 9'3 ", 8'11 ", they will use it for whatever they want. • Exhibit B shows a new condominium with tandem garage and the resident admitted that there is enough room to park her car in the garage but she prefers to use it for her bicycle and storage. • Moving two load- bearing walls will not be effective and will not provide a benefit to the community. • It will be detrimental to the values of both properties. • It will create a significant and unnecessary increase in cost. It is not what the " file: //N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Intemet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 9 of 20 cost will be, it is the fact that it is unnecessary regardless if it is $1,000 or $100,000. It is an unnecessary cost. • Moving the walls will encroach in living spaces and ultimately result in two abnormally small bedrooms and a closet, reduced dining room space and require moving a staircase. • This will ultimately reduce the functionality and appeal of the properties and subsequently reduce their value. • Currently the garage has standard size garage doors. • Exhibit C lists the most popular cars in Corona del Mar with their widths that demonstrate they will fit in the garage. • The fact is that the garage has been used to park cars for the past two years and is therefore wide enough for this purpose. • The problem in not using garages for parking is strongly effected by the lack of organization and storage space. • He then proposed the following: No dividing wall and locked overhead storage. • Not having the wall would focus residents to use that car for garage as they would keep it organized as a common area, and having locked storage space overhead would allow them to still have reasonable storage in their garage. • It would promote the garage for the intended purpose. • If the wall were not allowed, the garage space would meet the Code without modifications and this is assuming the posts are put flush into the wall and the middle post is removed. This would meet the requirement of 18 feet in width and we actually exceed the requirement of depth by actually 4 feet. We are at 22 feet and the requirement is 18 feet. • If the wall is required, we ask for a 2 inch divider wall and would save one inch additional to each side. • The 2 inch divider wall is not made to bear weight, all the weight is distributed to the garage walls on the side. • We also propose to add an overhead storage system that would not have to be locking if there was a wall down the middle as they would be private garages. • Referencing exhibit E, he noted the advertisement for the system that would free up floor space for the cars. • We can add at least 40 square feet and up to 63 square feet of overhead storage that will promote the use of this space for storage, free up the floor and let people park in the garage. • This house was built in 1947 and those garages were put up then and I believe that people were driving bigger cars then. • We propose to eliminate the two end posts that were an issue and reduce the size of the middle one from 5 1/2 to 3 1/2 inches, this is using the 2 inch wall down the middle. • The suggested action of moving the load- bearing walls will provide no benefit to the community and is detrimental to the property. • the proposed alternatives are reasonable and would result in one common garage with locked overhead storage or two garages of 8'11" each, not 8'9" anymore and each with at least 40 feet of overhead storage. This will promote the use of the garage for both storage and parking and will ultimately help the City meet its objectives in controlling the parking problem. • He asked the Commission to accept one of the solutions and support the Zoning Administrator's approval and allow the modification permit for condominium conversion of 701 Begonia. Cole asked about the removal or reduction of the outside posts. ' file: / /N:lApps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 10 of 20 Dworzak said he would eliminate them by moving them flush to the walls. ssioner Eaton asked if both bearing walls on the outsides would have to be or whether it could be accomplished with just one. Edwards, architect for the project, answered logistically it would be a choice of acting one of the units greater than the other. He verified that the side posts that roach into the garage space can be moved but it will not be a removal, but a ructuring of the floor framing above therefore allowing placement of those posts iin the dividing walls on either side of the garage. If I had to choose, I would choose one story unit but keep in mind that it is a two story wall involved and both are load - ring walls for the floors and roof structure above. 701 does stack over the garage would be affected by the westerly wall movement. The posts on the side can be ed in the walls, the center post can be reduced in its profile to accommodate a rower profile partition between the two garage spaces were we to use steel nmissioner McDaniel, following a discussion on the specifications of the widths and isurements depicted in exhibit C, discussed the room left for people to get in and out of the car in the garage. Dworzak noted that passengers would get out of the car before the driver pulled in. vehicle would not go directly into the middle, it would go 6 inches away from one and leave at least on the widest car 23 inches to exit. nmissioner McDaniel noted that only leaves you less than 30 inches to get out of car once you get it in there. Dworzak stated that the point is the resident who moves in will determine what they the garage for. continued on the width and depth of the garages. Hawkins asked if the architect had ever used this narrow a wall width. Edwards answered no; however, the Code dictates the structural partitioning, fire ection and use of gypsum lath and plaster, thicknesses and hours of rating. comment was opened. comment was closed. Toerge stated: . Exhibit A is not very compelling. It shows the column but it is still a very small space. The hummer shown in the exhibit is a hummer 3, which is the smallest one that is made. Tucker noted: . Modifications vary from what our Code requires but there is a protocol and methodology that the Zoning Administrator has been following all this time. ' file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1I nternet\PlnAgendas120051mn08-04-05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 11 of 20 . He supports the decision of the Zoning Administrator. . The applicant is willing to have some modifications and further requirements that would get to over the 8'9". 1 would support modifications to the plan mentioned by the applicant and his representative. McDaniel noted: . We continue to see condominium conversions with one car garage. . Code allows that but it needs to be an appropriate size. . The next concern is that once this takes place with a 1947 building that is being upgraded when you with ownership to two people owning it, we are never going to get four car garage parking on this property. . This is the time to get the minimum, which is not really enough for me, but I am going to insist on it. . I am in agreement with the Chairman on this one. Henn noted: • I am persuaded that we have a Modifications procedure precisely to allow for reasonable modifications. • I don't think we should be arbitrarily against exercising that procedure and with the modifications that the applicant has suggested to go to the 2" wall presuming that is acceptable to our Building Code, it seems that the modification is a minor one and should be upheld. • If we do approve this, whether it is a full width garage or not, It will still be a one car garage and for probably quite a long time. • I would uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision. Hawkins noted: . He shares similar concerns with the condo conversion ordinance. . One parking space per unit is unacceptable, but that is not the issue here on this appeal. . The Zoning Administrator exercises discretion, reviewed the suitability for this project to come within the condo conversion ordinance. We have to enforce the ordinance as it is. . I think the Zoning Administrator decided correctly for the modification. . I did have a concern in connection with the ordinance in allowing for the renovation and redevelopment which needed it. Our Municipal Code Section 19.64.080 discusses modification waiver of conversion standards. Among those are the parking standard. That is not necessarily the garages so we do have under the condo conversion ordinance itself the ability to change some of these things. . With the additional changes and conditions that the applicant has provided us, I would insert all four as part of the conditions, I believe the project conforms to the ordinance itself. sioner Hawkins asked if the speaker meant proposal number one with no wall is okay? I think 2, 3 and 4 are okay. Hawkins noted 2, 3 and 4 were okay. ' file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 12 of 20 mmissioner Henn noted that part of the problem is that this decision by the Zoning ministrator comes right on the heels of another decision that went the other way. He ;ed have we in the past approved substandard width parking garages? . Temple answered yes. mmissioner Eaton noted he shares the concern of approving a one car garage idominium that will extend indefinitely a non - conforming situation in a very old Iding. Again, that is not what is before us. I would support the applicant because of alternative solutions 2, 3 and 4 with a further proviso that the wall have at least a hour rating and be approved by the Building Department. The predominance of s start in the garages and where you are going to have two different owners there ids to be at least a one hour protection from fire. Edwards noted the Uniform Building Code does provide for a multitude of options varying materials and wall thicknesses and different ratings. There are a number of )ices in varying widths and narrowing profiles. He is satisfied that he can achieve one hour rating with a 2 inch wall or as close to 2 inches. mmissioner Tucker suggested to indicate that the wall will be an absolute minimum Ith necessary to meet the one hour rating. . Temple noted the staff will work through the plan check with the Building partment to identify the structural system that will be the smallest option that can be sieved and still meet the Codes one hour requirement. airperson Toerge noted he had spoken with the Zoning Administrator who is seeking dance from the Planning Commission. It is important to evaluate this application I every application on its merits and not necessarily just automatically assume the ling Administrator is empirical in his decisions. He is open and looking for input n the Planning Commission. mmissioner Cole noted we would uphold the appeal with changes to the conditions t would allow the project to go forward. . Temple noted you would sustain the action of the Zoning Administrator with titional conditions. tion was made by Commissioner Cole to sustain the decision of the Zoning ministrator with the conditions as presented by the applicant's proposals 2, 3 and 4 i additional language on condition 2 that would require the divider wall be a one it rated wall and be the thinnest wall as determined by the Buildina Department. Toerge, McDaniel None None larking standards for duplexes ITEM NO. 5 Code Amendment No. 2005 -008 (PA2005 -168) PA2005 -188 Amendment No. 2005 -008 amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to I Recommended se the minimum parking requirement for duplexes not located within the Coastal I for approval " file: / /N:lAppsIWEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 13 of 20 or Old Corona del Mar from 1.5 Spaces Per Unit to 2.0 spaces per unit and dment to Title 19 of the Municipal Code (Subdivisions) related to minimum ig standards for the conversion of a duplex to condominiums (PA 2005 -168). Murillo, gave a brief overview of the staff report noting: • At the June 28th meeting, the City Council adopted condo conversion regulations for projects three units or more to provide the number of off - street parking spaces required by the parking standards in effect at the time of conversion. • In addition to the public comments received on the issue, the Council indicated the concern of the current parking standards for duplexes not being consistent and suggested that the parking standards be amended. • Therefore, two unit projects were excluded from the ordinance and Council directed staff to prepare the subsequent amendment for the Planning Commission to evaluate. • The Code amendment proposed tonight is intended to address the Council's concern and consists of two components: first, staff recommends amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum parking requirement for all R -2 zone properties to two spaces per unit minimum in order to establish citywide consistent parking requirements; second, staff recommends amending the condo conversion regulations of Title 19 to increase the minimum parking requirement for the conversion of a duplex consistent with the requirements for larger projects. • The amendment will simply require the conversion of a duplex to require parking and conformance with the current parking standards which in effect will reduce the preservation of older non - conforming structures. • A detail analysis of these amendments are provided in the staff report. Tucker asked if this was adopted by the City Council, when would it be Harp answered it would be effective 30 days after the second reading. Temple added that in the prior action on the condominium of three units or more, Council adopted a fairly substantial period before which the ordinance would ome effective and that any application received and deemed complete prior to the a frame would be allowed to move forward under the rules in existence today. I ild expect that the Council would take a similar action on this. he Commission would make recommendations to the City Council on amendments to ie Zoning Code and in this case they ask also for your review of this particular nendment to the Subdivision Code, which does not require your consideration. ormally, we would consider the effective date of the ordinance to be something that ie Council establishes as a matter of policy and that would come forward with similar iggested action when the ordinance is introduced at the City Council level. However, the establishment of a similar grace period is important for your consideration and :commendation of this change, then you should ask staff to add that in as an Jditional section in the resolution. nissioner Tucker noted it is important for him as there are people out there who some desire to convert and maybe this is last call. If we were to do that, the age that was in the Council's resolution, an application was deemed complete by " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 14 of 20 specific date. Could you tell us what deemed complete means, if we are going to clude that language as well? . Temple explained that'deemed complete' is a technical identification of a step stained within the California Permit Streamlining Act. Usually, when we receive an Acation from an applicant, there may be questions that staff has, or requests for iitional information. Staff is required to provide the applicant within the minimum ,iod of thirty days the specific items which need to be added in order for the Acation to be considered a complete application. Once that process is concluded, application is'deemed complete' and thus it would start the timeframes of action luirement pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. However, we often use that step an identifier for times when we think an application is sufficiently complete in order staff to analyze it and bring it forward for Commission and/or Council consideration. imissioner Tucker asked if you need it deemed complete for the CEQA part of an ication? The deemed complete part of this, unless someone files an application didn't require any additional information, so there is a timeframe beyond filing the Temple answered if a project also required an environmental determination and mation was needed in order to make that determination such as it was a larger :ct needing an initial study or an EIR, then we would deem it complete when we all the information we needed to proceed with the study as well. It is very specific ling in state planning law. mmissioner Tucker asked if we adopted this and someone came along and had an 3lication that was deemed complete and therefore qualified under the prior law, how g would they have under that permit to actually conclude that conversion? How Ion( they have once they have the right to convert in which to complete the conversion fore the conversion right lapses? Temple answered that the Permit Streamlining Act requires the City to take final )n at whatever body level is required within a period of 180 days. The Subdivision Act has a three year horizon for an approval. She added that our Code allows for nsions of not only maps but all our discretionary applications beyond the 24 the that are specified. ssioner Tucker asked if an extension was requested would the applicant have to with the all then parking requirements? In other words, your approval would no comply, am I wrong on that? answered they would have to check that. :ommissioner Tucker noted this would be of interest because typically speaking when come up against one of those type of issues, the fear I have is the new requirements iat are out there. One of the findings for extension is that the approval complies with 11 the requirements. Harp noted our Code does not have any findings for an extension. Temple added that we have always considered our extension provisions to allow extension of the approval as approved originally. It allows a total of 5 years and " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 15 of 20 there are no further extensions. Harp noted that typically ordinances are effective 30 days after the second reading if you are going to make modifications it would have to be expressed in the enabling nmissioner Hawkins noted in connection to the change to the off street parking and ling spaces required, the proposal is to change from 1.5 to 2, what is the effect of current code requirement of 1.5? Do you get 2 cars in the 1.5, a big car in 1.5, or ee storage? Temple answered that in those areas that still carry the zoning which is really ed in town that if someone chose to implement their project in that fashion, you Id end up with one 2 -car garage that would serve one of the units and one 1 -car ige or carport serving the other. sioner Cole stated his understanding there are R2 properties that are not in the Zone, is that all we are in effect dealing with just those units outside of the Zone? Murillo answered yes, for this part of the amendment. drperson Toerge noted there is another part of the amendment being considered a change to Title 19 of the Municipal Code which would require that condominium versions be required to have current code parking at the time they are converted lever that current code is. comment was opened. Johnson, resident, noted: • If the ordinance that was approved in 1994 allowing people to convert their properties should you now decide to change the ordinance and make the conversions all comply to 2 car, she requested that notification be sent to the 3,000+ property owners of that change. • When the ordinance was first adopted in 1994, the momentum did not pick up until 5 -7 years later. Most of the conversions were for new construction so a lot of the figures are for new units that do comply. It took years for the older units to want to convert, split the properties. • All the property owners need to be notified otherwise we are doing a dis- service to the community. Davis, duplex owner in Corona del Mar, noted: • The change will effect her property and now it will be improper for her to do what I want to do to her property. • It is not fair. • She stated notices should be sent to all property owners. Coles noted: . This is a significant issue for duplex owners and you need to allow enough time " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 16 of 20 for people to make their applications or allow them to speak their objections. . Property duplexes options would be limited. comment was closed. Tucker asked if it is feasible to notify everybody with an R -2 zoned Temple noted that we did direct notice all property owners whose parking drements are actually being changed, about 186. It would take some time but we develop a list for ones that are solely affected by the conversion. immissioner Tucker noted it is important that we have notice put out there. I don't mt it to be a legal requirement of this, I just think as a political matter everyone ought have a chance to weigh in on this and know what is going on. The reason I don't mt the legal part of this I don't want to hear people showing up saying they didn't get Temple noted she will work with Mr. Harp on the form of the notice because :ndments to the Subdivision Code do not require noticing. It will be considered a imunity outreach. imissioner Hawkins asked that the notice for this hearing complied with state law our own Code, correct? Harp answered yes. 3n followed on MFR and R -1.5 properties, the mailing will be sent to R -2 owners. Tucker noted: • 'deemed complete' - I would look at something on the order of 6 months after the ordinance is adopted to get an application in and have it deemed complete. At that point it still would have to go through the process and get approved. There are three years to implement those approvals with the potential of extending it another two years. I think if we do a reasonable job of giving notice, those with duplexes, almost everybody is going to know there is an issue out there. • It will create a rush to get these things done, but I think it is fair to give people the warning. • Our goal is to get things to conform and I support what staff has prepared. • I would suggest to the Council that six months or some timeframe other than the normal course of 30 days after the second reading, I think that is too short a period of time. >ioner McDaniel asked how long it takes an applicant to get an application complete? Campbell answered that typically an application comes in and we review it within weeks and it might take a couple of days or a couple of minutes to review the lication. An application with additional submittal from and applicant can range where from two weeks to sixty days depending upon the complexity of the "file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 17 of 20 Acation. For a condo conversion, state law requires a 60 day prior notice of the ants that you are intending to convert. So people need to understand that if they going to rush in and bring an application, they need to provide notice to the tenants days in advance of filing the application. nissioner McDaniel noted that 6 months is ample time yet no matter how long we I agree, there will be problems. We have done the best we can and I support 6 airperson Toerge noted that the current Code that was amended in 1994 essentially serves older, non - conforming structures with under - supplied parking. I don't know ibody that feels a condominium today whether existing or not existing should have y one car parking. It doesn't make sense. I am baffled on the inequity our Code ces on new construction when in fact it allows a conversion to have just one parking ice. I am in favor of this modification. He then noted that other coastal cities in our nity all require with a condo conversion that it be accompanied with current code king. Ours is the only coastal city in Orange County where this is allowed. It was ated in 1994 to correct a problem which was largely identified to be in West wport but yet the greatest bulk (75% roughly) of the conversions have appeared in rona del Mar. I respect the speakers tonight because those people who have made investment in their real estate with the expectation of employing the codes we have )uld be a part of the process and should be down here and involved in protecting it investments. The Newport Heights area that represents only about 4% of the rent duplexes in the city, I see no reason why they should not be two per unit. As the effective date, I agree that no matter how much time is given, there is going to a bottleneck at the end of that period of time. I think that six months might be more n I was going, I was thinking more of 90 or 120 days to give everybody the )ortunity to go through the process. I support this ordinance primarily due to the remental erosion of the quality of life that any one of these projects tends to impose the community. We are looking at the overall impact of this across the entire city i on that basis that I am more concerned with the quality of our environment and the ig conditions in our community. =missioner Eaton noted his agreement with the Chairman. He noted the need for conversions to have two car garages. Re -doing a project into a condominium is rpetuating the existing problem present in many duplex areas and that is insufficient rking. The concern I have is of perpetuating the nonconforming buildings. It will be possible for two owners to agree on when to rebuild and how to rebuild and how to Dcate the costs. It is going to make it difficult to assume those buildings ever get )uilt and become conforming. Finally, if you are talking about the ownership of low st housing, a small unit of less than 800 square feet like we had in front of us tonight, $700,000 and the building was almost 60 years old starting out with only a one car rage, that is not moderate cost housing in my opinion. I endorse this ordinance. msidering the 'deemed complete' requires a month or so at the end and the prior tification requires two months in the beginning, six months probably is reasonable. nmissioner Hawkins noted this will increase the parking requirements for a condo version, but I think the parking situation and the parking supply in the city will be :kly exhausted if we stay with the current code requirements. I do believe that our )mmendation in connection with this ordinance is important and will preserve and ance the parking supply. I am sympathetic with the burden it will impose upon )erty owners both in Corona del Mar, Newport Heights as well as West Newport, as the chairrnan said, we need to look out for the entire City and the City's "file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 18 of 20 irces. I will favor this recommendation. The timing issue focuses on the end when an application is deemed complete. There may be another way to late the timing and that is when the application is filed. Is there a difference in load if we do it on the day the application is filed, does that alleviate staff of some compression that was addressed earlier. s. Temple answered the real answer depends on the knowledge and diligence of the �plicant and how interested he is in achieving short term solution. I can foresee that �meone just files a piece of paper to say he has filed an application, with virtually no ipporting requirements. It may sit and embark on an every 30 day correspondence of iat is needed, or, the application will die after a period of time. I don't know if it akes much difference. If we get a lot of applications in right before the timeframe all it yes is make the compression a little further out. There is no time savings plus the )uncil has already adopted an ordinance that specifies a complete application and I )uld not want to have two different requirements. The difference between the two iit condos and the other condos related to the general sophistication of the applicants in fact different. You will see more of an individual mom or pop, not one of those �ecialized people, who are just converting their own home. Those people will find the Dcess a little more confusing and will need more time. sioner Hawkins noted there was an approved action in connection with larger inium projects. I believe the Council set a date certain for which applications to be deemed complete. Is it feasible to have a recommendation to have that it date, not matter what it is? Campbell answered they could look at that as a possibility. He is concerned that ut the time this gets to the Council and it may be contentious that 60 day prior ce period might get a little tough so it may need to be effective after the effective of the prior amendment of the Council adopted. We will take a look at that too. clarified that the noticing is to be done prior to the City Council meeting. :ion was made by Chairperson Toerge to recommend approval of Code ;ndment No. 2005 -008 amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to increase minimum parking requirement for duplexes from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces unit and amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal Code related to minimum parking idards for the conversion of a duplex to condominiums (PA2005 -168) with the tiso that the effective date be six months after the second reading and date of ption by the City Council. missioner Tucker asked if we need to do anything for the non - conversion aspect is six months too much? We really have two parts to this. Temple noted that we do not have to break apart your resolution of immendation.. However, that is a good point and we will likely forward to the ncil two separate ordinances so that one would be effective in 30 days and one Id be effective six months from the date of the second reading. - ussion followed regarding people applying for condominium conversions having 6 months and the difference from someone coming in for a building permit for new struction or a major remodel to one of the existing buildings and the plan review wiring two spaces per unit timing. "file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 19 of 20 >ioner Eaton noted the motion is the amendment to Title 19 would have the date of 6 months for applications deemed complete. maker None None None Toerge, McDaniel, Tucker and Henn ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that at the last meeting, the Counci second read and adopted the ordinance related to the condominium parkins standards for conversions other than for duplexes; approved the General Plar Amendment for Master Development Corporation office expansion in Koll Cente Newport that will come back with an ordinance for final action at their next meeting and, Councilmember Rosansky extended the appeal period for the Orchid Plaz( item to their last meeting due to cancellation of the first meeting of the month however he did not get enough support for an appeal. The meeting of July 21 st, the appellant for the Salud Restaurant and the owner of the restaurant spoke at thf meeting; however, that item was not called for appeal. Also discussed was thf protocol for the meeting on St. 'Andrews Church expansion that will be hek Thursday, August 11th at 6:00 p.m. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Committee - no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Upd Committee - no meeting. Ms. Temple added that the packets for the meeting August 16th would be delivered Friday, the 5th and that the meeting starts at 4 p.m. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Certification Committee - Chairperson Toerge asked Ms. Temple to email a of the letter that was sent to the Coastal Commission from Tod Ridgeway rega the hearing on the City's application. Ms. Temple added that there is a sche working session next Thursday, August 11th. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee - meeting. Commissioner Eaton noted there was a staff interview of a consultant based upon that meeting, the consultant has submitted a proposal to the City 1 will be reviewed by the committee. He also noted that the letter from Tod Ridge was contained in the City Manager's Newsletter. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. "file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005\mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 20 of 20 Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:05 D.m. Adiourned to meeting of August 16, 2005 IADJOURNMENTI BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn08- 04- 05.htm 06/25/2008