Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/2001• Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. • • ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley- Chairperson Gifford was excused. STAFF PRESENT. Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes of July 19.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel, and voted on, to approve the amended minutes of July 19, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Kronzley Noes: None Absent: Tucker, Selich Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 17, 2001. Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 SUBJECT: Camco Pacific 1811 Quail Street • PA2001 -157 Request to initiate a General Plan Amendment to increase the development allocation within the Airport Area 2 -7 (Statistical Area L -4), Newport Place Block G & H to permit a 1,500 square foot addition to an existing office building located at 1811 Quail Street. Ms. Temple noted that this is the first item to be heard under the revised City Council Policy regarding amendments to the General Plan where the City will now allow these amendments at any time rather than the previous three times a year limit. As noted in the staff report, there is a requirement that the related applications be filed within six - months of initiation. Commissioner Agajanian asked the advisability of postponing this matter until after the General Plan update; how long would it take for the amendment to go through the process? Ms. Temple answered that is certainly within the purview of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council, however, in this particular case the requested amendment is extremely small (1,500 square feet) and is in Is relationship to a specific project of the applicant. I do not believe that action on the initiation one way or another would materially affect the City's ongoing study of the General Plan update. An application of this nature is in a similar timeframe to any simple zoning application. They would normally be completed in a three or four month period. This application will also require an amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community to add the square footage of entitlement in the zoning text. Vice Chairman Kiser referred to the letter submitted as part of the application from Camco Pacific. It discussed square footage of existing space in the area as of January 1987, and planned projections. It also indicates that a number of 342,641 square feet existed in that area, which is about 47,000 square feet more than what were planned projections back in 1987. Could you explain if the amount of space built in an area often go way over what is projected by the City in prior years? Ms. Temple answered that in the 1987 General Plan, all the numbers within the plan were based on a research of building records. It was our best effort to make those calculations as accurate as they could have been. We know that from time to time when we research and re- analyze these areas that there was already more development on the ground than we had found in that initial data gathering exercise. We did disclose this to the Planning Commission and the City Council back in 1988 when these numbers were adopted. Basically we • got there concurrence that when errors of the data were discovered that it was INDEX Item No. 1 PA2001 -157 Recommended for approval • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 not the intent of the City to make any standing development non - conforming by virtue of adopting the more precise numbers in the General Plan. We believe it was the intention of the City Council to establish numbers that were consistent with the standing development. In this case, we will correct the numbers in the Plan to reflect the entitlement as well as the requested addition. This area is totally built out as far as standing entitlement goes. Steve Labrin, Camco Pacific Construction stated that they are purchasing this building and hope to expand the space to accommodate the existing staff. Because of the Greenlight issue in the area, they understand that they need to go through this process to add this square footage on to the project. They are requesting to do so. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Initiation No. 2001 -001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None • Absent: Tucker, Selich SUBJECT: 4341 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite F La Salso; Milestone Management • Use Permit No. 2001 -018 (PA2001 -086) Use Permit to expand the seating of an existing specially food establishment (SF# 50) from 21 seats to 36 seats with no increase in net public area. The increased seating changes the use classification from specialty food to full service, high turnover. This classification change increases the required parking between 7 to 17 parking spaces depending upon what parking ratio is used. No alcoholic beverages are presently served and no ABC license is sought. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next meeting of September 20, 2001. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to September 201h. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Tucker, Selich INDEX Item No. 2 PA2001 -086 Continued to 09/20/2001 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 Mr. Campbell then made a slide presentation noting the following: • Demolition of existing home constructed in 1962 and construction of a new three -level residence. • A 1962 Variance allowed the home to encroach into the front yard setback and was conditioned that the house not exceed 3' above the top of the curb; this predated the curb height limit that was put into place later. • Proposed site plan depicting the area that would exceed the top of the curb by approximately 2' 6 ", which is approximately 6" lower than the residence today; portions shown that would comply with the curb height limit and those portions that exceed the curb height limit. • Elevations were explained showing the elevator, powder room, chimneys, three - levels from the ocean side and elevations showing the left and right sides of the house. Commissioner Kranbey asked where the string line was for the patio. Mr. Campbell answered that the building string line was put on the drawing for analysis purposes and has no regulatory framework related to it. The string line for the patio was indicated on the exhibit. Continuing with the slide presentation he noted: • Elevations on the right side of the residence along with the chimneys. Lower level decks. • • Section drawings that showed where the residence exceeds the 24-foot height limit. The drawing had green lines depicting outline of the existing residence, red lines depicting the top of the curb and a dark outline showing the portions of the garage. • Pictures were then presented taken from sides, top and across the existing residence. • The sidewalk is proposed to be relocated towards the curb. • Public Works Department is recommending that the sidewalk stay in its present location. • Garage will have a flat roof and will be 6" lower than the peak of the present sloping roof. The garage roof will be approximately 18" higher than the existing one at the face of the garage as the roof is flattened and extended towards the front of the property. The view shed will be brought closer to the front of the lot. • Slides showing the rear of the property showing the encroachment of the deck and areas of the proposed residence; views towards the east depicting the cemented portions in place to prevent soil erosion. • Adjacent neighbor's house that is currently being remodeled. • Slides depicting the bluff area and vegetation. In conclusion, he stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this variance due to the sloping topography, slight improvement of the view over the top of the residence and the applicant is building in an area that is already developed. The encroachment of the deck and other features do extend out over the bluff. The General Plan suggests that we minimize bluff INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 alteration, so the Commission has the option to cut back that deck if they feel it does encroach too far over the bluff. Staff believes that the front yard setback modification is warranted as it assists the applicant staying off the bluff by bringing the building closer to the street. Due to the deep parkway and lower elevation of the residence, staff does not believe that the project will create a negative impact to Ocean Boulevard. Commissioner Kranzley noted that on page 7, it refers to 10' ceilings that cause roughly one quarter of the seaward edge of the upper floor to exceed the 24 -foot height limit. If we brought the ceilings down it would reduce the amount of the Variance. Referring to the slide elevation, Mr. Campbell explained the garage level. He agreed that if the ceilings were lowered, it would reduce the amount of the Variance by approximately 25 %. Commissioner Gifford stated that the plate of the garage is 8'6 ". What is the dimension of the floor right now? Can the floor of the garage be brought any lower? Staff answered it was approximately 7'6 ". The floor could be lowered and would cause the slope of the driveway to increase. The other option would be to move . the garage further away from the street as discussed in the staff report. If the garage stays in the some location, the slope would be approximately 21 -22 %. Commissioner Kronzley stated that the 8'6" as the shortest height of the garage that is recommended would be higher than the garage that currently exists there. The garage has a sloped roof, but you are flattening the roof and raising the front of the garage so the opening is actually going to be higher by a foot than the existing garage. Mr. Campbell stated the 8'6" was scaled off the drawings for the interior clear height to the bottom of the roof member. The door itself is about 7'6" based on the drawings. This dimension could be brought down and does not have to be 8'6 ". Mr. Edmonston stated that there is a minimum height for a garage height either 6'6" or 7', certainly less than the 8'6 ". Commissioner McDaniel noted that as long as the Code permits, we could make some adjustments on the garage. Don't lower the floor, but lower the ceiling to make it closer to what we are looking for. Mr. Edmonston added that another factor is as you are coming down the slope as you come into the garage the back end of the car comes down. The front end of the car if it were a box, the door may have to be taller than a door if you were coming in flat. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 Commissioner Selich asked if rather than having the driveway come in perpendicular to the street, having it come in at a transverse angle or a zigzag driveway in order to take the driveway down to a lower level so you can get the garage floor lower and not exceed the 15% slope? He was answered no, staff does not know if the applicant studied that option or not. Commissioner Selich asked for information on the Variance that was approved for the house at the end of Poppy Street. Staff answered they had that file. Ms. Temple noted in relation to the project at the end of Poppy Street, that the original proposal was for the garage and elevator area to exceed the curb height limit. It was originally proposed to exceed the height limit by almost 8'6" feet. The Planning Commission reduced that to 4'6" by pressing the building further into the slope. The lot was much wider than this one. Commissioner Selich noted that the garage could be moved out towards the ocean and lowered so that a drive approach would not exceed the 15 %. The reason for doing that is that they want to have a room on the other side of the garage that had on ocean view. Is that correct? Mr. Campbell answered, yes. If the garage was pushed away from the curb and lowered, you could get to 15 %. That area is a kitchen now, and the applicant • does not want to lose the ocean views. Mr. Edmonston noted that 15% is the standard maximum used for a driveway slope. In the hillside areas of the City, and this would certainly fall into that, we do look at projects on a case -by -case basis and allow typically up into the 17 -187o range, very rarely 20 %. There are factors that can be allowed if that is your goal. The driveway is allowed to have different slopes at different points as there is a need to provide gradual changes so the cars do not bottom out as they go over a sharp angle. Vice Chairman Kiser asked about the other homes along that portion of Ocean Drive and how much they encroach into the front yard setbacks. Staff answered that there were nine encroachments permitted and range from 9 feet into the 10 feet setback to 10 feet into the 10 feet setback; there are several of them for the entire house but the majority are for portions of homes only. At Commission inquiry, staff added that the City does not use the concept of string line. Where it has gained its prominence is in the Coastal Zone, where the Coastal Commission staff uses it as analytical tool. Although once again, it is not a regulatory limit established by the Coastal Commission. It is just a way to look at a project for analysis purposes. Commissioner Gifford stated that if the stringline concept was to be taken into consideration, it would change the traditional view we have had on Variances not setting a precedent because if we give variances and then use a stringline on • those variances, we are in a place of difficulty. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 Ms. Temple added another thing to think about when you look at the relevance of the stringline is that in some cases, you might have extremely old houses on either side of a property, maybe even small homes. A stringline would then tend to compress the buildable footprint. Maybe in a location like this that would be a good thing; in other places it may work to the Commission's detriment in the sense they may be forced to approve more or greater variances because of the compressed building footprint areas. There are implications that can reverberate through a common application of that sort. Just as a way of information and understanding where the building is sited in relationship to the neighboring properties, it certainly is a relevant thing to consider. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson noted that if the Commission wanted to use this as a fact or finding in support of the decision, then we would have a problem. However, if it is just part of conceptualization to analyze the project, there would be no problem. Vice Chairperson Kiser asked if the applicant was not requesting the setback and public right of way modification and variance, could they replace the home that is existing with one that is three feet over the curb line today? Staff answered that if they were going to remodel the existing, without tearing it . down, yes as they would be able to maintain what they have. If they demolish the entire building, they would not be able to rebuild. The variance in 1962 was for the front yard setback encroachment of the house and not for building height. A condition was put on that variance to limit the curb height by three feet, which has pre -dated that standard that you see today in the Code. Public comment was opened. Ed Lohrbach, architect for the project, stated that the applicant has worked very hard to not have variances on this project. Referring to the site plan, he noted that having a flat roof lowers the house as much as possible from a practical stand point. With a pitched roof, they would have to go down farther to get any ceiling heights. Going below the 15% to get down to the garage is dangerous, because of the steeper slope, which is why I have kept the roof of the garage up. There is no code for garage heights; 7'6" is very low. We could drop it, but I am trying to keep some difference of elevations for the style. Looking at the curb you don't see the house from the street because it is so low. I use a stringline during my design process because I think it is a considerate way to design for the neighbors. I don't want to go beyond them even though I could, and yes, Coastal does look at it that way. The houses on either side are both remodeled and above the curb height. Comparing our elevations, we are lower. To accomplish the right grade we would have to bring the house back to the back of the garage to meet the 24 -foot height limit. It is a tough situation. At Commission inquiry, he noted the following: • Standard garage height is 7 feet. 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 The driveway from a safety standpoint as designed to pull in and turn around. If it is made steeper, it will be hard to pull around and back up and prefers not to push it down any farther If I make 9' plates, the house will be down below all the other houses, even below the curb heights. I really don't believe the difference between the 9' or 10' will make a difference to the mass of the house. Commissioner Selich noted that he would like to get the elevation of the garage lower and maintain a 15% driveway by lengthening the distance from where you approach from the sidewalk to where you reach the garage. Did you look at angling it where you would be a greater distance from the street and what that would do? Did you look at zigzagging the driveway so you could run parallel to the property and then parallel back the other direction to make the grade? How much additional lowering could you achieve? Mr. Lohrbach answered that there would not be enough room to do that. I did analyze that. You would not achieve any more lowering of the garage because you are taking up the whole front yard with concrete or asphalt to do that. Robert Lockleigh, Corona del Mar noted his opposition of any construction that encroaches into the public view of the ocean, or expansion beyond legal curb . height limits. He further requested that any encroachment whatever into the public right of way be disapproved. The public land that they propose to take for their front yard belongs to the people of Newport Beach. In relation to the sidewalk, the report shows 44 feet from the existing sidewalk is the front property line, that is 44 feet of public park space. Perhaps they need to place the garage some place else. At what point do we stop building 6,000+ square foot houses on unbuildable lots with room for 2,000 square foot houses, it's a cliff. A lot has changed since 1962; we no longer have the public view and access to the beaches. This is one of the few places where we have access. The owners state they don't want to loose their views by modifying the house, but nobody seems to care about the public views. I ask that you deny anything beyond what is legally permissible. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Lockleigh noted that the sidewalk in the past was a curving greenbelt that went along that whole area. What he is proposing and would like to see is all public property returned to the public and used as a park for the people. It does not belong to just the nine people who live along that street, it belongs to all of us. There can be an aesthetic joint use of the land where everyone can work together. Bill Benz, 3625 Ocean adjacent owner next door noted his concerns of the potential for erosion and de- stabilization. He stated he has submitted plans for remedial treatments due to the dig going on the other side of him with a six -foot high retaining wall going into remedy existing erosion on that side. The additional prospect of erosion from this construction makes him a little nervous. He would have the some issue and concern with the excavation in general and the fact as 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 seen in one of the photos of the front of the houses is an 18' high retaining wall. He's nervous that this might de- stabilize and lead to more problems. At Commission inquiry, he stated he did not need a variance for his remodel. John Garcia, architect on the project at 3625 Ocean added that there was a modification for the front yard setback and a 12' section of the house to go 8" above the existing curb height. Some of the patio was cut back on the bluff side. Ms. Temple added that the Modification Committee, within certain limits, could approve certain types of architectural features. If it were not an architectural feature, the Planning Commission would see any variance. Christine Brooks stated she had submitted a letter on behalf of Mr. Benz stating his position. She noted that the stringline is not a regulation. During the slide presentation, a slide shows that the deck -to -deck stringline goes beyond 10'. There is a privacy wall that comes up there that will potentially block views. We request a continuance of this matter in order to work with the applicant to resolve some issues between the neighbors, or, a denial of the application. Commissioner Gifford asked if there have been any points of agreement in the discussions with the applicants? • Ms. Brooks stated there has been no final resolution reached to date. Doug Jackson, applicant commented that he could not lower the garage floor. It is a very short run into the garage and we have difficulty now. We have to back out of the driveway and that causes a safety issues with on coming traffic. Ed Lohrback noted that we have stepped back on the top floor following discussions with Mr. Benz. By using the stringline, I am using the corner of their house as our privacy wall. The next floor, we are discussing landscaping, but have not committed to pulling the wall back. We are within our rights to match their wall. Because they put windows on their side, should not penalize us. We are looking straight out. He added that he would have sump pumps for the water from the site pumped back up to the street. Jean Bruton, Goldenrod Avenue noted her opposition to granting this variance. She presented her personal views and gave a brief history of the loss of public Views and grasslands. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford, referring to page 7 and the statement that the reduced setback does place the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where it will provide lateral support for the public right -of -way due to the extensive excavation proposed. I don't understand this sentence. Mr. Campbell explained that there is a foundation wall for the three level 12 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 0 residence in this location, which is approximately 18 feet deep. All of the land in that area will be supported by that construction. If the construction were to be done using in less than adequate techniques or if there was a problem with the site, the area might be de- stabilized. The geotechnical report did not show any flaws with the geology of the site and adherence to the Uniformed Building Code Standards and Grading Standards should minimize those types of issues. I don't think this is an issue of concern. There is no evidence that there is inadequate support today. Commissioner Agajanian referring to the same page asked if the reduction of the front yard setback might be detrimental if the city were to attempt to reclaim the use of the public right -of -way fronting Ocean Boulevard for the use by the general public. This is unlikely as it is contrary to past policy. What do these statements mean? Mr. Campbell explained that if the structure was located in this proposed position, the proximity to general public use of the space here is kind of hypothetical to re- claim this space for general use and occupancy would have to be re- evaluated. It is not necessarily a significant concern, but a "what if" kind of question. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern of the policy that it would never be reclaimed or that we don't care about claiming if now. Mr. Campbell noted that the Council has not come in and actually attempted to remove existing private improvements in the right of way. These approvals actually go to City Council for the encroachment, and we fill find out if these improvements are excessive or not. The City Council may suggest these improvements not go in and reclaim that space. The Modification deals with the front yard setback on private property. Commissioner Selich noted that this encroachment into the right of way is not within our purview, it is a matter for the City Council to approve or not. My concern is on the garage area exceeding the height limit in this structure. I think the other requests are within reason. To the degree that this building may have been pushed back to satisfy the views out of the windows of the Benz' property next door to the degree that affects the design of this and pushes the garage structure higher, I think the public view benefits for outweigh the benefits gained by pushing the structure back to enhance that view, which is already a pretty good view straight over the water. I think there is another solution here and I am not convinced from the answers I got to my questions tonight that there isn't a way that this house could be designed and the that the garage can be brought within the height limit. Some Commissioners have mentioned modification of plate heights, I mentioned studying the slope at the driveway, and Mr. Edmonston mentioned modifying the slope. Maybe it's not anyone of those solutions but some combination somehow to make it work. Perhaps with that kind of direction, the applicant could go back and do some more work on it and bring the height down where it would not require a variance to the curb height limit. 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 Commissioner Kranzley noted his agreement with the previous testimony. He added that it is important to have that curb height limit and I feel that more work can be done on this project on a number of different areas, including plate height and garage height. I would move for continuance of this item. Commissioner McDaniel stated that when a building of 6,00() square feet of new residence, it seems we ought to be able to cure as many of the problems we had before and bring this into compliance as close as we can. I wouldn't be able to approve this project the way it is tonight and agree with the previous statements. Vice Chairman Kiser stated he agrees with the previous statements as well. Dropping a large portion of the home by 3 feet creates a somewhat more public view even though the roof would be flat. The front yard setback matches other homes on this street and in the immediate area. However, on the height variance, I agree with what has been said. A 10 -foot floor plate might be reduced as well as a lower garage, and these might get the structure to a point where it could fit within the curb height and without the variance. Then it is just a matter of solving the driveway problem; I agree with previous comments that there was not a whole lot of study about that. It seems to be a matter that needs a lot of time and attention applied to it. The other problem I have is the lower level at grade deck. The height variance is my primary concern. I would support continuing this item. • Commissioner Gifford stated that she agrees with the previous comments adding that in our overall assessment, the public views are the primary concern rather than the private views. I too support a continuance. Vice Chairman Kiser asked the applicant what would be a reasonable amount of time for the architect to review the things that have been suggested by the Commission. Mr. Lohrbach answered he would study it and attempt to get the garage down. He answered that he could drop the floors and the garage a bit if that is what it takes. The mass of the building is hardly any bigger than what exists. He suggested that September 20th would be a good date. Commissioner Kranbey commented that at looking at the other houses on the street that have not been tom down. Many of them exceed the height of the curb. There was a very long and hard fought battle to get the new standards in regarding curb heights as the limit. Whatever the existing circumstances are there, I feel it is my job when new houses are being built there, to try to attain the new standards. You are building a new house here. Commissioner Gifford added that on occasion when we have granted a height variance, it has been a trade off often for some type of lateral shrinkage or some other factor that we felt in total created an overall benefit for the public views. Those of you who may take some type of policy implication that there have been • height variances, you should not think of it as strictly a height variance with 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 nothing else having changed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to September 20th. Ms. Temple noted that the most critical issue appears to be the curb height limit as opposed to the overall height limit. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the public view is most important but I am not ready to sacrifice private views for variances. If we reduce plate height we will improve the 24 -foot variance. My primary concern is curb height. Commissioner Selich added his concern is curb height limit. The rest is reasonable giving the topography of the lot. Commissioner Agajanian noted he is interested in the curb height; lower level deck extension and particularly concerned about the erosion. Commissioner McDaniel noted his primary concerns are curb height and deck Vice Chairman Kiser noted his primary concerns are curb height and deck. • Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Absent: Tucker ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - no planning items at the last meeting. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no meeting this month. C) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern about tonight's variance. It bothers me that the inspectors go out to the sites, see the work being done, and and in this case it was reported it was dangerous so they couldn't leave it so they had to continue it. I would like to find out and have a report on what our policy is. Obviously we didn't bring a halt to this construction. Ms. Temple answered that when we find something going on without a building permit, we put a stop work order on it. What this applicant • 15 INDEX Additional Business . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 chose to do was to proceed despite a stop work order. Commissioner Agajanian stated It gets tough to let a variance go by if people are willfully ignoring this. Ms. Temple added that it would have been very difficult for the City Attorney's office to convince a judge to get a stop work order on this trellis thing. If someone chooses to proceed in the face of a stop work order, we are not going to go in there and physically try and restrain them. Commissioner Gifford stated this is not the issue for us tonight. The issue is that someone could have made a misrepresentation tonight to the Planning Commission and we did not have the benefit of the information that was known to staff. For me, that would have changed my vote. Commissioner Agajanian added that if he had known that a stop work order was placed on this project, I think that would have changed my perception of what was going on. I am sympathetic because people are going to fall off the edge. Commissioner McDaniel stated that information would have been • helpful. I can't believe that people wouldn't get a permit. Ms. Temple noted that on the patio covers, a lot of people do not realize they need building permits. Commissioner Gifford asked for a reconsideration of her vote if you are representing to me that a stop work order was issued and they did not stop. Ms. Temple stated that she would have to go back and check the records. It would have been the typical procedure, but the Building Department sometimes tries to be user friendly. My earlier statements that there was a stop work order and they didn't choose to stop were based on normal policy, not based on specific knowledge. Commissioner Kranzley added that there might have been a stop work order issued on this, we just don't know. We have two Commissioners who would be willing to vote for reconsideration of this matter but we have to do it before the close of this hearing. Vice Chairman Kiser, reading from the "Policy and Procedures ", noted that a vote for reconsideration must occur at the same meeting. If it is reconsidered and it turns out that there was no stop work order that the building inspector told her that it is a safety issue to go ahead and build it because there were no railings. If this is true we can go ahead and • approve it. 16 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 Ms. Clauson added that if the Commission does wants to move to reconsider it, you could vote and give them notice that you need to get additional information. You have to vote on reconsidering the matter, but not actually not vote on the matter itself. The enforcement issue is something that is a policy decision that we have to make if they do put a stop work order notice and they do go ahead of it and work without it and the City knows, what of our options is for the City Attorney's office to go and get a temporary restraining order. Commissioner Gifford noted that this would affect my finding of fact because it would affect my assessment of the credibility on other issues as well. Commissioner Gifford moved to reconsider the matter at the meeting of October 41h. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanion, Gifford, Kranzley Abstain: Selich Absent: Tucker • d) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. • e) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no meeting. f) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted the updated sheet and gave a brief outline. Vice Chairman asked for an enforcement of the phone number on the Prudential sign. Commissioner Kranzley noted that illuminated signs are being placed in the Jiffy Lube station. Commissioner Selich suggested dropping item 5... g) Project status - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council would be taking up the Subdivision Code on Tuesday night. h) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford asked to be excused from meeting of September 20th. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m. EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 17 INDEX Adjournment • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 SUBJECT: Smith Residence 1021 Kings Road Variance No. 2001 -003 (PA2001 -117) Request to approve a variance to permit an existing deck trellis on an existing single family residence of which a portion of the trellis exceeds the 24 -foot height limit by approximately S feet. The trellis was built without a building permit. Mr. Campbell noted that a letter of opposition was received by the Planning Department and distributed to the Planning Commission for consideration. Public comment was opened Nancy Rhone, speaking on behalf of the applicant, stated the trellis does not block any view as it is not visible from Kings Road. The pictures that were submitted as part of the staff report show that. She further noted that the topography of the property has a descending, dramatic grade making it impossible to modify the trellis to meet the height limit. On one side it's less than the 24 feet allowable, while as it extends to the other side, it is 5 feet above what is allowable. That difference starts immediately as the grade descends. The trellis is necessary as Mr. Smith is handicapped and is unable to go • downstairs to get outside and enjoy using the deck. Since it is on the prevailing wind and sun area facing the ocean, it is quite uncomfortable without some type of coverage for the upper deck. Commissioner McDaniel noted that there is quite a bit of trellis as shown in the picture. It seems to cover the entire back of the building. Why is there a need to have that much trellis? I understand the enjoyment of the back deck and using the trellis for shade, would it not be acceptable to have less trellis? Ms. Rhone answered that it creates an outdoor space. It is hard to stop this trellis as it is constructed of vinyl and has to be put up in increments. When it was decided to install, it went all the way across to afford the applicant as much use of the outdoor area as possible. Commissioner Gifford stated that the trellis was built prior to the variance application. How did the application come about? Ms. Rhone answered that in November, the Smiths decided to contract with a builder for the trellis. At that time, they did not realize a permit was required. At the time of construction, a building inspector noticed it and he contacted the Smiths and informed them they needed a permit. The Smiths then started the permit process. The inspector at that time was contacted about whether they should continue or stop the construction. He told the Smiths that it was better to continue the project because of the safety issues, as there were no railings. Because the trellis was made of vinyl and had to be placed in total, the Smiths • also had to apply for an alternate material permit, which took time. By the time INDEX Item No. 3 PA2001 -117 Approved and then Reconsidered for 10/04/2001 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 the building permit process after the alternate material permit was obtained, the trellis was in place. Neither the inspector nor the Smiths were aware that this trellis would not be permitted due to the height restrictions. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Agajanian asked about the vinyl construction. Is it a unitized construction? Do we know if we can remove the portion that was mostly in violation without the whole thing being removed? Staff answered they did not have any knowledge of the building code as it relates to vinyl trellises. It looks like it is in sections to a certain extent. It may require some re- application. Public comment was re- opened. Nancy Rhone, referring to Exhibit 4, explained the area exceeding the height limit. She noted that the problem with the vinyl is that it is in large, square increments. If we began stepping it back in order to stay within a certain line, we would end up with less patio coverage than shown on the exhibit. Commissioner Agajanion noted he was thinking in terms of the right hand half of the deck as opposed to the diagonal. The diagonal would not make any sense at all. Could the right half be backed off as opposed to the left half? Maybe remove the bays, one at a time. Ms. Rhone answered that she is not sure; it would have to be re- constructed. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley noted that generally on variances the first thing to look at is the view impacts. This project has no impacts on the public view and looking at the people who have signed the petition, they are the ones who would be most impacted if there was a problem from Kings Road. He then made the following motion. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Variance No. 2001 -003 and adopt Resolution No. 1535. Commissioner McDaniel noted he would not be in support of the motion. He explained that he drove by the properly expecting the trellis to be something to hang flowers on. When he saw it, it seemed to be considerably more than what is necessary for what is requested. If you hang a bunch of flowers or do something on those edges, it certainly would have the capacity to impact the views. It is not necessary. Continuing, he stated he was disappointed that anyone living up there would not know to take out a permit before doing any such construction and certainly does not want to encourage that to go forward. This could be scaled back and still have plenty of coverage and plenty of room INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 0 for flowers and not impact anybody whatsoever. Commissioner Agajanian noted that the inspector had actually seen a project and notified the owner who, in this case, has filed for this variance. We are getting a lot of miscommunication between individuals who are starting projects, confronting our inspectors and not stopping the building at that point. It is continuing and we are confronted with a variance in an 'ex post facto' sort of way. I don't like it because I think this could have been avoided. It could have been modified early on, at the time the inspector saw it. I would certainly approve a small variance if we could cut back the two bays on the right, but I can not support the variance as it stands right now. Vice Chairman Kiser noted that variances are difficult to give. In this case I have a different take on it as the structure itself as it stands, presents a minimal incursion into any kind of view and is a minimal part of the structure. I would be willing to support the motion in this case. Other considerations are, the applicant could take down the trellis and put tables with large umbrellas on the same balcony that I believe would do about the same view wise to the extent that there is any obstruction. The applicant could also run some light wires and have plants strung across. The residences on the other side and from Kings Road have no view blockage as I could determine. With the lack of complaints other than the letter from Mr. Roman who addresses the problem as a historically sensitive area and generally blocked vistas from the bluff side of Kings Road, is much broader based than something that would raise any real question from me about this particular minor structure. While I am hesitant to support any variances, in this case, I would support the motion. Ayes: Kiser, Gifford, Kranzley, Noes: McDaniel, Agajanian Absent: Tucker, Selich SUBJECT: Jackson Residence 3631 Ocean Boulevard • Variance No. 2001 -001 and • Modification No. 2001 -092 (PA2001 -062) Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right -of -way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 -feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. INDEX Item No. 4 PA2001 -062 Continued to 09/20/2001