Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/2002• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - Commissioners Agajanian and Gifford were excused. Chairperson Kiser introduced and welcomed Commissioner Toerge as the newest member of the Planning Commission STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning ISirector Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary • Minutes: Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes of September 5, 2002 as amended. Approved Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Excused: Agajanian, Gifford Abstain: Toerge Public Comments: Ms. Temple noted a letter and petition written by Kenneth A. Wong regarping painted arrow option signs on Ford Rd onto San Miguel that had been received in the Planning Department with the request that it be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission. This issue is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. The letter had also been copied to the City Council. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of Agenda • The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, September 13, 2002. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 Code Amendment No. 2002 -005 Q Balboa Village Design Guidelines Amendment to the Central Balboa Specific Plan District #8, removing the existing design guidelines from Section 20.45.025 and adding revised Sections 20.45.020 and 20.45.025, establishing the Balboa Village Design Guidelines and establishing development plan procedures. Ms. Wood, Assistant City Manager noted the following: • Comments received from many people including members of the Planning Commission about what will be done to encourage the private property owners to improve their property as the City completes public improvements. • The City retained Ron Baers, the some urban designer who worked on the public improvement project, to develop a set of design guidelines for the village. He is here to go over the specifics. • These guidelines will replace the ones that are in the Specific Plan now. • The ordinance is to be amended to establish a development plan review process at the staff level and then the guidelines will be adopted by City Council Resolution. The system is the some as in Mariners Mile. • In Mariners' Mile we said that any new structure or any addition of 2500 square feet or greater would be subject to the review process and the guidelines. In this case, because things are much smaller in the village and it's a pedestrian environment, the way we have drafted the ordinance is that any exterior change that requires a building permit would be subject to the review process. Commissioner Tucker noted that Section 20.45.060 says, 'therefore any new or substantially altered development shall be reviewed for consistency'. Does that substantial alteration mean a building permit? Ms. Wood answered that Section 'B' - Application had been revised, specifically: 'Development Plan review and approval shall be obtained from the Planning Director prior to the Issuance of a building permit for any exterior work for any new building to be constructed, or any existing building to be reconstructed etc...' Staff's recommendation is to make Section A consistent with the language in Section B. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that in 'A' the listing of the purposes. I did not see anything that had to do with the design of a building, yet that is what the design guidelines covers. Ms. Wood agreed that some language should be developed to cover that issue. Commissioner Selich asked about the exposure of the guidelines to the property owners and merchants other than the PROP Committee. Ms. Wood answered the PROP Committee did not review the guidelines, they talked about doing them. The Balboa Merchants and Owners Association and the Balboa Peninsula Point Association reviewed the guidelines. INDEX item 1 PA2002 -161 Continued to 10/17/2002 18 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 Commissioner Tucker noted that the Planning Director could approve a development plan only If the project is found to be consistent with the Design Guidelines and applicable ordinances and policies. Each building permit has to go through this consistency review at the Planning Director level to be consistent with the design review level. It is more than suggestions, it has the force of compliance although the guidelines are fairly broad it seems. Commissioner McDaniel noted that this replaces Section 20.45.025 with the two new Sections, 20.45.020 and 20.45.025, is there any way there might be confusion between the old .025 and the new .025? Ms. Clauson, Deputy City Attorney, noted that amendments or replacements of existing codes don't necessitate a different number. Ms. Wood noted she would check on the numbering. Mr. Ron Baers, urban design consultant to the City, at Commission inquiry noted the following: • The review process was two years and during that time he met with, and • received input from, the Balboa Merchants and Owners Association, had two meetings with the Balboa Peninsula Point Association, and an informal review by two members of the American Institute of Architects. • Specific input was included in the guidelines relating to specific example issues /pictures. Commissioner Tucker noted his comments on the guidelines by page number: • Page 1 - reference to the exemption from the guidelines as single family residential. Is that single family detached? Definitionally, at what point in time does it no longer qualify as single family residential, is a four -plex multi- family? I think this clause should be made clear so that everybody understands what is exempt and what is not. Mr. Baers answered, yes, if a single family detached residential project was to be built within the Balboa Village, it would be exempt from the guidelines. If it was duplex residential it would also be exempt. It is not necessarily single family residential. The Intent is If there was residential as part of a mixed use building then it would be addressed in the guidelines. Commissioner Tucker continued: • Page 2 - Private Role. Is this something that staff will look at, or will there be a consultant? Who is going to look at scale and character determination to see that this is accommodated? Ms. Wood answered it will be staff who does the plan check and the Director's 40 approval of permits. It will not be an outside consultant. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 5 - Window Displays seems far afield from the physical aspects of the building; this is what merchants are doing yet it is in the Design Guidelines. It seems it is out of place. The implementation of this framework is a building permit. The window displays are not going to be shown as part of that permit. Mr. Boers answered: • Staff wanted this removed because they felt this was going beyond the purview of design guidelines. However, one of the tasks in preparation of the guidelines was to review what other cities are doing. One of the things I discovered was that many communities have recognized that when you talk about a village retail environment one of the primary visual and physical elements is the display windows of the shops. Balboa has addressed this issue by such programs as employing interior design students so that the displays will be of high quality. The window display issue is placed outside tht4 guidelines themselves and is under the section that talks about character. The design guidelines themselves do not address the window displays. This Is Information to consider and is not part of the regulations. Ms. Wood added that the Code section says things that require a building permit will be subject to review for conformity with these guidelines. Obviously, window displays will not need a permit so that is there really more for an informational item for people than for staff to review against. Commissioner Tucker: • Page 10 - Views. Suggested placing the word public views to avoid dealing with concerns from citizens about their private views. Mr. Baers answered: • This discusses the aspect of public view not views from private property. There is a diagram on page 3 that further identifies the nature of public view locations. Commissioner Tucker: • Page 11 - Construction of new buildings. 'Buildings must relate first to human proportions and respect the scale of the buildings around them.' We have quite often a one story building In an area that is zoned for two story buildings and this is an admirable goal; however, as improvements are made sometimes there may be a larger building that is not necessarily out of scale to what the zoning is. You might want to moderate this language a bit. • Page 16 - Roofs. There is a reference in the first bullet point for existing buildings to maintain roofs in good repair. I don't believe this is a building permit item, so that probably doesn't belong here. It is a good idea; I just don't know how this would be implemented. • Page 23 - Painting. The majority of painting isn't going to be done within INDEX 0 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 the framework of a building permit. The City may be able to regulate the initial paint job, but the subsequent paintings will not be covered under a building permit. Public comment was opened. Mr. Tom Hyans, resident of the peninsula noted his understanding that this document was a guideline and doesn't create any demand on applicants. If an applicant comes for a variance, I could see where the guidelines would be reviewed. Continuing, he noted: • Neither of the two peninsula homeowners associations were Invited to join the committees (Balboa Peninsula Advisory Committee and Project 2000). • I am not aware that any public Input to the creation of this document was solicited. • Three suggestions - stop encouraging the continued commercial uses west of Adams along-Balboa Boulevard by changing the west boundary of this project to Adams rather than Coronado. Open that corridor to duplex development with exemptions and permission for this development and reduction in on -site parking requirements for this small area. Include specific language to discourage the development of another unimaginative and repetitious project such as that approved for the twenty -two lots in Cannery • Village. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Hyans answered that the guidelines document Is well done and if what he understands it to be, not a mandate or requirement but a recommendation, he agrees with it. Everything in the guidelines says that something 'should be' done not' shall be' done. Commissioner Tucker noted that there is a variety of styles that is allowed so that the best of what is there now is preserved and some of the things that don't fit in well are encouraged to head a different way. So there is no misunderstanding, it says the Planning Director shall approve a development plan (required for anything in this area that has a building permit) only if the project is found to be consistent with the design guidelines. The design guidelines have a lot of flexibility within them. The Cannery Lofts, in our opinion, met the requirements of the Specific Plan, so we did not have a lot of design guidelines, features or requirements. What we did have was very sketchy and talked about an industrial type of look. We felt overall on balance the applicant was meeting the requirements. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Toerge asked about the notification of this hearing and specifically the design guidelines. Ms. Wood answered that all property owners within the specific plan area and within 300 feet of the specific plan boundaries were sent a mailed notice: we • posted the village with notices of the hearing; notices were sent to the business owners; and the meeting was listed in the newspaper. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 INDEX Ms. Temple added that we not only sent out the official public hearing notice but when this item was continued, we sent out a special mailing indicating the delay of the hearing to everyone who got the first one. Discussion followed on the timing of consideration of this matter, public input, and further consideration at the second meeting of October. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concerns of design review and subjectivity. He supports the suggestion to reconsider this matter at a later meeting to allow time to 'tighten' (specific items that can be removed) this up and also the full Commission will be able to look at this item as well. I am not comfortable voting for this at this point in time. Ms. Wood noted that the guidelines were intentionally written in 'should' rather than 'shall' language and we intentionally have the guidelines referenced in the ordinance but adopted by resolution of the City Council so that there is flexibility. The flexibility is intended for the property owner and to give staff the ability to. approve a project that is good and meets the intent of the guidelines and the majority of the guidelines, and not require the applicant to receive some kind of a waiver or variance if they don't quite have the design of the roof exactly as the guideline might say in a more strict kind of system. We want to get a little more • control on this, we certainly want more than the existing system where the guidelines are in the code merely as a suggestion. We didn't want to go so far as a strict design review and inflexible standard; that is why they are called guidelines. Chairperson Kiser noted: • The language of 'should or shall' leaves room for interpretation. • Guidelines delve into areas far afield from building permits and he is concerned about recommending this being passed on to the Council as it is now. Commissioner Tucker noted: 1 am not in favor of a 'Laguna Beach' style design review, which gives both particular and subjective regulations and covers both residential and commercial. • These guidelines apply to a specific area and the City has a significant investment that is being put in. The way I view this is now the City is saying to the private sector they need to also have concerns for quality of design and materials. This has enough flexibility and is not difficult to comply with. A highly modern structure will be hard to approve in a business district. • The guidelines recognize the traditional buildings and more traditional architecture. • 1 am concerned about the lack of public input. • I don't think this is much different than what was adopted for Mariner's Mile. Chairperson Kiser noted that the Mariner's Mile guidelines seemed to be more for • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 signage and landscaping from the street side and not general Items such as window displays. What is to prevent this In ten years or so from being applied in a manner such as Laguna Beach would? These guidelines are so amorphous that if we had the wrong people interpreting these guidelines, it could become a horrendous problem for people and property owners. I definitely want to take another look at this. Commissioner Selich noted that these guidelines present a balance. On the one hand you can have something like we have In Cannery Village, which is less than nothing, or the other extreme such as Laguna Beach, which is over control. These guidelines are in between and have some force and effect and a way to implement them. Yet, they are not so onerous or overbearing. I don't have a problem with the guidelines and the balance they achieve. Some good points have been brought out about some of the character versus the regulatory issues and maybe there should be some language to clarify which is which so that it is clear to anyone using them, an applicant or staff person doing the administration. They are certainly not something that is new and unusual. Many cities in Southern California have design guidelines like this. If there is an ability to get more to the people out on the Peninsula, that is worthwhile. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to October 17, • 2002 to allow time for more public input and corrections to the Guidelines. Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Agajanian, Gifford SUBJECT: Wetherholt Residence 217 30th Street A Variance request for 3 separate aspects of the proposed addition to an existing two -story residential structure: to exceed the floor area limit, to exceed the established maximum building height of 24 feet by 3 feet 3 inches associated with adding a third level to the existing structure, and to continue to provide only 1 on- site parking space for the residence. The subject property is located at 217 30th Street. Mr. Campbell, referring to the exhibits in the staff report, noted: Lot is small and triangular. • Existing two-story structure on the property with the addition of a third floor of 500 square feet necessitates three specific variances, one for building height, one for floor area and one for the parking. There is a fourth issue, open space, that also requires a variance, but which was not noted in the application or public notice. . The main issue is the inability to provide additional parking. The structure has a one -car garage; the Code does not allow additional bedrooms or INDEX Item 2 PA2002 -102 Continued to 10/17/2002 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 INDEX increase in habitable rooms without providing one additional parking space. • This particular application is inconsistent with that Chapter of the Code; hence staff recommends denial of this application. The agenda has the incorrect staff recommendation. • Staff met with the applicant on the primary issue of parking. The possibility of a parking lift that would provide the necessary additional parking was discussed. • If two cars can be placed within this project, staff's recommendation for denial on this issue could be reconsidered. • Looking at the height, floor area and open space, given the unique circumstances of the lot being highly constrained, it warrants special consideration by the Commission. Commissioner Selich noted he had asked staff to look at the files for similar variances on small lots and asked for a synopsis of the outcome. Mr. Campbell noted variances of the past that dealt with floor area and setbacks. They all provided parking, or there was not an additional room that required the additional parking. • V1219 - 1200 square foot lot, a square lot and provided two parking spaces; had no buildable area and an 1195 square foot floor area was established. • V1174 - a triangular lot of 1200 square feet had a small buildable area (386 square feet) so floor area limit with 1.5 FAR was 580 square feet; had two previous variances for parking and was apparently illegally converted into a duplex. Existing house was 750 square feet with a 250 square foot addition. There is no parking out there. • V1221 - 1800 square foot lot, floor area limit was 1280 square feet, approval was for 2109 square feet, two parking spaces were provided, no height deviation. • V1154 - 1320 square foot lot was an addition with a floor area limit variance and a height variance for a third level deck and modifications to setbacks and gross floor area for a 1304 square foot. structure. The addition and interior was reconfigured so that there was no increase in habitable rooms that would have triggered an additional parking space. • V1101 - 1600 square foot lot, a two-car garage was provided, this was a variance to the floor area ratio and the open space requirement. The total floor area was about 1700 square feet and the buildable area was 1040 square feet. The variance was for approximately 650 square feet. • V1145 - a half lot off an alley, 2250 square foot lot, buildable area 740 square feet, the floor area limit was 1480 square feet, and the variance was approved for about 2500 square feet. Parking was provided. • V 1225 - floor area limit was 1665 square feet, the project was approved at 2180 square feet, which is about a 500 square foot increase. Parking was provided, no height variation. Chairperson Kiser noted that because of the finding about the open space this • ` City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 item cannot be acted upon this evening. Public comment was opened. Brion Jeannette, architect, spoke as a representative of the applicant and noted the following: • Site is constrained, as it is triangular shape and 1250 square feet. Providing two vehicles parking on the site doesn't work. • Referring to the site plan, he noted the two -car tandem parking going through the property line to the rear of the lot. • Following a meeting with staff, he developed a method of subterranean parking that takes a vehicle into the garage and lowers it and then the second car can park in the garage. This would solve the parking issue. • The water table in this area is around 7 feet. • We are seeking approval to build a three - bedroom house that will have a total livable area of 1600, which represents an approximate 500 square foot addition, and provide those two parking spaces. • The two bedrooms there today are roughly 9 by 10 feet. The house itself is small. • This lot is behind the Albertson's loading dock, trash and support activity. We are trying to get a habitable space that is higher and out of the way • of these things. • The city height limit allows 29 feet. I could have done a pitched roof, but I want to end up with a building that is more pleasing and provide a living space that is more comfortable with a bedroom that is a bit larger than ten by ten. • This lot has no alley as the other lots in the area typically do. • Because it is a triangular lot, we end up with approximately 42% of the property wasted towards setback. A typical lot in the area is closer to 35 %. • There is a series of hardships to overcome to do this project. The open space came up yesterday as an issue; the existing building is presently at the five foot setback. There is no intent to remodel the existing building with the exception of tiles, finishes, etc. The intent is to provide a master bedroom. • The upper floor is set back 5-6 feet to help create some open space and vary the roof heights from the highest point back down to the 24 feet over the stair area and work in some interest into the elevation. If you were doing a typical R -2 lot then that designation for providing open space is very critical. We are not using this as an R -2 lot and I know that requirement does not go away, but we are creating an R -1 type of configuration with a single- family dwelling. In the single family dwelling, the R -1 category, that open space requirement is not there. • We are trying to rationalize some of these things as a relatively good solution on an extremely difficult lot. • At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Jeannette explained the roof variations. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 INDEX Commissioner Selich noted that it seems that with the sunken car lift and this third level structure this is getting Into a lot of expensive construction. It seems to me you are fighting two sets of constraints, one of the lot and one with working with the existing structure. Wouldn't you be able to have more success designing a structure that is more conforming if you just scraped the house down and started over with a whole new design? You are asking for a number of variances. Mr. Jeannette answered that we looked at that quite extensively. But to put two cars on site in any other configuration, there is no first floor area. As you can see from the examples, I am going to lose a parking space on the street and I am still back to the same situation of needing to hike back up to the second floor before creating a living space and to conform to the height limit, there is no third floor. I have a one story building ostensibly beginning at the second level. That is a worse situation and I am back into needing a variance for the parking to begin with. The reality is if this was a rectangular lot, I could build a building for what it is going to cost me to remodel it! The applicants have lived here for nine years and intend to make this their home fbr as long as they can and they like the neighborhood and don't want to move. They can not get anything different without asking for some type of variance(s). In response to Chairperson IGser, Mr. Jeannette explained how the 2 -car lift would work Commissioner Tucker asked if the noxiousness of the use that adjoins the property has any bearing on the granting of a variance. Ms. Clauson answered that if the Commission looks at the findings and factually looks at the location and the conditions of what is behind the building and find that any of those factors fit into any of the findings, then they could. For instance, the first finding, ' That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district.' So there are the considerations of the application of the zoning rules, the size of the lot, and if you find that the conditions of the Albertson's immediately behind them is a circumstance or condition of applying to this property that does not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses within the same district, you could use that fact to support the first finding. Ms. Temple added that staff did discuss the specific issue of the loading dock and we did not feel that any of the specific requests served to in any way diminish or mitigate the adverse impacts that it experienced from that loading dock. From the third floor, while the room may be slightly further away from it maybe there is a noise factor involved but you certainly look more directly down into some of the trash and other things back there. In my view, if there was a variance to approve a 20 -foot high fence on that property line, I think that would clearly be something to block the adverse impact there. That might be something where that factor would come into play in our minds. 10 16 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 Chairperson Kiser asked if there was some area in the back of that triangle lot to meet the open space issue. Mr. Campbell answered that the open space requirement can only be satisfied with area within the height limit and within the buildable area of the lot. Setback areas are not counted towards the requirement. There is no setback area below the height limit in the rear of the project given the design that we see today. The only area that is counted toward the open space requirement is that third level deck below the 24 -foot height limit as calculated in the report. Given the Cannery Village Specific Plan, there is no rear yard setback requirement for this lot. Mr. Jeannette then read a letter from the adjacent neighbor; Brooke Jamieson, in support of the application. The following people spoke in support of the application. Gil Garrett, 209 30th Street - parking will not be impacted as there is a public parking lot at the end of the street and a big parking lot in back of the brewery. David Law, 214 30th Street - this property has a garage drive -up from the street • and has no access from the alley behind. He is the only person who has a given parking space on the street as he can park in front of his driveway and no one else can. Jennie Law, 214 30th Street - there was a variance given on a house at the end of 30th Street on the ocean on the south side. They were given a variance or allowance to cut out the curb for his garage basically taking away two parking spots on the street. Brenda Martin, 206 30th Street - encourage residents to enhance the livability and value of the owner occupied properties. She noted the truck noise, odors from the commercial property and other undesirable issues in the neighborhood. Drew Wetherholt, applicant and owner of the property, noted that he has owned this home for nine years and intends to stay. He stated that the patrons of the local pubs in the area use the public parking. Parking in front of his driveway is legal for him. Mr. Edmonton noted that he had observed the parking lot at the end of 301t' Street on several evenings during the summer and it was 100% parked with residents that have permits already. There is opportunity to park there, but it is heavily subscribed at the present time, as are the lots further south along Newport Boulevard. It appears to be primarily used by residents at the nighttime. It is common practice on the Peninsula for the police to allow residents to park in front of their own driveway and It is enforced only on a complaint basis. Commissioner Selich asked if the parking solution as proposed earlier Is part of the 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 He was answered yes by Mr. Jeannette. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted the details of the parking would be given at the next meeting. Commissioner McDaniel noted he was not in support of this application: • This lot configuration has already received a lot of consideration when it was first built. • A variance is something that is special and the granting of these variances is a privilege not enjoyed by others even if the parking issue was solved. Commissioner Tucker noted that this is a lot to ask for this piece of property. He continued: • The floor area is crlittle over where it should be but if you didn't have that there would not be a lot left and there would be no purpose for the improvements. • The building height I don't have a problem with at this particular location. You need the height to get the additional footage. • The parking problem, we may have statutory problems with because of the nonconforming structure. • The open space issue would be more important if this was surrounded by housing on all sides. Two of the sides are open. • This is a tough lot and the Improvements will make it more livable. • There is a nexus problem with tying the taller building to somehow or other justify a variance. • I am tending to lean in favor of this variance. Commissioner Selich noted his agreement with Commissioner Tucker. He added that by staying with the existing structure it is leaving us with a building that is somewhat stark in the elevations. I suggest some other elevations be available by the next meeting for consideration. Commissioner Toerge noted: • Structure looks boxy. • Third floor doesn't seem to mitigate the issues presented today in terms of vision, smell and /or noise. • Very critical of the probability of consistent use of a lift program in this location. I would have to be convinced that this is a workable design that would be used daily. • The testimony tonight does nothing to offset concerns about parking. Chairperson Kiser noted: • Looking at this project and If we approved all the variances, it could be granting a special privilege. • If the parking problem was taken care of by the use of the lift, that 12 INDEX • • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 • particular problem could be solved. He suggested that this item be continued to October 17th. Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to continue this matter to October 17th. Mr. Jeannette answered that he could show situations where these same types of lift devices are used. He will provide some Information on the lift program and agrees to the continuance. Ayes: Toerge, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Noes: McDaniel Absent: Agajanian, Gifford SUBJECT: Rifkin Residence (PA2002 -151) 300 Larkspur Avenue Variance to exceed the allowable 1,188 square -foot floor area limit by 593 square feet in order to construct a single- family residence located in Corona del Mar. Included is a Modification to allow a 7 -foot encroachment into the 10 -foot rear yard (roof eaves an additional 18 inches). Ms. Temple noted this is the proposal for the other half of a lot In Corona del Mar for which there was consideration a couple of meetings ago. Mr. Campbell noted: • Lot next door had a 5 -foot alley setback. • Consideration was given for deviaion from rear yard setback to the north of 7 feet into the 10 foot rear setback. • Side yard adjacent to the rear yard of this property was given a 1 -foot encroachment into the 4 foot setback for the second story. • A 17 -foot encroachment was given for the front yard onto Seaview. • This application is asking for a 7 -foot deviation into the 10 -foot rear yard. • The eaves get to hang over an additional 18 inches. Commissioner Selich asked why the Planning Commission did not review these two applications at the same time. He was answered that the applications came in at different times. The first project that came in was presented to the Commislson in a timely fashion and this application came in later. Staff did not want to hold up the first application for review of both applications. Continuing, Commissioner Selich noted that it would have been nice to review these two applications simultaneously as long as there was no infringement on property rights or process timing. Ms. Temple requested a specific discussion at a later meeting on some additional policy or position of the Commission that when staff is aware of this type of inter- 13 INDEX Item 3 PA2002 -151 Continued to 10/03/2002 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 relationship between projects which are not intended to be submitted at the same time as to whether you would feel comfortable with staff actually telling the applicant we are going to hold it and keep them together. We do often get criticized for not moving efficiently and we want to be consistent with how we deal with our applicants. Chairperson Kiser noted there are two separate owners of the two lots who happen to have the same architect. The appiciations came into the City at different times and should be evaluated at the appropriate times. Public comment was opened. Andrew Goetz architect for the project noted: • The first variance was started six weeks prior to this second variance. • This particular house has been designed to compliment the house next door in massing. It wilt be more of a country house with slate roofing and stucco. • This application IT considered to be the balance of a whole lot and in response to the previous application we ask for 1549 square feet. • Propose a garage door as an alternative to the open carport and still have it open on the two sides. • The height limit has been complied with and there is open space between the two buildings. • The two large trees on Seavlew are right between the projects and will remain. Commissioner Selich asked if the wall will be removed at the laundry facility and what Is the purpose of the area between the great room and the carport area? Mr. Goetz stated that the laundry facility needs to be only five feet wide. The balance of that could be open and meet the requirement. That area will have a nice flooring material and should there be a party, they could use that space simply by moving the cars out: Larry Romine, resident of Larkspur Avenue, asked for denial of this variance due to the excessive floor area. Continuing, he noted: • Granting a larger floor area could be construed as a grant of special privilege as the floor area to lot area ratio would be further exceeded. • The City has used the reasonable set back method to establish an acceptable floor area as a basis for the approval of previous floor area variances. • What is being requested now is not what was in the public notice. • What better place in the City for a small home then on a small lot. • If someone needs a larger home, they should build it on a larger lot that can accommodate that without a variance. • If the variance was for someone who had owned and occupied the property for some years with changed circumstances that necessitated a larger home I would feel more sympathetic. Based on what has happened with other properties In the area, I doubt this is the case. Most likely a 14 INDEX 0 • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 speculator bought the property and as soon as construction is finished, will sell the property and maximize his profit. The site preparation and construction on the two lots will be done concurrently. • Is there an easement for the gas, water and sewer utilities? • People who bought the property should have known the building restrictions and should not have bought it anticipating a variance approval. I ask that you do not approve this as these variance excesses are detrimental to the character of Corona del Mar. Chairperson Kiser asked for clarification as to the difference between the size of the variance shown in the public notice and the actual variance request. Mr. Campbell answered that the notice that was sent out was to exceed the allowable 1388 square feet by 336 square feet. Upon full development of the staff report, staff discovered an error in the initial calculation and It was actually a 1,188 square foot limit and exceeding it by 593 square feet. The result is the same house but the numbers are different. Chairperson Kiser noted there is quite a difference, almost twice. Does that make the public notice invalid? • Ms. Clauson answered that the public notice doesn't accurately represent the amount of the requested variance. I don't think it was an appropriate notice because it implied the variance was only 336 square feet and this is a significant difference. Mr. Romine, at Commission inquiry, explained that everything being built in Corona del Mar is being built to the maximum. You are seeing a solid wall of buildings along Seaview. The bigger buildings are occupied by more people generally that have more cars. Chairperson Kiser noted that this project is to have a floor area to land area ratio per the staff report at .94 and typical lots in this tract have about .95. It is slightly under what the neighborhood is. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the application. The only reaason this property needs a variance is that all of the setback requirements that are part of the computation are based on lots running east and. west. Now there is half a lot that runs north and south and so the setbacks end up being such that the computation on the buildable area is zero. If you just apply the math, the typical lot in Corona del Mar is 3540 square feet, this one is 1890 square feet, multiply that fraction by the 3348 that is available it leaves you with 1787 square feet and the request here is for 1781 square feet. The last one was the opposite in that it asked for more square footage and the computation was 1560 square feet. This application meets the requirements and that is what the policy is of the City. We don't always . grant variances, but there is a bunch of odd ball lots that we try to bring into parity. Your problem is with the philosophy of the amount of intensity that can go on the 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 lots. All we are doing is what the Council has set for us as the policy making body. There is a discussion going on with updating our General Plan. Now is the time to weigh in because whatever gets passed out of that the Planning Commissions in the future will follow that policy. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to adopt Resolution No. 1573, approving the requested Variance No. 2002 -006 and Modification No. 2002 -083 with conditions and with the change of the garage door as depicted in the elevations with the sides being opened. Chairperson Kiser noted that due to the noticing difference, this item should be continued to renotice with the correct variance request. substitute motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to continue this item to October 3, 2002 to re -notice the application. Ayes: Toerge, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Noes: McDaniel Absent: Agajanian, Gifford ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that at the last Council meeting of September 10th they approved the Code Amendment allowing the rider sign and the brochure box on real estate signs, approved the project on Orange Street, the General Plan Amendment and the Local Coastal Plan Amendment; approved the Code Amendment for the front yard setback on Finley and made the appointment of Mr. Toerge. The Mayor has asked staff to look at the setbacks in the vicinity of Newport Island to make them more consistent. b) ' Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported that there was a discussion on the Economic study and another presentation on the second phase will be made at the next meeting. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - none. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. 16 0 INDEX Additional Business• • 0 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2002 ININ7i1 f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Ms. Temple asked if the Commission was interested in bringing back for discussion the project bifurcation issue? The Commission answered no. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests- no updates. h) Project status - EZ Lube has withdrawn their appeal. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 P.M. I Adjournment SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 17