Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/04/20010 • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2001 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley and Selich - AII Present STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Daniel Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes of September 20.2001: Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley, and voted on, to approve the amended minutes of September 20, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kranzley, Selich Abstain: Gifford Absent: None Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, September 28, 2001. INDEX Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2001 SUBJECT: Smith Residence (PA2001 -117) 1021 Kings Road (Continued from 08- 23 -01) • VA2001 -003 Request for a variance to permit an existing, non - permitted deck trellis on an existing single family residence, of which a portion exceeds the 24 -foot height limit by approximately 5 feet. Chairperson Tucker noted this item was before the Commission on August 23, 2001 and was approved. Towards the end of the meeting, some questions came up and the matter, according to Planning Commission procedures, was brought back for reconsideration. Ms. Temple noted that some of the comments contained in the staff report did not come out the way staff intended. There are two main points I would like to add by way of statements in the discussion as well as in the recommendation. The reason why this is back before you is not due to any misrepresentation which came from the applicant's testimony, but was in fact due to staff's inability to completely answer follow -up questions that the Commission asked later on in the evening. For that, staff apologizes for any confusion or misunderstanding that we may have caused the Commission or any of the applicants to see in what we wrote. We still • believe the findings for the Variance can be made in this case and still maintain our original recommendation for approval. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that since the Commission made a motion for reconsideration and then continued the item this evening, it is a continued public hearing. Chairperson Tucker noted that this matter was passed on a 3-2 vote before it was brought back for reconsideration. Based upon what is contained in the staff report, perhaps the reconsideration would not have come up had all the information been available at that time. I certainly would be leaning towards reaffirming what got approved, if I were to vote on it. Public comment was opened. Nancy Rhone, speaking on behalf of the applicants, noted that item one in the staff report is incorrect, that is, the inspector did not discover the patio cover until December 2000, after it was completed. The fact is that the inspector was there on the 18th of November, the patio cover was started at that time. He advised us to get a permit and the applicants went the following Monday to get the application. Commissioner Kiser clarified that on November 21st the applicants went to get a building permit. Ms. Rhone added at that time they were given a Plan Check number and then the inspector, because it was an alternate material, requested of the Smiths to get an • alternate material permit before they were given a building permit. When they INDEX Item No. 1 PA2001 -117 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2001 went through that process, about a month or two, they were finally given the alternate material permit and then when they started the building permit process again, that was when it was discovered that it was too high. The construction at this point was completed. On the 181h when the inspector came to the house, the construction was just beginning, he told Mr. And Mrs. Smith to continue and get a permit. I called the inspector myself to confirm that was the case, he had no idea they were going to get involved with the problem of the alternate material. Commissioner Kiser clarified that during the course of getting the proper building permit for the materials and all, it continued to be built while you continued to get the building permit? He was answered yes. He then asked if the applicants had received a red card or stop work order on the construction? Ms. Rhone answered that one was received January 24th. At that time they were still trying to get the alternate material permit pushed through. There were requirements that had to be met in order to do that; the contractor needed to meet these requirements and we ultimately were given the alternate material permit. In the timeframe of January 241h, a code violation notice was received. But, by that time the construction had been completed was the first part of December. Commissioner Kiser asked if the stop work order was given because of not having a variance for the height or was it because of the alternate materials. Ms. Rhone answered that it may have been generated for the alternate materials. I am not sure if it was generated by the first denial of the alternate material permit and that may have gone back to the inspector. Construction was finished in December 2000. Public comment was closed. Ms. Sharon Wood stated that the January 24th notice was included in the packet on handwritten page 13. She noted, in her view, that this is not what is considered a stop work notice; it is a notice of code violation. As I understand the history of this case, by January 24th, when this was sent, the work was already completed. It appears that the building Department used a form letter and they probably should have deleted number one, 'stop all work' because the work was completed at this point. I think what they were trying to do was to make sure the permit process was going forward and that the files were complete showing their due diligence. Commissioner Gifford stated that these comments reconcile the applicant's representative's testimony tonight with the statement in the staff report that the job was not red tagged. Motion was made by Commissioner Kronzley to approve Variance No. 2001 -0013 and adopt Resolution No. 1540 entitled, a resolution of the Planning Commission of • the City of Newport Beach approving Variance No. 20014)03 (PA2001 -117) for property located at 1021 Kings Road. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2001 Commissioner Selich and Chairperson Tucker noted they would be abstaining from the vote since they were not present on August 23, 2001 when this item was first presented. Commissioner McDaniel noted he would not support this motion. He has concerns about people not getting permits when they should and building whatever they want. My concerns go to why get a permit, you can build what you want and then with a 50/50 chance you may not get caught. If you do then, maybe you can get forgiveness as opposed to permission. It concerns me that people would not have gotten a permit and then we have something that is completed and we have to go through this motion. Commissioner Agajanian noted that the last time this issue came up, I did not support it. I felt that there was room to remove a potion of that trellis back, however, I was told at that time it was a unitary construction, that none of it could be removed without all of it being removed. I don't think that is the case. I have no basis for establishing that other than the staff comment that if a portion of the patio cover were eliminated where it exceeded the allowable structure height, it could only be accomplished by removing the entire section between the two support posts. I still think that provides a solution for eliminating that portion that is in violation. Commissioner Gifford noted she had supported the approval of the variance the last time. The information that came up later that provoked my concerns has been adequately addressed and I will be supporting the variance on reconsideration. Commissioner Kiser noted he would be supporting the motion for the reasons stated during the last meeting. Nothing has changed. Ayes: Kiser, Gifford, Kranzley, Noes: McDaniel, Agajanian Abstains: Tucker, Selich SUBJECT: Collins Residence 312 Buena Vista Blvd. & 604 W. Bay Avenue • Off -Site Parking Agreement No. 2001 -001 (PA2001 -146) Off -site parking agreement in conjunction with an addition to 312 Buena Vista. Two parking spaces will be provided across the alley at 604 West Bay Avenue. Both properties are under common ownership. Chairperson Tucker noted that this item was before the last Planning Commission • meeting on September 20th. There was confusion on the Commission's part on how this Off -site parking agreement would work. The applicant and the City INDEX Item No. 2 PA2001 -146 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2001 Attorney's office have been working on this item over the past couple of weeks and it is now before us in draft form, which you all got faxed to you last night. Additionally, I have suggested some changes after reading the agreement that has gone to the Commission. They are: • Renumbering the paragraphs so that they were sequential. • Changing a word on page 4 of 7 that said, 'the Property' to Parcel 1, which I believe that staff is recommending Parcel 1 and 2, which is acceptable to me. • Changing some of the language on the indemnity in paragraph 6 so that the City is indemnified and held harmless from any costs that might be incurred in the event the City were ever sued on the agreement. • Paragraph 7 on page 5 of 7, changing the word property in the first line to Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. • As signatory, I question that a Planning Commissioner could bind the City. • In the Resolution, Section 2 change the meeting date to October 4 and change the word helps in paragraph 3c to betters; delete the word lot in paragraph 2d. • In condition 1, which refers to one of the two spaces on West Bay Avenue, which is made available to 312 Buena Vista, would be covered. The agreement seems to indicate that the additional • parking spaces that were being added outside the garage would be the spaces that would be available to 312 Buena Vista. With those changes to the agreement, it appears acceptable to me. Commissioner Agajanian noted that condition 1 reads that two parking spaces shall be provided on 604 W. Bay Avenue. The question I had is whether we should insert the phrase, free of charge. There is nothing I see in this document that indicates that the spaces to be provided are to be free of charge. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the agreement can not be terminated without going through the City. This property is owned by the same person and I am not sure that would be necessary language. If they came back to the City to try and terminate the agreement, that would be an appropriate time. Commissioner Agajanian answered we could do that, but I was thinking of renting out one of the units and charging that renter a fee for the parking as an optional item. If the renter decides not to take the parking space, then the other owner simply uses it for other purposes. If these two spaces are dedicated then it should say free of charge. Commissioner Kiser suggested the following: • Section 7 of the agreement has to do with running with the land and the burden an benefits; I think we need to add a clause that says the • agreement may not be amended except in writing by the City and the then owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. The City is a party of the INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2001 original agreement but I would not want somebody to come back years later and argue that the two owners can amend it without approval of the City. To be added to section 7, "This Agreement may not be amended except in writing signed by the City and the then owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Chairperson Tucker asked why don't we just say, "except by the parties hereto "? Mr. Dan Ohl added there is no formal language for this, and suggested that the Commission can make it direct and straightforward. Chairperson Tucker added that we can use the above language, 'This Agreement may not be amended except be an amendment signed by the City and the then owners.' Commissioner Kiser then added: • Section 6, ending with, '....and all claims or costs arising from this Agreement, including attorneys' fees.' I would like to add after the word from, the words, or in any way related to ... In some cases this becomes important particularly when there are real substantial interests involved. I would like to make sure the City is going to be indemnified for anything that relates in any way to this agreement. • Public comment was opened. Pat Collins, 312 Buena Vista Blvd. stated that at the last meeting there was a comment about notice to our neighbors. In conjunction with the building of the new residence at 604 West Bay Avenue, we had a modification that was processed and in connection with the process, all neighbors within the required area were notified. I met with a number of them and there were no negative comments. The modification was in conjunction with some columns at the front door that were going to be 8 -10 inches into the setback. The neighbors are aware of the project. We have worked with the City Attorney and our counsel and with the comments I have heard this evening, I am in a position to accept the agreement as it is currently drafted. Realizing this agreement will run with the land, the intent here is simply that we have a large family and the current lot at 604 West Bay is one bedroom built over a garage as a housekeeper residence for the 312 house when it was built. The 312 Buena Vista house currently has no useable parking though a patio, which sits above grade of the alley is deemed to be qualifying as one spot. This property with the garage has been used as our garage for the last eleven years that we have owned it. At the end of the project, we will have turned one unusable and two useable parking spots into four spots for the two residences. Chairperson Tucker asked if the off -site parking agreement and the conditions as revised acceptable? Mr. Collins answered yes. • Public comment was closed. INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2001 Mr. Ohl added: • Page 3 of the Agreement, under paragraph 1 ,'...shall be reserved, made available and free of charge,... Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Off -Site Parking Agreement No. 2001 -001 and adopt Resolution No. 1537 entitled, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach approving Off -Site Parking Agreement No. 2001 -001 for property located at 312 Buena Vista Blvd., and 604 W. Bay Avenue (PA2001 -146) as amended by suggestions of Chairperson Tucker. Commissioner Gifford noted because she was not present at the last meeting and based on the 500 -foot radius conflict of interest, would be standing down from voting on this matter. Chairperson Tucker clarified that the motion also includes the changes further offered during Commission discussion on the latest version of the agreement, which has the footer of 10/04/01 and are: • Paragraph 1 having the made available language and free of charge language inserted that was offered earlier. • Paragraph 6 after the word from, the last line having, or in any way . related to, added. • Paragraph 7 having a new sentence that reads, This agreement may not be amended except by amendment signed by the City and the owners. Commissioner McDaniel stated he was not going to support the motion noting that there are a lot of people who would like to have a piece of property and be able to substitute parking someplace else. It has a lot of merit, but I think once that parking spot is gone, no matter what we do with the verbiage, we have that parking space will be gone forever. Mr. Campbell added that in condition 1 the words, owner resident are to be replaced with occupant. Commissioner Kranzley accepted the proposed changes to this motion. Ayes: Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kranzley, Selich Noes: McDaniel Abstain: Gifford INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2001 SUBJECT: Sutherland Residence (PA2001 -186) 205 Orange Street • GP12001 -002 Request to initiate a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Plan Amendment to change the designation of 205 Orange Street from Retail, Service & Commercial to Two Family Residential Ms. Temple noted this once was previously initiated in 1989 and declared dead wood by myself about five years ago because no action had proceeded. It is a one -lot general plan request to change a portion of Newport Shores Specific Plan from a commercial designation to a two- family residential designation. This would merely adjust the boundary line between the commercial and residential districts and would not result in a residential parcel isolated within a commercial area. At Commission inquiry, she noted that the residential lots in the immediate vicinity are R -2. Public comment was opened. Janice Fairbanks, as one of the owners of the property, noted it was built as a little cottage by her grandmother. The family would now like to put a duplex on the • property and because it is zoned commercial, have to have this amendment to the General Plan in order to do that. Our plans are to move forward with this project as soon as possible. Ms. Temple noted that if the related applications are not received and filed within a six -month period of the Council's concurrence with the recommendation, the applicant would have to come back and do this again. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Initiation No. 2001 -002. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kranzley, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that at the last Council meeting of September 25th the Subdivision Code was adopted at the second reading; a recommendation from the General Plan Update Committee with regard to the date for the Vision Festival, which is the kick -off for the Visioning process, has been changed to January 12th; approved the recommendation on another General Plan Amendment Initiation for Newport Place; and. there was a discussion and direction to staff on design INDEX Item No. 3 PA2001 -186 Recommended for approval Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2001 standards for manufactured housing as requested by Council member Glover. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. d) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Mr. Edmonston presented a report on the City's policy on allowing residents to park in front of their own driveways. The Police Department states that their unofficial policy has been that because there is a parking shortage in the City and particularly in the coastal area, they have allowed people to park in front of their own driveways; citations are issued only on a complaint basis. The California Vehicle Code provides that in general you can not park in front of a driveway, there is another section that allows cities to establish a permit process. Because of the number of rentals in the coastal areas, trying to issue permits on a weekly basis would be pretty much a burden to both staff and renters. We have not found a serious problem with this and it seems to work well for the residents. • Commissioner Kranzley thanked staff for the information adding that there is another form of complaint if it decreases the site distance to curb. It is a safety issue and I am not sure how to address this. Mr. Edmonston answered it has created that side affect in that people have come to expect it as a right. On River Avenue, we actually had to paint the curb red through a resident's driveway. To provide increased coastal access, we let people on Seashore towards the beach park on the driveway and on the sidewalk that is part of their driveway because the street is only wide enough to park on one side. Commissioner Gifford asked when a garage opens onto an alley, my understanding is the ticketing process allows you to park in front of your garage as long as you do not go pass the water meter. Is this correct? Mr. Edmonston answered it is fairly complex. Normally the water meters are in the public portion of the alley. If you are behind the water meter, you are generally outside of that. In some alleys in West Newport the City actually striped in a yellow line to define the area for parking. The water meter is not an absolute guideline. Discussing additional Commission requests, Ms. Temple noted that the first Administration Citation for Prudential Realty has been issued. They have five days to come in and commence the process to amend their sign program. If a second citation is issued, they will go to a fine of $200 and then $500 on INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2001 a daily basis. Additionally, we have started the Notice of Violation process on the product sign Jiffy Lube has placed in their front window. I contacted the owner and had been given the feeling that it would be dealt with immediately. The indicated good will has not resulted in a change in the field and so the process has been initiated and will then proceed into the citation process. e) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanian noted that pieces of the state of the City report were reviewed and they are still working on questions associated with the report. f) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Commissioner Kranzley noted he would not be present at the meeting of October 18th. Ms. Temple then asked the Planning Commission to think about possible dates for the upcoming holiday festivities. ADJOURNMENT: 7:30 p.m. EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 10 INDEX Adjournment