Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-04-2005Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 23 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \080405.htm 08/19/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on July 29, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of July 21, 2005. ITEM NO.1 Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to pull this item from the Approved consent calendar and approve the minutes as corrected. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge and McDaniel Noes: None bsent: None bstain: Henn and Tucker UBJECT: 1401 Dove Street office building ITEM NO. 2 PA2003 -120 Request for an extension of the approval of Traffic Study No. 2003 -002 nd Modification Permit No. 2003 -005 for the office building proposed a Approved 1401 Dove Street (PA2003 -120). r file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \080405.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 2 of 23 Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve an extension he expiration date of the applications an additional 36 months. Ayes: I Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Tucker a None None Domingo Villas, Inc. (PA2004 -243) ITEM NO.3 757 Domingo Drive I PA2004 -243 luest to approve a Condominium Conversion and a Tentative Traci Approved D that would convert an existing 8 -unit apartment complex into 8 units individual ownership and sale. The project also includes the interior exterior renovation of the existing residences and detached garage the installation of new hardscape, landscaping and new exterior ks. The application also includes a request for a Modification Perm )2005 -066) to allow expanded decks, a fountain, vehicular gates and h enclosure within the side and from setbacks. The project site i rted within the MFR (Multi - Family Residential) zone. I Mr. Campbell noted that a dimensioned plan showing the parking ar had been received late in the afternoon from the architect. It appears he garage spaces do meet the required dimensions per Code, and 1:1 taff recommends approval of the project. The notices had been sent he tenants as requested at the last meeting. osioner Hawkins asked if the actual number of garages had and there is the ability to park 16 cars on site. Campbell answered that there will be the ability to park 16 cars with carports that are there today that will be modified to increase ti th and provide more maneuvering area. nmissioner Eaton, referencing the new site plan, asked about tl Dosed new entry kiosk that appears to encroach into the turn arour a for the garage area directly across from it. Is that a problem, and is there a way to fix it? Mr. Edmonston answered that in this residential area we look at the backing procedure and the swerve around the kiosk. It does make the isle less than desirable but it does meet the 20 foot residential standard. 0 feet has been made the standard and requires no setback. The kiosi also impacts the person backing up and appears to have people drive ver what appears to be designated walkway. However, it does meet the inimum standard. Mr. Campbell added that there are two conditions related to the parkinc esign. Number 5 requires 16 spaces be provided and conform to Code. file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \080405.htm 08/19/2005 0 0 • Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 umber 6 states the site plan shall be revised to eliminate any ob vehicular maneuvering that the City Traffic Engineer ioner Cole asked about the permit having expired. Can still proceed if the permit is expired? Campbell answered yes. That particular permit mentioned by rker at the last meeting was the permit that is applied for by t icant through the Building Department for an inspection. Tt action was done and there is a correction list that needs to essed first and then the Building Department will again go for anott action. This will need to be finalized prior to the division of t erty into condominiums. Edwards, architect, speaking for the applicant, noted: • Graphic presented was a re -check of what is in the field relative the as -built drawings showing walls that are existing and H partitions in the carport area proposed to be relocated. • There are seven garages at two spaces and 2 garages at c space each for a total of 16 spaces. . The applicant would look at slightly adjusting the kiosk location create more of a dimension for back up especially for the last spa in garage 2 adjacent to the walkway. . The walkway leading into the kiosk is at the same paving level the paving for the approach to the garages. We could perhaps paving definition shift the location of the pedway and create m, backup space for each of the two car garages at the northw portion of the property. . TThere will be low level planting to avoid any sight line obstructions. Mitchell, broker representing the ownership, at Commission it d they have read, understand and agree to the findings iitions of approval. comment was opened. Record, tenant, noted: . Submitted a written report of his testimony presented tonight. . There are currently no carports on site, only garages. . Major structural changes will be necessary in order to comply. file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \080405.htm Page 3 of 23 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 • There has been no property upkeep since the present owner to over. • Code specifies what property notice is and specifies that somethii was to be received by mail, which we did, however it was only postcard. Code states that a letter is to be sent. • There is no compliance with the notification of people 300 fe within the property. .Approval of this project does not serve the people. Celina Sandler, resident of Domingo Villas, noted: • The spa location is on Big Canyon that is full of waterfalls ai rivulets. • The wildlife will be affected by the lights from the spa. • There will be a lot of noise from people at the jacuzzi with alcot uses at parties. The sound will carry. .This is not something that is intended for that Back Bay use. • . Concerned that this will impact the environment and asked that tl spa not happen due to the environmental concern. blic comment was closed. Campbell, at Commission inquiry, noted the spa is on the site ply I depicted as optional. Approval of the condo conversion would n horize that spa to be constructed, nor would it hinder it from beir structed. They could build the spa today, just by seeking the prop mits. The back slope area has shrubs and trees currently along wi plants. It would otherwise be exempt from environmental review as ,arate and independent project. missioner Hawkins stated he had raised the issue of parking in the >rcourts at the last meeting. He noted he would like to add tc lition 8 language, no parking is allowed in the motorcourts. tition 8 that reads, ..' use of the garages for any purpose includinc storage of household items that would preclude the parking o ;les in the garages shall be prohibited.' Ms. Temple noted that this addresses the concern of future tenants o heir guests from parking for an extended amount of time in that area. • here are vehicular codes that will not allow us to prohibit the parking of: moving van for a significant period of time because that would be thei my form of access. Page 4 of 23 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \080405.htm 08/19/2005 it 1] Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 5 of 23 ioner Hawkins modified his language to say that, no guest parking is allowed in the motorcouds. Mitchell noted his agreement to post into the CC and R's no resi guest parking in the motorcourt and that resident parking be in ages only. mmissioner Tucker asked about the noticing. Temple noted that the Code language requires notice, it does acify a letter. Our postcard methodology is a long standing practice did this exactly in the same way as we do for all noticing within the lotion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve Condominiu :onversion No. 2004 -021, Newport Tract Map No. 2004 -005 (PA200 37) subject to the findings and conditions of approval attached with tl vo additional changes made by Commissioner Hawkins on conditions nd 8. byes: I Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Tucker ar None None wxx SUBJECT: Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2005 -049 ITEM NO.4 PA2005 -082) PA2005-082 701 Begonia Avenue Decision Condominium Conversion and a Tentative Parcel Map to convert a upheld uplex into condominiums. Also included in the application is a request or a Modification Permit to allow the division of a two -car garage into two Ingle -car garages with a clear interior width of 8 -feet 9- inches where the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 9 -feet 3- inches. No waivers or exceptions to the Title 19 development standards are requested with the application. Chairperson Toerge clarified with staff that he did not have to recuse himself from this item as he is the appellant. Brandon Nichols gave a history of the approved condominium conversion application noting: • The applicant was required to provide two separate garages with individual garage doors. • The physical separation of the garage requires the installation of a partition wall. • Installation of this wall results in the garage spaces not meeting the code required width of 9 feet 3 inches. file : //H:1Plancomm120051080405.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 • Separation of the garages into single car garages reduce the interio width of each garage space to 8 feet 9 inches. . The applicant considered the expansion of the existing garage infeasible and applied for a modification permit to allow the substandard garage width. • The modification permit was applied for concurrently with the condominium conversion permit. In this case it was the Zoning Administrator's determination that the findings required to approve the modification could be met and the modification was approved. • The approval is based on the design of the existing structure, the scope of work required to expand the garage and the loss of livable square footage required to accommodate the expansion. • Additionally, it was determined that the resulting 8 feet 9 inches spaces were functional parking spaces. • This determination was appealed on July 7th, 2005 by Chairperson Toerge. Chairperson Toerge, as the appellant, noted the following: • The garage does not comply with the minimum width requirement of the current Code. • The narrow garage decreases the likelihood that the garage will be used for its intended purpose, to house automobiles. • The modification report justified the request by evaluating the physical hardship and loss of living space associated with the required alteration, yet, there was no detailed discussion in the staff report of the amount of living space that might be lost due to compliance. • It appears to me in reviewing the plans that less than 30 square feet would be lost in the project should the property be made to comply. • The plans show that pursuant to the Code, the garage width is actually narrower than what was stated in the modification report due to the existing columns that are present, one of which is not shown on the plans. There are three columns in the garage, one sits in the middle and the other two are adjacent and attached to the side walls, but not flush with the walls, and encroach into the garage space area, which essentially reduces even less than the 8 feet 9 inches amount of the garage width that is available for each unit. • Staff had recently made the exact opposite ruling on a modification request that had similar characteristics. There was a condominium conversion in West Newport whereby the City required the applicant to alter the structure that did not result in the lass of living space. The applicant appealed that and the Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld staffs recommendation to require the 9 foot 3 inch garage widths. • This process that allows condo conversions to proceed without complying with updated parking requirements is an amendment to our Subdivision Code that occurred in 1994. It may be considered a loophole but more correctly stated it is our current Code. It is a concession created in our Code to foster the ease with which you Page 6 of 23 file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \080405.htm 08/19/2005 0 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 can convert condominiums. • The proposed modification is a request to modify another Code, which would now allow the required garage width to be shrunk from 9 foot 3 inches to 8 foot 9 inches and in the case of the actual conditions it is actually less than that. • It is using a loophole within a loophole, and given the amount of scrutiny that the City and the Planning Commission have had on condo conversions, I thought it would be appropriate for this Planning Commission, given the different recommendations on two projects proposed to us within the last two weeks, to hear this item. • If 9 foot 3 inches is the required width and we. make an exception tc go down to 8 foot 9 inches, who is to say that 8 foot 4 inches is adequate or not adequate? • The question I ask myself is, where do we draw the line for this kind of modification? • Cars are not getting smaller and the threshold in the Code is clear. We should uphold it and support it. • For these reasons I appealed this item. Nichols noted: • The Zoning Administrator makes a determination on the individual cases. • In this case, his reasoning was based primarily on the loss of the square footage and the scope of the work required to accommodate the proposed expansion. . The garage is a side access garage that is between two units. . In order to expand the existing garage, two walls would have to be moved into the livable space of each unit in order to accommodate the expansion. . Based on the design constraints and loss of square footage, the Zoning Administrator felt that the findings could be made to approve this modification. Tucker asked for the findings for the variance to be made. Campbell stated that findings 4 through 6 on page 12 of the staff irt follow the Code requirements. At Commission inquiry, he then I the findings as noted in the Zoning Code. imissioner Tucker noted that strict application of the Zoning Code Id result in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose intent of the Zoning Code. What is the physical hardships that are nsistent? How does this tie into that requirement? Ms. Temple stated: . The Zoning Code is intended to provide development standards appropriate to the community. . It is done based on the concept to protect the broader Page 7 of 23 file : //H:\Plancomm120051080405.htm 08/1912005 1] Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 neighborhoods and the good of the City that those requirements should be met, hopefully in all cases. • However, the Code also has a number of provisions regarding the maintenance of non - conformities and the renovation of non- conforming buildings as well as the provision of the modification permit itself, which is intended to provide relief when circumstances warrant. • There were two reasons why the Zoning Administrator viewed this one differently than the prior consideration that you had this past summer. • One, was the loss of floor area was significantly different than in the other case because no livable floor area was being lost and was merely a situation related to the cost of moving a single wall a few inches out to accomplish what was desired. • In this case, because the walls which would need to be moved are load- bearing walls and so thereby making the change extremely more complex, plus of a totally different scale in terms of hardship it terms related to cost than the other case was viewed as representing. • Those reasons and in association that the City does have specific provisions for the maintenance of non - conforming structures, for instance, the applicant could renovate the entire structure and not make the parking spaces comply, it was felt in this case that the approval was justified. mmissioner Tucker noted that there is no footage that finally makes nething too narrow. The Zoning Administrator uses his best judgment each case and each decision is appealable to the Planning mmission, there is no hard and fast rule for when that narrowness of t space gets to be too little. Temple noted that the City provides for the modification permit to w the approval of garages which are narrower than the minimum uired by the Code. It does not set a bottom line at which point for ance a variance would be required which in a case like this couldn't be )roved. It is a fine line in this area and we look at as many factors as V be relevant including the access to those garages if it is notably er or deeper, it means that narrower can sometimes be sustained. have a lot of small lots and old conditions where garages and parking in commercial areas have been brought in. The City does the best it i and that is why this is a discretionary permit. imissioner Eaton, noting the 8 foot 9 inches are functional per staffs ion, asked if there was an opposite finding in the Saywitz case where modification was denied. S. Temple answered that staff felt it is better for people to conform and • would be better if they could. Staff felt that because it was a much more minor modification to the totality of the structure that the loss of the width in the prior case really couldn't be justified because it was easy to Page 8 of 23 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \080405.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 9 of 23 and the parking spaces would be functional. 4D (Commissioner Eaton asked if only one wall could be moved to achieve he compliance? Temple answered that both interior walls need to be moved on both �s because of the centering support in place. It would be a matter of level of structural alterations you want to enforce upon the project. imissioner Cole asked that in the 5aywitz case, the same condition required of a separation wall. I assume the Code does not require however, what is said in the staff report is that it is needed to have condition in order to meet the required findings for a condominium rersion. Is that the case? s. Temple answered, yes. A condominium conversion is different than duplex where you would have only one two -car in possession of one or e other of the tenants and not shared by both. That would be the most )mmon way they are rented out. Our experience with the condominium inversion is if the City does not proactively look at the separation, make a requirement and try and get those garages to conform what will appen as soon as the permits are finaled it will happen without permits ,cause people do not want to share a garage. Mr. Harp, referring to page 6 finding 7, stated the Zoning Administrator is finding that approval of the conversion without the wall would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, so that in essence is how they are requiring it. nmissioner Cole asked if we didn't require the wall, would it meet the 3 inch width as there is still a column in the middle of the garage. I not sure if either way it will meet the requirement. One of the rnatives is that we can uphold the appeal and remove condition 10. Temple answered no, it would not. airperson Toerge asked how much is the Planning Commission to isider the cost considerations when we are discussing land planning. staff report did not get into cost factors, only the living space uction without regard to cost. The house is 24 feet deep so how much ice is that significantly reducing from the home? I recognize there are t considerations but the merit of the argument that we are reducing ble square footage is limited to roughly under 30 square feet. Henn asked if cost is considered to be a kind of hardship? r s. Temple answered no. It had to do with the structural issues itself I, e walls and we thought of that as being physical hardship. file : //H:1Plancomm\20051080405.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/0412005 Page 10 of 23 Marcelo Dworzak, owner and resident, distributed an outline with exhibits file : //H:1Plancomm120051080405.htm 08/19/2005 and noted: . He understands the parking issue in Corona del Mar. . He has lived at this address for the last two years and used that garage for parking their vehicles. . Referencing exhibit A, there are two vehicles with ample room for the driver to exit while in the garage. . The resident of a condo or a duplex will use the garage for their own desire regardless if the width is 8'9 ", 9'3 ", 811 ", they will use it for whatever they want. • Exhibit B shows a new condominium with tandem garage and the resident admitted that there is enough room to park her car in the garage but she prefers to use it for her bicycle and storage. • Moving two load - bearing walls will not be effective and will not provide a benefit to the community. • It will be detrimental to the values of both properties. • It will create a significant and unnecessary increase in cost. It is not what the cost will be, it is the fact that it is unnecessary regardless if it is $1,000 or $100,000. It is an unnecessary cost. • Moving the walls will encroach in living spaces and ultimately result in two abnormally small bedrooms and a closet, reduced dining room space and require moving a staircase. • This will ultimately reduce the functionality and appeal of the properties and subsequently reduce their value. . Currently the garage has standard size garage doors. . Exhibit C lists the most popular cars in Corona del Mar with their widths that demonstrate they will fit in the garage. . The fact is that the garage has been used to park cars for the past two years and is therefore wide enough for this purpose. . The problem in not using garages for parking is strongly effected by the lack of organization and storage space. . He then proposed the following: No dividing wall and locked overhead storage. . Not having the wall would focus residents to use that car for garage as they would keep it organized as a common area, and having locked storage space overhead would allow them to still have reasonable storage in their garage. . It would promote the garage for the intended purpose. . If the wall were not allowed, the garage space would meet the Code without modifications and this is assuming the posts are put flush into the wall and the middle post is removed. This would meet the requirement of 18 feet in width and we actually exceed the requirement of depth by actually 4 feet. We are at 22 feet and the requirement is 18 feet. • If the wall is required, we ask for a 2 inch divider wall and would save one inch additional to each side. . The 2 inch divider wall is not made to bear weight, all the weight is distributed to the garage walls on the side. • We also propose to add an overhead storage system that would not file : //H:1Plancomm120051080405.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 have to be locking if there was a wall down the middle as they would be private garages. • Referencing exhibit E, he noted the advertisement for the system that would free up floor space for the cars. • We can add at least 40 square feet and up to 63 square feet of overhead storage that will promote the use of this space for storage free up the floor and let people park in the garage. • This house was built in 1947 and those garages were put up then and I believe that people were driving bigger cars then. • We propose to eliminate the two end posts that were an issue and reduce the size of the middle one from 5 1/2 to 3 1/2 inches, this is using the 2 inch wall down the middle. • The suggested action of moving the load- bearing walls will provide no benefit to the community and is detrimental to the property. • the proposed alternatives are reasonable and would result in one common garage with locked overhead storage or two garages of 8'11" each, not 8'9" anymore and each with at least 40 feet of overhead storage. This will promote the use of the garage for both storage and parking and will ultimately help the City meet its objectives in controlling the parking problem. • He asked the Commission to accept one of the solutions and support the Zoning Administrator's approval and allow the modification permit for condominium conversion of 701 Begonia. . Commissioner Cole asked about the removal or reduction of the outside Dosts. Dworzak said he would eliminate them by moving them flush to the nissioner Eaton asked if both bearing walls on the outsides would to be moved or whether it could be accomplished with just one. ill Edwards, architect for the project, answered logistically it would be a hoice of impacting one of the units greater than the other. He verified iat the side posts that encroach into the garage space can be moved but will not be a removal, but a restructuring of the floor framing above ierefore allowing placement of those posts within the dividing walls on ither side of the garage. If I had to choose, I would choose the one story nit but keep in mind that it is a two story wall involved and both are load - earing walls for the floors and roof structure above. 701 does stack over ie garage and would be affected by the westerly wall movement. The osts on the side can be buried in the walls, the center post can be :duced in its profile to accommodate a narrower profile partition between ie two garage spaces were we to use steel configuration. Commissioner McDaniel, following a discussion on the specifications of he widths and measurements depicted in exhibit C, discussed the room left for people to get in and get out of the car in the garage. Page 11 of 23 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \080405.htm 08/19/2005 0 0 i Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Or. Dworzak noted that passengers would get out of the car before the ]river pulled in. The vehicle would not go directly into the middle, it would 10 6 inches away from one wall and leave at least on the widest car 23 riches to exit. nmissioner McDaniel noted that only leaves you less than 30 inches out of the car once you get it in there. Dworzak stated that the point is the resident who moves in will ;rmine what they use the garage for. continued on the width and depth of the garages. imissioner Hawkins asked if the architect had ever used this narrow a width. Edwards answered no; however, the Code dictates the structural itioning, fire protection and use of gypsum lath and plaster, knesses and hours of rating. comment was opened. comment was closed. Toerge stated: Exhibit A is not very compelling. It shows the column but it is still a very small space. The hummer shown in the exhibit is a hummer 3, which is the smallest one that is made. Tucker noted: Modifications vary from what our Code requires but there is a protocol and methodology that the Zoning Administrator has been following all this time. He supports the decision of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant is willing to have some modifications and further requirements that would get to over the 8'9". I would support modifications to the plan mentioned by the applicant and his representative. McDaniel noted: We continue to see condominium conversions with one car garage. Code allows that but it needs to be an appropriate size. The next concern is that once this takes place with a 1947 building that is being upgraded when you with ownership to two people owning it, we are never going to get four car garage parking on this property. file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \080405.htm Page 12 of 23 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 13 of 23 . This is the time to get the minimum, which is not really enough for me, but I am going to insist on it. . I am in agreement with the Chairman on this one. Commissioner Henn noted: . I am persuaded that we have a Modifications procedure precisely to allow for reasonable modifications. . I don't think we should be arbitrarily against exercising that procedure and with the modifications that the applicant has suggested to go to the 2" wall presuming that is acceptable to our Building Code, it seems that the modification is a minor one and should be upheld. . If we do approve this, whether it is a full width garage or not, It will still be a one car garage and for probably quite a long time. . I would uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision. Commissioner Hawkins noted: • He shares similar concerns with the condo conversion ordinance. • One parking space per unit is unacceptable, but that is not the issue here on this appeal. • The Zoning Administrator exercises discretion, reviewed the suitability for this project to come within the condo conversion ordinance. We have to enforce the ordinance as it is. . I think the Zoning Administrator decided correctly for the modification. • I did have a concern in connection with the ordinance in allowing for the renovation and redevelopment which needed it. Our Municipal Code Section 19.64.080 discusses modification waiver of conversion standards. Among those are the parking standard. That is not necessarily the garages so we do have under the condo conversion ordinance itself the ability to change some of these things. • With the additional changes and conditions that the applicant has provided us, I would insert all four as part of the conditions, I believe the project conforms to the ordinance itself. Commissioner Hawkins asked if the speaker meant proposal number one Ph no dividing wall is okay? I think 2, 3 and 4 are okay. missioner Hawkins noted 2, 3 and 4 were okay. Commissioner Henn noted that part of the problem is that this decision he Zoning Administrator comes right on the heels of another decision that went the other way. He asked have we in the past approved substandard width parking garages? Ms. Temple answered yes. file: //H:\Plancomm120051080405.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 14 of 23 Commissioner Eaton noted he shares the concern of approving a one car' garage condominium that will extend indefinitely a non - conforming situation in a very old building. Again, that is not what is before us. I would support the applicant because of his alternative solutions 2, 3 and with a further proviso that the wall have at least a one hour rating and be approved by the Building Department. The predominance of fires start in the garages and where you are going to have two different owners here needs to be at least a one hour protection from fire. I Edwards noted the Uniform Building Code does provide for a iltitude of options for varying materials and wall thicknesses and ferent ratings. There are a number of choices in varying widths and rrowing profiles. He is satisfied that he can achieve the one hour rating :h a 2 inch wall or as close to 2 inches. ;ioner Tucker suggested to indicate that the wall will be an minimum width necessary to meet the one hour rating. Temple noted the staff will work through the plan check with the Iding Department to identify the structural system that will be the allest option that can be achieved and still meet the Codes one hour uirement. Chairperson Toerge noted he had spoken with the Zoning Administrator who is seeking guidance from the Planning Commission. It is important to evaluate this application and every application on its merits and not necessarily just automatically assume the Zoning Administrator is empirical in his decisions. He is open and looking for input from the Plannina Commission. nmissioner Cole noted we would uphold the appeal with changes to conditions that would allow the project to go forward. Temple noted you would sustain the action of the Zoning iinistrator with additional conditions. [SY00s: tion was made by Commissioner Cole to sustain the decision of the ning Administrator with the conditions as presented by the applicant's posals 2, 3 and 4 with additional language on condition 2 that would uire the divider wall be a one hour rated wall and be the thinnest wall determined b the Buildin De artment. es: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Tucker and Henn Toerge, McDaniel Absent: None Abstain: None WWW OBJECT: Parking standards for duplexes ITEM NO. 5 Code Amendment No. 2005 -008 (PA2005 -168) PA2006 -188 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \080405.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Code Amendment No. 2005 -008 amending Chapter 20.66 of the Is duplexes Code to increase the minimum parking requirement for not located within the Coastal Zone or Old Corona del Mar from 1.5 Spaces Per Unit to 2.0 spaces per unit and amendment to Title 19 of he Municipal Code (Subdivisions) related to minimum parking standards or the conversion of a duplex to condominiums (PA 2005 -168). Is L.J Murillo, gave a brief overview of the staff report noting: • At the June 28th meeting, the City Council adopted condo conversion regulations for projects three units or more to provide the number of off - street parking spaces required by the parking standards in effect at the time of conversion. • In addition to the public comments received on the issue, the Council indicated the concern of the current parking standards for duplexes not being consistent and suggested that the parking standards be amended. • Therefore, two unit projects were excluded from the ordinance and Council directed staff to prepare the subsequent amendment for the Planning Commission to evaluate. • The Code amendment proposed tonight is intended to address the Council's concern and consists of two components: first, staff recommends amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum parking requirement for all R -2 zone properties to two spaces per unit minimum in order to establish citywide consistent parking requirements; second, staff recommends amending the condo conversion regulations of Title 19 to increase the minimum parking requirement for the conversion of a duplex consistent with the requirements for larger projects. • The amendment will simply require the conversion of a duplex to require parking and conformance with the current parking standards which in effect will reduce the preservation of older non - conforming structures. • A detail analysis of these amendments are provided in the staff report. iissioner Tucker asked if this was adopted by the City Council, would it be effective? Harp answered it would be effective 30 days after the second Temple added that in the prior action on the condominium of three s or more, the Council adopted a fairly substantial period before whic ordinance would become effective and that any application received deemed complete prior to the time frame would be allowed to move lard under the rules in existence today. I would expect that the incil would take a similar action on this. Commission would make recommendations to the City Council on ndments to the Zoning Code and in this case they ask also for your file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \080405.htm Page 15 of 23 Recommended for approval 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 review of this particular amendment to the Subdivision Code, which does • not require your consideration. Normally, we would consider the effective ate of the ordinance to be something that the Council establishes as a matter of policy and that would come forward with similar suggested action when the ordinance is introduced at the City Council level. However, if the establishment of a similar grace period is important for our consideration and recommendation of this change, then you should sk staff to add that in as an additional section in the resolution. mmissioner Tucker noted it is important for him as there are people o ire who have some desire to convert and maybe this is last call. If we re to do that, the language that was in the Council's resolution, an plication was deemed complete by a specific date. Could you tell us at deemed complete means, if we are going to include that language well? s. Temple explained that'deemed complete' is a technical identification of a step contained within the California Permit Streamlining Act. Usually, when we receive an application from an applicant, there may be questions that staff has, or requests for additional information. Staff is required to provide the applicant within the minimum period of thirty days he specific, items which need to be added in order for the application to be considered a complete application. Once that process is concluded, he application is'deemed complete' and thus it would start the imeframes of action requirement pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. However, we often use that step as an identifier for times when we think an application is sufficiently complete in order for staff to analyze it and bring it forward for Commission and /or Council consideration. mmissioner Tucker asked if you need it deemed complete for the QA part of an application? The deemed complete part of this, unless neone files an application that didn't require any additional information, there is a timeframe beyond filing the application. Temple answered if a project also required an environmental :rmination and information was needed in order to make that :rmination such as it was a larger project needing an initial study or an , then we would deem it complete when we had all the information we Jed to proceed with the study as well. It is very speck wording in planning law. Commissioner Tucker asked if we adopted this and someone came along and had an application that was deemed complete and therefore qualified under the prior law, how long would they have under that permit to dually conclude that conversion? How long do they have once they have the right to convert in which to complete the conversion before the nversion right lapses? Ms. Temple answered that the Permit Streamlining Act requires the City to take final action at whatever body level is required within a period of Page 16 of 23 file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \080405.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 17 of 23 180 days. The Subdivision Map Act has a three year horizon for an approval. She added that our Code allows for extensions of not only maps but all our discretionary applications beyond the 24 months that are ssioner Tucker asked if an extension was requested would the nt have to comply with the all then parking requirements? In other your approval would no longer comply, am I wrong on that? answered they would have to check that. nissioner Tucker noted this would be of interest because typically ;ing when I come up against one of those type of issues, the fear I is the new requirements that are out there. One of the findings for sion is that the approval complies with all the requirements. Harp noted our Code does not have any findings for an extension. s. Temple added that we have always considered our extension ovisions to allow the extension of the approval as approved originally. lows a total of 5 years and then there are no further extensions. JMr. Harp noted that typically ordinances are effective 30 days after the econd reading so if you are going to make modifications it would have to be expressed in the enabling ordinance. ommissioner Hawkins noted in connection to the change to the off stre arking and loading spaces required, the proposal is to change from 1.5 2, what is the effect of the current code requirement of 1.5? Do you.g cars in the 1.5, a big car in 1.5, or more storage? a. Temple answered that in those areas that still carry the zoning which really limited in town that if someone chose to implement their project ii at fashion, you would end up with one 2 -car garage that would serve e of the units and one 1 -car garage or carport serving the other. imissioner Cole stated his understanding there are R2 properties that not in the Coastal Zone, is that all we are in effect dealing with just ;e units outside of the Coastal Zone? Murillo answered yes, for this part of the amendment. 'person Toerge noted there is another part of the amendment being dered too a change to Title 19 of the Municipal Code which would re that condominium conversions be required to have current code ng at the time they are converted whatever that current code is. to(Public comment was opened. file: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \080405.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Beverly Johnson, resident, noted: . If the ordinance that was approved in 1994 allowing people to convert their properties should you now decide to change the ordinance and make the conversions all comply to 2 car, she requested that notification be sent to the 3,000+ property owners of that change. . When the ordinance was first adopted in 1994, the momentum did not pick up until 5 -7 years later. Most of the conversions were for new construction so a lot of the figures are for new units that do comply. It took years for the older units to want to convert, split the properties. . All the property owners need to be notified otherwise we are doing dis- service to the community. Jeannette Davis, duplex owner in Corona del Mar, noted: • The change will effect her property and now it will be improper for her to do what I want to do to her property. • It is not fair. • She stated notices should be sent to all property owners. Deborah Coles noted: • This is a significant issue for duplex owners and you need to allow enough time for people to make their applications or allow them to speak their objections. • Property duplexes options would be limited. Public comment was closed. ommissioner Tucker asked if it is feasible to notify everybody with an R. zoned property? Temple noted that we did direct notice all property owners whose ing requirements are actually being changed, about 186. It would some time but we can develop a list for ones that are solely affected the conversion. nissioner Tucker noted it is important that we have notice put out . I don't want it to be a legal requirement of this, I just think as a :al matter everyone ought to have a chance to weigh in on this and what is going on. The reason I don't want the legal part of this I want to hear people showing up saying they didn't get noticed. Ms. Temple noted she will work with Mr. Harp on the form of the notice because amendments to the Subdivision Code do not require noticing. li ill be considered a community outreach. Page 18 of 23 file: //H:1Plancomm\20051080405.htm 08/19/2005 E n U Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 missioner Hawkins asked that the notice for this hearing complied state law and our own Code, correct? Harp answered yes. scussion followed on MFR and R -1.5 properties, the mailing will be R -2 property owners. Tucker noted: 'deemed complete'- I would look at something on the order of 6 months after the ordinance is adopted to get an application in and have it deemed complete. At that point it still would have to go through the process and get approved. There are three years to implement those approvals with the potential of extending it another two years. I think if we do a reasonable job of giving notice, those with duplexes, almost everybody is going to know there is an issue out there. It will create a rush to get these things done, but I think it is fair to give people the warning. Our goal is to get things to conform and I support what staff has prepared. I would suggest to the Council that six months or some timeframe other than the normal course of 30 days after the second reading, I think that is too short a period of time. ner McDaniel asked how long it takes an applicant to get an deemed complete? Campbell answered that typically an application comes in and we view it within two weeks and it might take a couple of days or a couple minutes to review the application. An application with additional bmittal from and applicant can range anywhere from two weeks to sixty ys depending upon the complexity of the application. For a condo nversion, state law requires a 60 day prior notice of the tenants that u are intending to convert. So people need to understand that if they going to rush in and bring an application, they need to provide notice the tenants 60 days in advance of filing the application. missioner McDaniel noted that 6 months is ample time yet no matter long we give, I agree, there will be problems. We have done the we can and I support 6 months. :hairperson Toerge noted that the current Code that was amended in 994 essentially preserves older, non - conforming structures with under - upplied parking. I don't know anybody that feels a condominium today ihether existing or not existing should have only one car parking. It oesn't make sense. I am baffled on the inequity our Code places on ew construction when in fact it allows a conversion to have just one arking space. I am in favor of this modification. He then noted that file : //H:1Plancomm\20051080405.htm Page 19 of 23 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 20 of 23 other coastal cities in our vicinity all require with a condo conversion that • it be accompanied with current code parking. Ours is the only coastal city in Orange County where this is allowed. It was created in 1994 to correc a problem which was largely identified to be in West Newport but yet the greatest bulk (75% roughly) of the conversions have appeared in Corona el Mar. 1 respect the speakers tonight because those people who have made an investment in their real estate with the expectation of employing he codes we have should be a part of the process and should be down here and involved in protecting their investments. The Newport Heights area that represents only about 4% of the current duplexes in the city, I see no reason why they should not be two per unit. As for the effective ate, I agree that no matter how much time is given, there is going to be e bottleneck at the end of that period of time. I think that six months might be more than I was going, I was thinking more of 90 or 120 days to give everybody the opportunity to go through the process. I support this ordinance primarily due to the incremental erosion of the quality of life that any one of these projects tends to impose on the community. We are looking at the overall impact of this across the entire city and on that basis that I am more concerned with the quality of our environment and the living conditions in our community. Commissioner Eaton noted his agreement with the Chairman. He noted he need for the conversions to have two car garages. Re -doing a project into a condominium is perpetuating the existing problem present in many duplex areas and that is insufficient parking. The concern I have is of perpetuating the nonconforming buildings. It will be impossible for two owners to agree on when to rebuild and how to rebuild and how to allocate the costs. It is going to make it difficult to assume those building: ever get rebuilt and become conforming. Finally, if you are talking about he ownership of low cost housing, a small unit of less than 800 square feet like we had in front of us tonight, at $700,000 and the building was almost 60 years old starting out with only a one car garage, that is not moderate cost housing in my opinion. I endorse this ordinance. Considering the 'deemed complete' requires a month or so at the end and he prior notification requires two months in the beginning, six months probably is reasonable. Commissioner Hawkins noted this will increase the parking requirements or a condo conversion, but I think the parking situation and the parking supply in the city will be quickly exhausted if we stay with the current code requirements. I do believe that our recommendation in connection with his ordinance is important and will preserve and enhance the parking supply. I am sympathetic with the burden it will impose upon property owners both in Corona del Mar, Newport Heights as well as West Newport, but as the chairman said, we need to look out for the entire City and the City's resources. I will favor this recommendation. The timing issue focuses on the end point, when an application is deemed complete. • here may be another way to calculate the timing and that is when the application is filed. Is there a difference in work load if we do it on the day he application is filed, does that alleviate staff of some work compression file : //H:1Planeomm120051080405.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 was addressed earlier. • Ms. Temple answered the real answer depends on the knowledge and iligence of the applicant and how interested he is in achieving short term olution. I can foresee that someone just files a piece of paper to say he has filed an application, with virtually no supporting requirements. It may it and embark on an every 30 day correspondence of what is needed, or, he application will die after a period of time. I don't know if it makes much difference. If we get a lot of applications in right before the imeframe all it does is make the compression a little further out. There is no time savings plus the Council has already adopted an ordinance that pecifies a complete application and 1 would not want to have two ifferent requirements. The difference between the two unit condos and he other condos related to the general sophistication of the applicants is in fact different. You will see more of an individual mom or pop, not one f those specialized people, who are just converting their own home. Those people will find the process a little more confusing and will need ore time. Commissioner Hawkins noted there was an approved action in connection with larger condominium projects. 1 believe the Council set a ate certain for which applications needed to be deemed complete. Is it easible to have a recommendation to have that particular date, not matter what it is? • Mr. Campbell answered they could look at that as a possibility. He is concerned that about the time this gets to the Council and it may be contentious that 60 day prior notice period might get a little tough so it may need to be effective after the effective date of the prior amendment of the Council adopted. We will take a look at that too. clarified that the noticing is to be done prior to the City Council 3tion was made by Chairperson Toerge to recommend approval of We Amendment No. 2005 -008 amending Chapter 20.66 of the inicipal Code to increase the minimum parking requirement for plexes from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces per unit and amendment Title 19 of the Municipal Code related to minimum parking standards the conversion of a duplex to condominiums (PA2005 -168) with the Dviso that the effective date be six months after the second reading and to of adoption by the City Council. missioner Tucker asked if we need to do anything for the non - ersion aspect of this, is six months too much? We really have two to this. •recommendation.. Temple noted that we do not have to break apart your resolution of recommendation.. However, that is a good point and we will likely forward o the Council two separate ordinances so that one would be effective in Page 21 of 23 file: //H:1Plancomm\20051080405.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Page 22 of 23 30 days and one would be effective six months from the date of the • second reading. Discussion followed regarding people applying for condominium conversions having the 6 months and the difference from someone coming in for a building permit for new construction or a major remodel to one of the existing buildings and the plan review requiring two spaces per unit timing. Commissioner Eaton noted the motion is the amendment to Title 19 would have the effective date of 6 months for applications deemed complete. ha maker of the mntinn nnreerl None None Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, BUSINESS a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that at the last meeting the Council second read and adopted the ordinance related to the condominium parking standards for conversions other than fo duplexes; approved the General Plan Amendment for Maste Development Corporation office expansion in Koll Center Newport tha will come back with an ordinance for final action at their next meeting and, Councilmember Rosansky extended the appeal period for the Orchid Plaza item to their last meeting due to cancellation of the firs meeting of the month; however he did not get enough support for av appeal. The meeting of July 21st, the appellant for the Salue Restaurant and the owner of the restaurant spoke at the meeting however, that item was not called for appeal. Also discussed was the protocol for the meeting on St. Andrews Church expansion that will be held Thursday, August 11th at 6:00 p.m. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economie Development Committee - no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the Ger Plan Update Committee - no meeting. Ms. Temple added that packets for the meeting on August 16th would be delivered Fri the 5th and that the meeting starts at 4:00 p.m. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Coastal Plan Certification Committee - Chairperson Toerge Ms. Temple to email a copy of the letter that was sent to the C Commission from Tod Ridgeway regarding the hearing on the application. Ms. Temple added that there is a scheduled w file: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \080405.htm 08/19/2005 r� u Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 ession next Thursday, August 11th ) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoni Committee - no meeting. Commissioner Eaton noted there was a st interview of a consultant and based upon that meeting, the consult has submitted a proposal to the City that will be reviewed by t committee. He also noted that the letter from Tod Ridgeway w contained in the City Manager's Newsletter. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on a subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - none. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - none. p.m. Adjourned to BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 23 of 23 file: //H:1Plancomm120051080405.htm 08/19/2005