Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2004 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 11 file: //F:\USERS\PLM Shared\ ginger \Planning %20Commission\I007.htm 10/14/2004 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Daigle - Commissioner Cole was excused, all other Commissioners were present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Acting City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosafinh Ung, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Cheryl Dunn, Department Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 1, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 23, 2004. ITEM NO.1 Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approved the minutes as amended. Approved Ayes: Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Cole Abstain: Eaton max: file: //F:\USERS\PLM Shared\ ginger \Planning %20Commission\I007.htm 10/14/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004 HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Sweeney residence appeal (PA2004 -206) 401 -403 Heliotrope Avenue Appeal of the Planning Director's determination of grade for the purpose of measuring structure height Ms. Temple reported that the applicant has requested this matter be continue to October 21, 2004. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continued this item to October 21, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Cole Abstain: None SUBJECT: Espinoza Condo Conversion and Tract Map (PA2004 -137) 329 Marguerite Avenue The Condominium Conversion and Tentative Tract Map relate to the conversion of an existing 7 unit apartment building to condominiums for the purpose of individual sale. The Coastal Residential Development Permit application relates to compliance with affordable housing regulations applicable within the Coastal Zone. Chairperson Tucker noted this matter was before the Commission previously. At that time issues were raised and staff has come back with responses in this staff report. Mr. Campbell affirmed that staff would like direction on the issue as to whether or not the applicable development standards are those as of the date the project was originally built or the conversion date. Commissioner Eaton discussed how the Modifications Committee dealt with the number of condo conversions with setback and height nonconformities and asked how many of the condo conversions are new duplex construction and how many have nonconformities. Mr. Campbell answered that approximately 1/3 of the applications have non - conformities such as minor encroachments into the setbacks, as well as one or two cases that the buildings were over the height limit. In one case there was a nonconforming density that was a duplex in a single family area. None of these are new condo conversion applications. There have been 62 conversions done in the last four and one half years of which approximately 95% were duplexes; there are a few triplexes that have been converted but nothing any larger during the time Page 2 of 11 ITEM NO. 2 PA2004 -206 Continued to 1012112004 ITEM NO.3 PA2004 -137 Approved file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ ginger \Planning%20Commission \1007.htm 10/14/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 10/0712004 Page 3 of 11 studied. Ms. Temple added that not every non - conformity can be approved by the Modifications Committee if the current standards are applied. For instance a building over the height limit would require approval through a variance. Commissioner Selich noted that the issue before the Commission is to continue the existing practice or do a completely new interpretation of the Code beyond what ! has been done in the past as far as meeting new development standards except for the parking for conversions. Staff answered yes, and would follow up with a clarifying code amendment if the Commission chooses to continue with the current practice. He then noted that the City Council intended when they adopted this ordinance for condominium conversion to promote home ownership. If we were to require all these developments to adhere to all these development standards probably very few of those 65 that were mentioned would qualify for conversions. He then stated he would not be comfortable taking a new interpretation without at least some concurrence from the City Council on this matter. Chairperson Tucker asked if this condominium conversion was approved, would it automatically go to the Council, or would it have to be appealed? Ms. Temple answered the Tract Map will only go to the Council upon filing for a Final Tract Map. The Condominium Conversion and the Coastal Residential Development do not automatically go. If the application is denied, the applicant could appeal the decision. Commissioner Selich noted that the applicant has provided a lot of detailed exhibits at the podium tonight. If we were to stay with the existing interpretation of the Codes and vote to approve this project, would the Commission be able to condition it to adhere to all of the material that has been submitted to us? Ms. Temple answered yes, they would become conditions of approval on the condominium conversion. Chairperson Tucker noted a clause in the Zoning District that talks about the project not being detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, etc. Commissioner Selich asked about the garage doors with windows on the carports. He was answered that it would add some marginal additional visibility for people exiting the garages given the relatively small setback from the right of way. Public comment was opened. Mr. Bill Edwards, architect of Planet Design speaking for the applicant, noted the following: . The interior renovations are of a high quality and our design on the outside o the building will be of the same quality. file: //F: \USERS\PLN\Shared\ ginger\ Planning %20Comniission \1007.htm 10/14/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004 Page 4 of 11 . He then referenced the materials that were presented at the meeting tonight) including a color and materials board. . The proposal, site lines, ingress /egress considerations are the best for this project site. . He then discussed possible alternate design scenarios that had been contemplated. . At Commission inquiry, he noted the tower depicted on one of the exhibits does comply with the height; however, there are no dimensions noted on the exhibits as it is an artist's rendering. Chairperson Tucker noted that the applicant has not applied for any variance for height. If this item is approved tonight based upon elevations that are not scaled and it turns out this can not be done without a variance there is no guarantee there will be a variance forthcoming. Mr. Chris Brandman, designer of the project, noted: • The existing building has a dated look as it is over fifty years ago. • The building form allows for common space to be used by the tenants. • The existing building mass is small and everything that exists is well below what is currently allowed for heights and square footages. • Highlights of the proposed design are the Mediterranean architectural style with art deco details. • The addition of the parapets is the largest change to the existing building shell. • The use of the high end materials will enhance the overall image of the building. • There is no additional square footage planned for the building. • The building as it is designed will comply with all current planning requirements. • The proposed design best deals with the existing difficulties of the building and updates the look and preserves and improves the private exterior areas. • At Commission inquiry, he noted that all the windows, glass and doors will be changed. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of one parking spot per unit on thk file: //F: \USERS\PLN\Shared\ ginger \Planning%20Commission \1007.htm 10/14/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004 Page 5 of 11 ;orner, which is incredibly busy. There is no parking on Marguerite. Mr. Lorenzo Espinoza, project superintendent, noted the following: . The project has been developed to benefit the neighborhood and community. • The project is designed to have a single professional or a small family and will have less parking demand. • There is no real solution to the parking but he hopes to have less cars with ownership as opposed to rental tenants. • The previous owner wrote in a letter that there were no minor or major accidents on site due to oncoming traffic. . He noted that all the public works improvements will be provided; a sidewalk will replace a planter on the comer of Bayside and Marguerite; open space will be used for a recreational area with yards and a pool; the density is about 46% covered area; the construction quality the plans depict. He then discussed the materials board. . At Commission inquiry, he noted that the occupants will move in after everything is done and a final is received by the Building Department. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich noted his concerns at the last meeting being the quality of what was being done and the safety issues with the carports backing onto Bayside Drive and the parking situation. Since then, the applicant has done a lot of work to alleviate my concerns if we are able to condition this project on the quality aspects of what they would be doing. I am satisfied on that; however, I am still concerned about the parking and the number of spaces per unit and the way the spaces are designed backing out onto Bayside Drive, neither of which we would allow to occur today if this was a new project. This is an unintended consequence of a City Council Ordinance adopted many years ago that was primarily aimed at duplexes and maybe some triplexes to promote home ownership, and not a project like this. It is still something that qualifies under the ordinance, but it is a tough call because of the parking and the way the parking spaces are designed. I am inclined to go ahead and approve this conversion even though I don't like the parking and access to the site. The building has been here for fifty years and the building will probably remain if converted. In this situation I would give on the parking and access to get the better looking building in the community. The applicant could conceivably come in with a larger, bulkier building, the floor area is less than would be allowed to build under current standards with less open space. I come down on the side of approval of this project. Commissioner Eaton noted that he had listened to the discussion at the last meeting as he was not present. He noted his concern that if the condo conversion was approved as it could still get re -built exactly as is with the same one to one file: //F:\USERS\PLN\Sharedkginger \Planning %o20Commission \1007.htm 10/14/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004 Page 6 of 11 parking and the same dangerous relationship to Bayside Drive. He therefore would vote for denial of this application. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern with the parking issue. The exterior changes and articulations look great; however, there is no place to park. When you are an owner, many people may have two cars. Ms. Clauson clarified that the provisions of the condominium conversion ordinance specifically authorize the conversion of these units with only one parking space. It allows for the number of off street parking spaces to be those that were required, and has to comply with the number that was required, at the time of construction of the project. Most of the older duplexes that have been turned into condominiums only had two parking spaces. Many of the condominium conversions approved in the past have been with only one parking space per unit. One of the standards is the design and location of the parking, which if that was the biggest concern, would be something that staff could come back with some standards or basis for denial. This project is parked to comply with the number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of the original construction and a use permit was granted for it. In that case, we would not be able to use the number of parking spaces as a basis for denial of this application. Commissioner Toerge noted: . Improvements to the property will be a nice addition. . His concern is the safety issue of the garages located that close to Bayside Drive. . Converting this project to condominiums assures that this will remain in the present configuration for a longer period of time than if it is not converted and, as a result, will prolong what he considers to be an unsafe condition. . He would be supportive of continuing this item for the preparation of findings for denial based upon the fact that it is not safe. Chairperson Tucker noted the applicant has taken care of a lot of issues he had. He then discussed possible scenarios of parking this site if it was redeveloped; number of parking per ownership versus tenants; and ordinance policy. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Condominium Conversion No. 2004 -014, Newport Tract Map No. 200 -002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2004 -001, subject to the findings and conditions of approval within the draft resolution and with the additional condition that the applicant bring back for the Commission review a set of dimensioned elevations, floor plans and a landscape plan specifying all the materials to be used on the construction of the exterior of the building and sizes and plant specification and the hard surface areas in the landscape plan. Ms. Temple suggested a time frame of prior to issuance of the building permit. The file: //F: \USERS\PLN\Shared\ ginger \Planning %20Commission \1007.htm 10/14/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004 maker of the motion agreed. Page 7 of 11 Ayes: Tucker, Selich and McDaniel Noes: Eaton, Toerge Absent: Cole Abstain: None SUBJECT: Simpkins Residence (PA2004 -155) ITEM NO. 4 520 Larkspur Avenue PA2004 -155 The application requests a Variance approval to allow the construction of a two- Approved story single - family residence with a basement level to exceed the established floor area limit and a Modification Permit for a rear yard setback encroachment. Public comment was opened. Mr. Mohsen Mehritash, designer and project manager noted the following: • The project has been designed according to the neighborhood characteristics. • The specific element staff requested be reduced in terms of the square footage of the project is the basement. • This property had been subdivided approximately 50 years ago. The size of the lot is small in comparison with the neighborhood. • The site does not have alleyway access and the buildable lot area is not similar to some of the other projects in the neighborhood. • The basement does not change the massing of the structure from the outside as it is not visible; does not raise the height of the building and does not add any additional bedroom to the house. • The basement is for the use of the applicants grandchildren as a play area. Chairperson Tucker noted that this is a variance request, which means that this proposal is not in compliance with our requirements. In order for the Commission to make a finding for a variance, it has to meet four statutory findings. With the basement area, it is more square footage than other residences that are nearby. Following staff recommendation, it would be consistent with the floor area ratio that is available for other houses. I have a problem seeing why this one should go beyond what other houses in the area have in terms of floor area ratio. Mr. Mehritash answered that there may have been affordability issue with costs involved with adding a basement element, it may have not been thought of, or it may have been too cumbersome for them. He then mentioned the size of the lot file: //F: \USERS\PLN\Shared\ ginger \Planning %20Commission\1007.htm 10/14/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004 Page 8 of 11 and the buildable area. Chairperson Tucker noted that there has to be facts to support the required findings and then proceeded to discuss the needs. Michael Evans, project builder noted: • Part of their hope for this proposal was to create more of an area for family use. • The first floor is almost 50% taken up with a two -car garage, which is required by Code. • The current building has a single car, 20 foot garage. • We can remodel the current building, but the costs involved made it more feasible to do new construction on site. . The benefits of the plan is to keep the building below the height maximum; keep the open space above the minimum and there is no more mass which results from the addition of the basement. . There have been basements approved in Corona del Mar. . This lot size does have constraints. Chairperson Tucker noted that he agrees with the arguments; however, it is jurisdictional. We don't have the authority to just approve something because it looks good, there has to be a basis. I am not seeing a jurisdictional basis and the argument that it is a neat project and that it is something that is needed and will make the house more comfortable for the applicant doesn't address the issues and the only issues that we have the authority to rule on is why is this variance needed to make this property similar to other properties in the area. It is a technica ! question and has nothing to do with artistic patterns. Mary Jean Simpkins, applicant noted that the size of the lot is half the size as others in Corona del Mar and by the time you allow for the garage, there is such e small space for living. Chairperson Tucker noted that there are quite a few half lots in Corona del Mar anc the floor area is the same as the full lot. The percentage of area that staff is suggesting is actually a bit above what the full size lots have percentage wise. Ted Foust, resident on Larkspur noted he is in favor of this project: . The property to the left of her garage is actually 4 to 4 1/2 foot setback. . Two new houses have been built on half lots in this intersection at 60( file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ ginger \Planning %20Commission \1007.hhn 10/14/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004 Page 9 of I 1 Larkspur and at 3210 Third Street which is a remodel and has done wonders for the neighborhood. • The property at 600 was developed by an architect. • These half lots do have value and there are meaningful and attractive ways to develop them. • This project site has not undergrounded the utilities. • The utility pole lines hang between my property and the subject property and I would like to see those underground. Staff noted that this is a condition and it is a standard requirement to underground utilities. Chairperson Tucker noted that 600 Larkspur was a gross lot area of 1,920 square feet and sought a variance as well and had 1,795 square feet granted at a floor area ratio of .934. The project without the basement is at .977. Ms. Temple noted that the square footage was used for the variance to come to a number staff felt was appropriate. It was chosen because should it be approved, that would be the easiest way to bring the project closer to what the Commission had typically approved in that area. However, the condition only sets the square footage number so if the applicant wanted to redesign with some part of a basement area and perhaps look at reducing other parts of the building, they are fully free to do that. It is not a condition that says to remove the basement, it just says lower the square footage. Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel noted that the variance situation is that you get something that nobody else gets. Each one of these applications is dealt with on its own merit. People coming to us saying that you gave this to a property down the street so I want that and maybe more. We look at these one at a time to determine if lt is worthy of a variance for any reason and if so look at the merits of the case. This is one item for this piece of property. When you buy half a lot that has 1,300 square feet, that is what you should expect to be able to put on there. The expectation tc have more than that is a variance request and is not a right to have something thai nobody else got. One of my concerns when we split these lots we cause these problems. I am concerned about rezoning the area one house at a time to much larger floor area ratio. I take variances very seriously. When I look at 1,900 square feet, I don't see that as being an outrageous request; however, I am not in support of a basement. To give a homeowner in the area the opportunity to have similar and to build a nice project I can support, but I am not going to support a basement. Commissioner Selich noted that he is in support of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Toerge noted he can not make the findings for a variance other thar file: //F: \USERSTLN\Shared\ ginger\ Planning %20Conunission \1007.htrn 10/14/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004 Page 10 of 11 to bring up the square footage to what is commensurate and equal in proportion to the neighborhood. Commissioner Eaton noted his agreement with previous statements and to allow that high a square footage would be granting a special privilege and therefore, we can not do it. Chairperson Tucker noted that we gave the applicant the opportunity to explain why it is something that fell within our statutory authority but there is no basis to go beyond what staff has recommended. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve what the applicant has submitted on plans dated September 10, 2004 absent the basement, Variance 2004 -001 up to 1,964 square feet, and Modification Permit No. 2004 -053 with the 3 foot setback subject to the findings and conditions in the attached report. Commissioner McDaniel verified that this will not have a basement. The maker of the motion verified this will not have a basement. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Cole Abstain: None SUBJECT: Zotavich Fence (PA2004 -183) ITEM NO.5 4621 Perham Road PA2004 -183 Appeal of the Modifications Committee decision to require a 5 -foot, 6 -inch high Continued to wrought iron pool protection fence with a 6 foot high gate, proposed to be located 10/21/2004 within the 30 foot front yard setback adjacent to Camden Drive, to be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the property line. The applicant requests approval to allow the pool protection fence to be constructed on the property line. The pool protection fence is required by the Building Code for a proposed spa. Ms. Temple reported that the applicant has requested this matter be continued to October 21, 2004. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continued this item to October 21, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel Noes: None Absent: Cole Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: I ADDITIONAL file: //F: \USERS\PLN\ Shared\ ginger\ Planning %20Commission \1007.htm 10/14/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004 Page 11 of 11 a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the Zoning Amendment for BUSINESS Group Living Uses was approved. b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no meeting; Commissioner Selich noted that this condominium conversion came up and there is interest and sympathy in changing that ordinance. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no meeting. Ms. Temple added that the consultant is preparing special interest pages that will be deliberated on and the GPUC will be taking a look at the land use alternatives at their meeting in November. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple discussed item one and item six on the list. g. Project status - Chairperson Tucker, noted that St. Andrews has filed an amended application that has a net new area of 25,714 square feet. Ms. Temple added that the plans were received today at the Planning Department. h. Request for excused absences - none. _ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m. I ADJOURNMENT JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //F: \USERS\PLN\Shared\ ginger \Planning %20Commission \1007.htm 10/14/2004