Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley and Selich- Commissioner Kiser was excused STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patrick Alford, Acting Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Todd Weber, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes of March 21, 2002 as amended. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford Noes: None Excused: Kiser Abstain: Kranzley, Selich Public Comments: Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, March 29, 2002. Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes ADrfl 4.2002 SUBJECT: Brown Duplex 405 Dahlia Avenue (PA2001 -173) Substantial conformance review related to reorientation of the garages. Chairperson Tucker noted that this item had been reviewed at the last meeting with no consensus. The applicant requested a continuance. Commissioner Selich noted he would support the substantial conformance as the best solution and that it still leaves the issue open to turning the garages around for an easy conversion in the future. Commissioner Kranzley stated he is not in support of this, as he does not support tandem parking. Commissioner Gifford stated she is in support of the finding of substantial conformance. Commissioner Agajanian noted his opposition. Commissioner McDaniel noted his opposition. Andrew Goetz, speaking for the applicant, noted that the applicant has worked with the neighbor in good faith. The plan can be engineered with headers so that it can be converted back to the original plan. Mr. Brown will continue to extend the opportunity to a future purchaser of that property. Commissioner Kranzley noted that this is a granting of a variance for an additional amount of square footage on this property. The variance that I approved did not have tandem parking. Tandem parking is problematic and does not satisfy the off- street parking for a cul -de -sac. Not every use in Corona del Mar came in for a variance for additional square footage as well. Mr. Brown can make a smaller footprint, make a change to the design of the house and still accommodate more off - street parking, but the applicant has chosen to go for the additional square footage. Chairperson Tucker asked if the applicant's representative would like a continuance. Mr. Goetz answered yes. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to April 18, 2002. Ayes: Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: McDaniel Excused: Kiser INDEX Item I PA2001 -173 Continued to 04/18/2002 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Naval Residence 1201 Kings Rd. • (PA2002 -007) Amendment to a previously approved Variance where a 1 and 2 story addition to an existing single family dwelling would exceed the 24 -foot height limit, ranging from 1 foot to 9 feet. The modified project would further exceed the 24 -foot height limit ranging from 1 to 10.17 feet. Ms. Wood reported that this item is to be continued, at the request of the applicant, to May 9, 2002. There was a discussion on the use of story poles. It was decided that as the applicant was not present, any discussion and decision should happen when the applicant was present. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to May 9, 2002 as requested by the applicant. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Excused: Kiser SUBJECT: Wine Gallery 2411 E. Coast Highway (PA2001 -184) Request to increase the retail floor area by approximately 500 square feet, and to add wine tasting within an existing wine shop located in Corona del Mar. Commissioner Kranzley asked about condition 5, the records to determine compliance with the 10% of the total gross receipts of the business. That is only as requested by staff and is not filed regularly, is it on a complaint basis? Staff answered that the intent was if the operation became primarily wine tasting, then the applicant would have to show the receipts as documentation. Commissioner McDaniel noted the hours of operation in condition 9. Staff answered that there are two sets of hours of operation; the 11 a.m. to 8 a.m. is for the retail sales portion and the tasting and education is the slightly later hours of 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Public comment was opened. Michael Cho, 3991 MacArthur Blvd., representing the applicant noted: INDEX Item 2 PA2002 -007 Continued to 05/09/2002 Rem 3 PA2001 -184 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 • Request a change to condition 9 that the hours of operation be for seven days a week and permit the wine tasting that is downstairs to be consistent with the business operation hours, seven days a week. • Most of the business is conducted on the weekends. • Asked that the overall hours be from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. with any tastings during that time period. • Tastings will be in a confined area and controlled by the employees and may be in conjunction with a wine representative or wine maker during promotional periods of time. Chairperson Tucker asked about the parking issue. Mr. Cho answered that parking in Corona del Mar is a problem all the time. During the daytime period, there may be more of a parking problem due to the nearby stores. We will have to address it at that time, as it is now, the wine tasting is an ancillary use to the wine shop. It is not intended to make the wine shop a destination place to go and have a drink. I don't think parking will be impacted that much. Ms. Wood added that there are two different kinds of wine tasting. There is the one in the retail portion of the store, which would be for a customer who is coming in to buy bottles of wine and may taste one or two, which would be during the normal hours of operation. That is the one that would be downstairs and staff would have a problem with the parking, especially on a Saturday afternoon. Commissioner Agajanian clarified that the applicant is asking for the hours of operation to be 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. and that the wine tasting and wine education be similar hours within those business hours and also expand it from the Monday to Thursday to include Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Cho answered, yes. Commissioner Agajanian then noted • Shares the parking concern for the downstairs group. • Does not have a problem with the wine tasting upstairs. • Suggests that the hours be expanded 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. for retail operation and the wine tasting, but leave the wine education 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., Monday thru Sunday. Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern with the daytime parking. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to adopt resolution approving Use Permit No. 2001 -033 (PA2001 -184) subject to the findings and conditions of approval in the draft resolution attached as Exhibit A with a change in condition 9 to read, ' Hours of operation shall be from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 Sunday for the retail sales portion of the business including wine tasting. Wine tasting and wine education in the lower level may be conducted only between the hours of 6 p.m. and 9 p.m., seven days a week and shall not be conducted more than two times per week. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Excused: Kiser SUBJECT: Pacific Bay Homes One Ford Road • (PA2001 -250) Request to amend the Planned Community Development Text to allow the installation of independent kitchen facilities within guest cottages. The eleven properties are identified as Parcel Nos. 1 through 8 (on Troon Drive) and Lot Nos. 9 and 13 (on Turnbemy Drive) of Tract Map No. 15387 and Lot No. 21 (on Honors Drive) of Tract Map No. 15389. Ms. Wood noted the following: • Since distribution of the report, additional issues have been found that need to be examined if this concept was to go forward; the implications for all of the 10,00 square foot or larger lots in One Ford Road and what city -wide implications would be for lots in other developments that meet that size standard; as well as the effects on second unit and granny flat ordinances. • The Assistant City Attorney is concerned because of some recent case law dealing with the second unit laws. • Staff recommends that you go ahead with the hearing for public testimony and then make a determination among yourselves whether this is a concept that is worth pursuing at all. If it is something that you wish to look into further, then staff recommends a continuation so that they can look at those issues in more depth. • Since this could be a citywide policy issue, it could be a consideration as part of the General Plan Update. Commissioner Agajanian stated that the applicant is agreeable to putting a no rent or lease clause to these units. I wonder if there is any language offered by the applicant to address an in -kind service work problem, where it is not technically rented, or leased, it is an implied rent /lease thereby getting around the clause. Ms. Clauson answered this is one of the reasons that I am concerned. The City cannot control the occupants of the property. If a second unit is allowed, it can not be conditioned as to the type of occupant that will be in there. What I don't know is whether the agreement to not rent out the property separately from the INDEX Item 4 PA2001 -250 Denied City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 whole property would be enforceable. I would need additional time to look into that. Chairperson Tucker then asked about deed restrictions and who would be empowered to enforce them. Ms. Clauson answered that is another issue that we would have to look at. A deed restriction would be a form of notice but does not help the City too much because you can always give another deed to yourself and have it recorded. have not had the time to think through whether this is legal or not. Mr. Alford added that staff looked at the CC & R's for One Ford Road pertaining to the sections on single - family residence development and parking. They did not directly address the issue of guest cottages, one way or the other. They did define that the area had to be used for a single - family residence, so there might be some internal conflict. If there is an agreement made with the City on the definition of what constitutes a second unit, that still might be a matter between the property owners and whether that meets the intent of the CC & R's. Commissioner Agaianion noted that the granny flat legislation would apply in this case, but the applicant is not interested in that. Commissioner Gifford noted she would not be in favor of this particular request to amend, but if there were a broad approach citywide then she would be open to considering that. As this stands now, she would not be in favor of it and feels this is more a policy then property specific issue. Chris Yelich, of Pacific Bay Properties and living at 21 Turnberrry Drive, noted the following: The property was originally approved with the maximum density of 450 units. Maps that came into the City were for 403 units that were taken down to 370 units by adding parks and amenities that would benefit the entire community. There were a number of homes built that actually had cottages built along with the homes. 17 of those homes were built. 2 custom lot homes were built and one has a cottage with a sink and refrigerated drawer, which under the City's rules, constitutes a kitchen. Thus the reason an amendment to the PC text was filed for the custom homes. As a homeowner and as a representative of Pacific Bay Homes, we do not want to see any rentals. The CC & R's are specific to naming one family allowed per lot. 1 live in a home with a cottage and when my parents come out to visit, it would be nice to have a facility for them to prepare their own foods. The amendment is not for a rental, but I understand how it will be difficult to enforce. There are deed restrictions, the CC & R's as well as the requirement for one set of utilities per lot; however, there are issues INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 of control. We agree with staff's original recommendation, which was on the 10,000 square foot lot; the application named lots specifically and we can go back and look at that with staff if this gets continued as well as talk to other homeowners. The intention was to have a facility that would accommodate guests to prepare food in the guest homes. Those cottages are in existence. People could still go out and rent them except they would not have the cooking facility. We want this to be looked at as One Ford Road; Bonita Canyon is a different circumstance where they have food preparation areas. The amount of units has been reduced from the original amount. The parking is there, and people still use the cottages for visiting. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Yelich noted: • There are guesthouses with no cooking facilities throughout the complex. • The Bonita Canyon project annexed to the City has guest houses /cottages with cooking facilities. The plans were already approved. • Most of the cottages are being used as play rooms /dens as well as used for guests; there are some older kids that live in the cottages as well. Ms. Wood added that the cooking facility is the key because that is what triggers the unit meting the definition of a second unit. The guest cottage alone with sleeping and bathing facilities is just another bedroom that happens to be unattached in this case. William Cohen, 16 Belcourt stated: • If this were to pass, you would be creating two residences where two families can live on the premises. • There is nothing stopping someone from renting the main house and living in the small house. • The volume of parking and traffic will increase, • If this were to pass, you would be setting a precedent. Cordell Fisher, 95 Old Course Drive stated: • Continue this item, as the homeowner's board has not had the opportunity to review this issue and how it would affect our community on the impact of parking and finances. • The notice was flawed and not clear. The street names were not listed and the Tract Map was not correct. • There are already four existing cottages. Arabelle Brown, 4 Vintage Drive stated: • A letter was sent to the Planning Commission. • The Stoneybrook development has a garage or office that is INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 detached; it is not indicated as a cottage as shown on the layout exhibit. • The homeowners had to sign off on this layout that it not be used as a second unit. • Fire Marshall has decided that there is not enough room for turn around so no parking signs have been installed in areas where these Stoneybrook houses now exist with these detached garages. • The CC & R's state that the cars are to be parked in the garage. • If another family is brought in, where will they park? Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich asked if facilities like this were allowed in Newport Coast? Mr. Alford stated he would like time to check into this matter as well as Bonita Canyon to see if there are any provisions for this use. I don't believe there is, but I would like to check into it. Commissioner Selich stated he is interested in this concept and if in the right situation, looks like it could work. It does not have to be done on a citywide basis and I believe it should be done in planned communities where there are strong homeowner's associations and CC & R's to deal with it. I would like to see the information on where it is allowed, how it works or does not work. Commissioner McDaniel stated that he does not see any real need to make this change and is opposed to it. Commissioner Gifford stated that one of the conclusions we might come to is for a planned community, but it needs to be looked at on a citywide basis. This idea of having a guesthouse that is functional for visiting relatives etc., is part of a desire of a lot of people for different reasons. I wonder if we should take a vote on this tonight and if it does go to Council, they could direct staff to look at this on a citywide basis. Commissioner Kranzley agreed with the previous statements. Commissioner Agajanian noted that there is no compelling reason to put a second unit on an R -1 lot. I don't mind voting on this tonight and having the Council direct us. Chairperson Tucker noted his agreement with statements made by Commissioner Selich. This type of request will fit in specified areas. I cannot see having this apply broadly throughout the City. I am interested in research being done by the City Attorney and suggest that the applicant have their legal counsel provide a lot of that information because we keep our attorneys pretty busy and it is of greater interest to the applicant than it is to the City. In terms of Mr. Cohen's comments, on lots that this is being suggested on, it would strike me as odd that the owner would move into the guest unit. The reason is that staff has suggested that there INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 INDEX be a limit on the size of the guest cottage. It ought not to look like a single - family residence; it should look like a guest cottage. It needs to be something that serves that purpose. If it is enforceable that it cannot be rented and there is a way to design that in, maybe it works. We need to get more information and have further discussions on this with a full Commission. I think we ought to explore it at our level. Ms. Clauson added that the concept of the deed restriction or some sort of condition would be not that the cottage could not be rented, but that the cottage could not be rented separately from the front property. In other words, if you are going to rent the property, it has to be the property as a whole. That would eliminate the concern that the owner could rent out one or the other. The only legal restriction that the City can have is the granny units, where you go by an age restriction, but you can't say the only occupants can be caregivers or family members, etc. Commissioner Agajanian added that Newport Coast was brought into the City and approved here with all the County's regulations. Everything is the County's. We did not have any jurisdiction. Commissioner Gifford noted she could not vote for this because it does not conform to our Zoning Ordinance and therefore does not need any additional information and would be prepared to vote no this evening. If the applicant Wishes to appeal it, or on some other grounds that we are asked or staff is asked to look at this on a broader basis, that is an entirely separate matter. I don't agree with Commissioner Selich that we would not be initiating a policy decision if we were to take this application and turn it into changes for the existing zoning regulations. I would vote against a continuance. Ms. Wood presented a letter opposing the proposal signed by Elaine and Jeff Lieb with an attachment of a petition signed by twelve other homeowners. The petition states that the petitioners are against the installation of independent kitchen facilities with guest cottages that would function as residential second units. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to deny the request to amend the Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2001 -003. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the original intent was a good idea. However, this leaves it open for numerous abuses and creates issues that I don't want to deal with. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: Tucker, Selich Excused: Kiser City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Mortazavi Triplex (PA2001 -193) 1324 W. Balboa Boulevard • (PA2001 -193) Request for an addition and alteration of an existing nonconforming triplex. The existing triplex is nonconforming due to the fact that it is located in the R -2 District where two dwelling units are the maximum allowed. The triplex is also nonconforming in that the property provides only three parking spaces where the Zoning Ordniance requires a minimum of six spaces (2 per unit). Ms. Wood reported that this item is to be continued, at the applicant's request, to May 9, 2002. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to May 9, 2002 as requested by the applicant. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Excused: Kiser SUBJECT: Brumbaugh Residence 201 Apolena Avenue (PA2002 -001) Request for a variance to exceed the established floor area limit and a Modification Permit to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 -foot front yard setback; 7 feet into the 10 -foot rear yard setback; and 6 feet, 10 inches into the setback along Apolena Avenue, for a new single-family dwelling. Chairperson Tucker noted this involves two separate matters, one is a request for a variance to exceed the established floor area limit and the second is a modification permit to encroach 15 feet into the required 20 -foot front yard setback, which is on Park Avenue, almost 7' into the Apolena setback and into the north and west setbacks as well. Todd Weber noted the additional letters that came in from the public, copies of which were either faxed or left on the dais for you tonight. Chairperson Tucker then explained that there are two actions, one to exceed the floor area limit on the property that is determined by taking the lot boundaries and subtracting out the setbacks and multiplying that by 1.5 plus 200 square feet. Where all the lots in the neighborhood run east to west you mathmatically can end up with quite a variation in the total buildable area of a lot that runs north to south. The other major issue is a modification to determine how much of an encroachment into the Apolena Avenue setback is appropriate. 10 INDEX Item 5 PA2001 -193 Continued to 05/09/2002 Item 6 PA2002 -001 Variance was approved, Modification was referred to Committee City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 Mr. Edmonston clarified assertions made by the architect in his letter referencing that the City Council reviewed this project last year and in one case indicates that they approved it. All that was reviewed by the City Council was the relocation of the driveway. The current driveway is on Apolena Avenue and the City Council approved it to be relocated to Park Avenue. The Council did not look at any other aspect of the project. Staff's concern during that time was parking. The relocation of the driveway creates a parking space on Apolena Avenue and takes away a parking space on Park Avenue. There was no impact on parking; it was approved by the Council with the understanding that Park Avenue was the busier street. Chairperson Tucker then explained that the variance will be dealt with during the first part of the discussion and then the modificaiton. He then asked the applicant to discuss the findings for a variance that the Planning Commission must determine. Public comment was opened. Ian Harrison, project architect stated: • The lot is a very odd shape with no alley access. • The lot had been divided in the 20's. • The frontage on Park Avenue becomes a default 20 -foot setback. • No Districting Map designation for that area. • The applicant is looking for the same amount of buildable area as any other lot on that street, percentage of lot area is about 1.07. • This building will be similar to other buildings on Balboa Island. • He has pulled back some massing on the project. • Reverse frontage lot configuration came up because the side property has to maintain a certain distance to the lots beyond that. • Did not want to create a two story element next to Apolena Avenue, so I pulled the building back. • The existing building is built all the way to the sidewalk on Apoleno Avenue, so I didn't think I was asking for that much of a setback. Chairperson Tucker noted: • This lot is 2,400 square feet in size. • The typical lot in the area is 2,550 square feet in size. • The typical lot in the area would have 2,720 square feet of gross floor area allowed and this lot, which is almost the same size, would only have 1,625 square feet. • The lot is not being treated in a similar fashion because of the Districting Map. Hall Sealey, 2833 Eostbluff Drive and owner of 1006 Park Avenue noted: • Configuration of our cottage is similar to this project. • Familiar with their setback difficulties. • Stated his process with renovations he did on his property and drew comparisons to the present project proposals. • He then stated that he is concerned with the massing of the proposed project. T1 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 • Mentioned privacy issues. INDEX Philip Lugar, 1704 Park Avenue noted: • When a buyer obtains a piece of property, they know full well what they are allowed to do with that particular piece of property. • By giving a variance, you will give them more than everybody else. • The architect is good enough to do something creative. • The findings for denial are sufficient. • The property owner is afforded substantial property rights with his properly and should not be treated differently than everybody else. He was forenoticed of the size of the property. • Mansionization and massing concern is coming up with GPAC and EQAC groups and if you do not deny it at least continue it so that those committees can deal with it. Ad Katz, 1006 Park Avenue noted: • Recognizes the applicant's need for a variance but states there is a bit of overreaching going on. • There will be an accident on Park Avenue due to all the garages and this application will add one more. Commissioner Gifford noted that the location of the garage is fixed regardless of the size of the structure. Mr. Edmonton clarified that the Council in September approved a curb cut there, that is not to say it is guaranteed to be there. It is still subject to the overall design of the property. Typically these requests come in later. In this case, the architect processed that request prior to coming to the Planning Commission so that he would have some assurance that he could proceed with the design that included that. But, I don't think it is necessarily a guaranteed thing because he has gone to the Council. If the constraints established on the lot result in a more desirable product for him in the end to move the driveway back, then he could do that. Commissioner McDaniel noted his opposition to the application. This lot was purchased with the full knowledge of what could be built there. The value reflected that. There can be substantial property rights and use of it with an acceptable buildable area, which is much smaller than this. This proposal is out of proportion as to what should /could be built on this lot. I think there is a number for a variance that could fit very nicely on this piece of property, but to fill the entire lot, remove the light from surrounding properties and cut the view corridors off, I am against. A smaller variance could meet the findings. Commissioner Kranzley, referring to page 6, noted the applicant could build a house 1,625 square feet and not come in for a variance. Staff is saying that using reasonable setbacks, the applicant could build a house of 2,495 square feet with a variance. Is there some number between 1,625 and 2,495 that you would not be opposed to? 12 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 Commissioenr McDaniel answered yes. The main concern is not retaining the 10 foot setback on Apolena. Something can be built. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the setbacks that staff is using for reasonable setbacks aren't necessarily the setbacks that the Commisison would approve under the modification. Chairperson Tucker noted that the discussion we are having is what is reasonable for purposes of the floor area. We might come up with a computation of floor area that is reasonable and come up with setbacks for placement of the house such that you can't fit that floor area within the setbacks that we vote on. Commissioner Agajanian noted: • This is a lot of uncommon size that does require some sort of consideration. To compare this to a typical lot is misleading. We need to make comparisons of floor area ratios, they need to be made to similar comer lots. Comparisons can not be made by saying we have a corner lot with an unusual size and shape, but we want to develop the same floor area ratio (FAR) as all the interior lots. • By right, the floor area can be expanded by 50 %. To me that constitutes the ability for the exercise of substantial property rights. I don't see the need to build a much larger unit. • 1 think this grants special privelege. When people purchase lots, they know the price of the lot reflects the potential development of that lot. One can not expect the free market to operate and then have a Commission such as ours try to modify those kinds of market considerations. This lot is complete with a house on it and has the opportunity for expansion for further use. I don't see anything wrong with the current standards. • 1 would be opposed to this variance as I can not make the findings. Commissioner Selich noted that we have these unusual lots and the way we calculate our floor area ratio (FAR) using the setbacks overly penalizes them. I can support a variance for the FAR on the lot, but I can't support the amount of floor area that the applicant has proposed. Referencing page 5 of the staff report, the applicant is at a ratio of 1.076. 1 could support the 1.066, 1 think that brings it into parity with other lots on Balboa Island. I could also support staff's determination of 1.039. From my standpoint anywhere within that range of 1.039 to 1.06, 1 would feel comfortable supporting. Chairperson Tucker noted his support of the reasonable setbacks standard that staff has come up with, I would be willing to vote for that tonight. Commissioner Kranzley noted he is struggling with the square footage issue. I would like more information on the comparisons of similar lots. Mr. Ian Harrison added that the typical corner lot (alley access, 30 x 85 foot lot) on Balboa Island is treated like any interior lot, the setback for the sides is 3 feet, the rear is 5 feet and whatever the District Map says the front is, predominantly they are 10 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 feet. That is the same on the comer lot as on the interior lots. Commisisoner Gifford noted that she could make the findings for a variance and the reasonable setback is an appropriate way to calculate it. Mr. Alford noted the standard setbacks in the R -1.5 District, the front is established by the Districting Map and most of the lots are 40 feet or less in width so there are 3 foot side yard setbacks. The rear setback is 10 feet. Mr. Campbell added that with vehicular access to the alley, there will be a 5 foot setback on the rear, which is the rationale for the reasonable setbacks in the staff report. That is a typical rationale for all the lots shown on the Vicinity Map, the regular lots on Balboa Island. The lots that are cut in half were done back in the 40's or earlier and all have different setbacks. A lot of them are non - conforming and a lot of them have variances. Ms. Clauson added that the front yard setbacks are different all over the island, some of them are 8, some 5, some 0, some 10. From street to street, they vary. Commisisoner McDaniel noted that they are reasonably consistent street by street. That is one of the reasons why this is a concern to me; the proposed setback on Apolena moves the whole line. Commissioner Agajanian asked if the FAR on an undivided comer lot is the same FAR as the interior lot? Staff answered it should be identical. Chairperson Tucker asked for a straw vote on the variance using the reasonable setbacks and 2,495 square feet: In support: Commissers Selich, Kranzley, Gifford and Tucker Nor in support: Commissioners McDaniel, Agajanian Chairperson Tucker noted that the majority of the Commission is willing to have 2,495 square feet; the question now is where that footage may go. Commissioner Gifford noted her concerns under the reasonable setback theory: That the five -foot rear setback is adjacent to the side of another house. • The side yard setback issue particularly with the balcony that abuts the other property to the left. Mr. Ian Harrison added that if this were a conventional lot that went front to back the alley to the street, the north (rear) property line would be a three -foot setback and not be a five -foot setback. The fact that there are two separate homes on two separate lots, there is quite a bit of open space between the front and back units. I have put as much cutout on the building as possible. There is no sight line impairment and I have made every effort to reduce the mass of the building to make it conform to the context of a cottage. The driveway approval onto Park 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 INDEX Avenue was for less traffic to be backing out onto a more residential street than Apolena Avenue. The setbacks I tried to adhere to were as if it was a reversed frontage lot, which addresses where the setbacks should be. I have tried to set the building back as for as possible. The most restrictive setback of 20 feet is on Park Avenue and cuts into the site to penalize the site the most. Craig Page, 200 Opal spoke as president of the Balboa Island Improvement Association noted his letter of April 2nd and summarized: • The original plot of 1912 shows the two lots configured in the same manner as the other corner lots on Balboa Island on Park Avenue, Coral Avenue and Sapphire Avenue. • They were full depth lots from Apolena Avenue to the alley. • The existing cottage was built in 1924 across the front' /2 of those lots. • Another home recently re -built was put on the rear ' /z of those lots. • The area of those standard lots was quartered with the applicant's house built on the front two quarters of the lot. • Most building envelopes are pre - determined by setbacks required by the Zoning regulations. • The applicant wants to achieve the largest building envelope to allow the largest home to be built on the lot. • The lot was not designed as a reverse comer lot nor intended to be a reverse corner lot. • Balboa Island has small lots and small streets that are incompatible with reverse corner lots. • The intent should be to maintain the line of development, which on Apolena Avenue is 10 feet as depicted on the District Map. • The setback must be preserved to maintain the community character and public view corridor. • The existing line of development on Park Avenue should also be retained. • Application of reasonable setbacks within the intent of the zoning regulations will provide a building envelope that meets or exceeds the expectations of the applicant and the community. Del Chesboro, 1508 Park Avenue, President of Little Balboa Island Property Owners Association noted: • The Board is against allowing the concept of 'reverse frontage setback'. • The setback on Apolena Avenue is 10 feet and is consistent with the neighbors and is the intent of the rule. • In review of past variances, no one has ever gone into the setback of the main streets. • Allowing this setback encroachment is precedent setting. Bob Horgan, 202 Apolena Avenue noted his support of reducing the setback because of the uniqueness of the lot. Due to the property configuration, they should be allowed a side -yard setback on the east and the west and in the rear. The precedent already exists to allow a setback on Apolena Avenue. 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 Mr. Hall Sealey, 1006 Park Avenue noted his concern of the floor area ratio and the mass of the structure. At Commission inquiry, he noted the setback on his property is 5 feet on Park Avenue, the interior property line setback is 3 feet and the alley is 5 feet. Ad Katz, 1006 Park Avenue stated that the square footage the applicant is trying to achieve is over- reaching. I am concerned with the encroachment into the Apolena Avenue setback and it would set a precedent for the Island. I don't see how a third story can be allowed with a 100 square foot indoor area. We support a variance, but oppose the Apolena setback. Our floor area ratio is 0.91. Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel noted: • Hold on the 10 -foot setback on Apolena. • A similar lot next door has 0.91 FAR that makes sense to me. • They should get compatible use out of the property by maintaining the above and probably more than I would want to give. Commissioner Agajanian concurred with the previous statements and then asked about the 5 -foot setback on Park Avenue that leads into a garage. Is there a problem with people parking their cars blocking the sidewalk under this kind of arrangement? Mr. Edmonston answered generally not. What we find is that with a 5 -foot setback it is short and any attempt to park there clearly blocks the sidewalk and most people do not do that. If there is a 10 or 12 -foot setback, then there is a tendency to park in the driveway. The approval that the Public Works forwarded to the City Council for that driveway location did show a 5 -foot setback off Park Avenue. Looking at the photos that Mr. Harrison submitted at that time, there are other properties that have a less then 5 -foot setback. We would be opposed to that because it gets difficult for the driver to see anybody coming until he is way out onto the sidewalk and into the street. I would hope that if there were adjustments to setbacks that the five -foot on Park Avenue is kept. Commissioner Gifford noted she is okay with the Park Avenue setback. A 10 -foot setback could be preserved for most of the Apolena Avenue line, if there was some minimal incursion. Commissioner Kranzley stated he would preserve the 10 -foot setback and is okay with the 5 -foot Park Avenue setback and the 3 foot on the west and north sides. Commissioner Selich noted he is okay on all the setbacks. Referring to the plot plan exhibit he noted that on Apolena Avenue there are variable measurements. I do empathize with Mr. Page's decision, I certainly would not want to see all of Apolena have 3 -foot setbacks, some encroachment into that 10 foot setback would not be bad if there is an off - setting area that creates more useable open space. In the spirit of moving this item along, I could go along with the 10 feet, as that is the 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4, 2002 predominant setback. INDEX Chairperson Tucker stated that a certain degree of encroachment into the setback along Apolena would be desirable. He noted his concern that the development along that west side of Apolena is 10 feet just about all the way. I would agree that there is some flexibility there, but I would like to see it remain 10 feet with some interest. I am concerned that the square footage that we granted is going to end up somewhere and we are going to have a 'boxier' product. The product that was designed is pretty attractive and fits in well with the character of Balboa Island. Continuing, Chairperson Tucker stated that we could handle the variance tonight and have the modification go back to the Modifications Committee for determination. That way maybe they could come up with something that would make everybody happy. The rest of the Commission agreed. Commissioner Gifford asked the architect if there was some way to make the project set back more to allow for a slight variation on Apolena Avenue. Discussion continued on possible realignments /improvements. Commissioner Kranzley suggested that this be sent back to the Modifications Committee for a settlement and to allow a dialogue between the applicant and the people who are against this. Chairperson Tucker agreed, noting that there would be an opportunity for discussion at the Modifications Committee. The goal is having a more interesting structure at the end of the block. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve Variance No. 2002 -001 using the reasonable setback approach that yields a total floor area of 2,495 square feet and that we adopt a resolution with the conditions attached as exhibit A with all references to a modification removed and refer Modification permit No. 2002- 032 to the Modifications Committee. Ayes: Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: McDaniel, Agajonian Excused: Kiser ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood reported that at the City Council meeting of March 26th the Council approved on first reading both the Camco and the Pacific Republic applications; received a report from staff on the professional services budget situation with the General Plan Update and on the next agenda will have the traffic model consultant fiscal study. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic 17 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 4. 2002 Development Committee - none. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Ms. Wood noted the discussion items were the scope of services for the traffic model update and recommended that to the City Council including the option that would have an origin and destination study. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting since the last report. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Selich would like a report on the upkeep of the Shell station in Corona del Mar. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Mr. Edmonston reported that the request for qualifications for the traffic signal study is being prepared and will be sent out Monday the 8+h. The contract will be awarded in May or the first meeting in June. h) Project status - none. 1) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner McDaniel asked to be excused from the next meeting of April 18th. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 P.M. EARL MCDANIEL, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 18 INDEX Adjournment