Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - R-A District Height Limits�EW�RT o° a� U 2 a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,j5 o NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 699-3250 Hearing Date: May 10, 1999A64=2&; =W99, Agenda Item No.: 15 =8= Staff Person: Patrick J. Alford (949) 644 -3235 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: R -A District Height Limits (Amendment 887) SUMMARY: An amendment to Section 20.65.040 (Height Limitation Zones) of Title 20 of the Municipal Code to place all properties in the Residential - Agricultural (R -A) District in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. ACTION: Introduce ordinance and set for public hearing on May 10, 1999 Background On February 18, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Variance 1226 for an R -A District property located at 2128 Mesa Drive. The variance was to exceed the height limits for proposed alterations and additions to an existing single - family dwelling. The investigation of the variance raised questions as to the appropriateness of the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone in the R -A District. The Planning Commission concluded that while Variance 1226 could not be supported, it may be appropriate .to place the R -A District into a higher height limitation zone. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a resolution of intent. The Planning Commission initiated the amendment on March 18, 1999. Analysis The subject amendment would affect only three (3) residential properties located off of Mesa Drive. The subject properties were annexed to the City in 1955 and placed in the Unclassified (U) District. At that time, the height limits in the U District were specified on a case -by -case basis through use permits. In 1956 and 1962, the Planning Commission approved use permits for the single - family residences currently developed on the subject properties. In each case, the Planning Commission included a condition that the project to be constructed to R -A District standards. At that time, the R -A District had a maximum height limit of thirty -five (35) feet. When the Mesa Drive properties were reclassified to the new R -A District in 1997, the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone was deemed appropriate because Mesa Drive is principally a single - family residential area and this is the height limit zone for all single - family and two - family districts. However, most single - family and two - family lots have less than five thousand (5,000) square feet of land area and are less than fifty (50) feet wide. In contrast, the R -A District requires a minimum lot area of two (2) acres and a minimum lot width of one hundred and twenty -five (125) feet. These larger lots can accommodate a higher high limit. Planning Commission Action Discussion at the Planning Commission centered on the history of height limits and the characteristics of the Mesa Drive properties. The Planning Commission concluded the 32/50 Height Limitation Zone is appropriate for the R -A District and voted unanimously (with one absent) to recommend approval to the City Council. Submitted by: Prepared by: SHARON Z. WOOD PATRICK J. ALFORD Assistant City Manager Senior Planner Attachments: 1. Draft ordinance. 2. February 18, 1999 Planning Commission staff report. 3. April 8, 1999 Planning Commission staff report. 4. February 18, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. 5. April 8, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. R -A District Height limits April 26, 1999 Page 2 0 ORDINANCE 99- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE R -A DISTRICT [PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT 8871 WHEREAS, in 1956 and 1962, the Planning Commission approved use permits for each of the single - family residences in the Residential- Agricultural District and allowed development up to thirty -five feet in height; and WHEREAS, the Residential - Agricultural District requires a minimum lot area of two (2) acres and a minimum lot width of one hundred and twenty -five (125) feet and can accommodate building heights up to thirty -two (32) feet; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that it is appropriate to . place all properties in the Residential- Agricultural District into the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone;and WHEREAS, on April 8, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 1999, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held a public hearing regarding this amendment; and WHEREAS, the public was duly noticed of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, it has been determined that the proposed amendment is categorically exempt under Class 5, minor alterations in land use limitations. 0 J THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 20.65.040 (Height Limitation Zones) of Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code" shall be revised to read as provided in Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on April 26, 1999, and adopted on the 10th day of May, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2 0 0 0 I EXHIBIT "A" 0 20.65.040 Height Limitation Zones In addition to the development standards established in the various districts, there shall be 5 height limitation zones within the City. The designations, locations, and boundaries of these height limitation zones shall be as shown on the "Height Limitation Zones" map, incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. In each height limitation zone the maximum permitted height shall be measured in accordance with the definitions contained in this chapter. A. 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be 24 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 24 feet up to a maximum of 28 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all R -1, R -1.5, R -2, and OS Districts. B. 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone the maximum height limit shall be 28 feet; provided, however, that structures may exceed 28 feet up to a maximum of 32 feet in an adopted planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all MFR Districts. C. 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit shall be 26 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 26 feet up to a maximum of 35 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all zoning districts, other than R -1, R -1.5, R -2, MFR and OS Districts, within the area known as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone established by Ordinance 92 -3 and shown on the Height Limitation Zones map. D. 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be 32 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 32 feet up to a maximum of 50 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all zoning districts other than R -1, R -1.5, R -2, MFR and OS Districts which have boundaries not falling within the area above described as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, or within the High -Rise Height Limitation Zone. E. High Rise Height Limitation Zone. In the High Rise Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall not exceed 375 feet. 0 r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: �C1EVV?9Q�. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 9 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: U. = 33o NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 91658 Appeal Period: (949) 644-3100% FAX (949) 644-3150 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Moriarty Residence (Fleetwood B. Joiner, applicant) 2128 Mesa Drive February 18, 1999 2 Patrick J. Alford 14 SUMMARY: A variance to exceed the height limits for proposed alterations and additions to an existing single family dwelling unit. ACTION: Hold hearing; approve, modify, or deny: Variance No. 1226 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 105 and portions of Lots 106, 108 -115, 120, and 121, Tract 706. ZONING DISTRICT: Residential Agricultural (R -A) District LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Single Family Detached OWNER: Richard Moriarty, Newport Beach • M, E 11 VICINITY MAP Jy, i 4M.06 A CC Y [O6 %WL[ J te Upper Newport Bay Regional Park Variance 1226 Subiect Property and Surrounding Land Uses Current land use: Single family residential. To the north: Single family residential. To the south: Open space (Upper Newport Bay Regional Park). To the east: Single family residential. To the west: Open space (Orange County Flood Control District property). Variance 1226 (Moriany Residence) Febmwy 18, 1999 Page 2 Points and Authority Environmental Review (California Environmental Ouality Act ) 0 • It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class I (existing facilities). Conformance with the General Plan • The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single Family Detached" uses. A single - family dwelling unit is a permitted use within this designation. Conformance with the Zoning Code • Single family residential dwelling units are a permitted use in the R -A District. ■ Variance procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. Background The subject property was annexed to the City on May 25, 1955 as part of the Upper Newport Bay Annexation. The subject property was placed in the Unclassified (U) District. At that time, the height limits in the U District were specified on a case -by -case basis through use permits. On April 19, 1956, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit 230 to allow the construction of a single family residence and appurtenant structures on the subject property. The Planning Commission approval conditioned the project to be constructed to the restrictions and requirements of the R -A District. At that time, the R -A District had a maximum height limit of thirty -five (35) feet. The existing single family structure on the subject property was constructed in July, 1956. The City's current height limitation zones were adopted in 1972. The subject property was placed in the 32/50 Height Limitation Zone. On April 14, 1997, the zoning of the subject property and surrounding properties were reclassified from the U District to the new R -A District. All R -A District properties are in the 24/28 Height Limitation Zonet. ' In the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone, the basic height limit for any structure is 24 feet. However, a structure may exceed 24 feet up to a maximum of 28 feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. Variance 1226 (Moriarty Residence) February 18, 1999 Page 3 xn U is Site Overview The subject property consists of a 3.19 -acre landlocked parcel located approximately two hundred and twenty (220) feet south of the 2100 block of Mesa Drive. Access is provided through a driveway easement that winds through the property and links driveways serving the adjacent properties, connecting with Mesa Drive at the intersection with Birch Street. The majority of the property consists of slopes that gently rise up eastward on the northern half of the property and become steeper on the southern half. The slopes level off to form a fairly large building pad on the southeastern corner of the property where the existing single family dwelling unit is located. The site is heavily vegetated with mature trees, mainly on the slopes and along the eastern property line. The subject property and the adjacent residential properties are on the southern edge of a coastal mesa rising up from the northern shore of the Upper Newport Bay. The top of the mesa and slopes south of the project site are a part of the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The County maintains a public horse ring that abuts the property on the southern property line. Additional equestrian facilities are planned on the Orange County Flood Control District property that abuts the subject property on the western property line. Proiect Overview The project involves the demolition of second level of the existing residence and the construction of a new second level and a new garage. A single level wing will connect the residence and the garage. The rooftop of the connecting wing will provide a partially covered, partially enclosed outdoor entertainment area that will also provide access to a pool, spa, and fire pit to be 0 constructed adjacent to and on top of the garage Variance 1226 (Moriarty Residence) February 18, 1999 Page 4 The project's new second level, a parapet wall to screen the solar equipment, and the garden wall on the rooftop of the connecting wing exceed the R -A District's twenty -four (24) foot height limit. Because the new second level would extend over a split -level pad, the extent to which the height limit is exceeded varies on different points of the project site. The second level exceeds the height limit by two (2) feet on the east elevation, by eight to eleven (8 -11) feet on the west elevation, and by eleven (11) feet on the north and south west elevations. The parapet-wall exceeds the height limit by five (5) feet and the garden wall exceeds the height limit by two (2) feet. The project conforms to all property development regulations for development in the R -A District, except for the height limit2. The applicant states that the variance from the height limit is necessary due to the subject property's topographic constraints and proximity to the horse ring maintained by the County on Upper Newport Bay Regional Park property. The applicant states that dust emanating from the horse ring impacts and restricts the use of the property. The applicant's solution to this problem is to construct the new garage with a landscaped berm near the rear property line to serve as a dust and security buffer. However, under this design, the garage and berm would also restrict the views of the bay from the first level of the residence. The applicant believes that it is this combination of factors that constitute the "special circumstances" that deprive him of a substantial property right (the view to the bay) if the height limit is strictly applied. Analysis Section 20.91.035 (B) of the Zoning Code requires that the following findings must be made in order to approve a variance: That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. '- The site plan shows a 20 -foot rear yard setback while the R -A District requires 25 feet. The applicant has been made aware of this requirement and has indicated that the project will conform to all required yards. Variance 1226 (Moriarty Residence) February 18, 1999 Page 5 I 0 0 The County horse ring may in fact adversely impact the subject property. However, staff believes the proposed solution, the construction of a garage and a landscaped berm to serve as a buffer, cannot be used as justification to grant a variance to increase the height of the other elements of the project. The special circumstances applicable to the subject property are its topography and the horse ring on the adjacent property. That is, the topography confines development to the southeast corner of the property, thus placing it in close proximity to the horse ring. The question is whether these special characteristics and the strict application of the height limits will deprive the property owner of substantial use of his property. The fact that the proposed solution, the garage/berm buffer, conforms to the height limits runs counter to the argument that a variance is needed in order to retain substantial use of the property. The circumstances would be different if the variance was needed to allow the construction of the garage/berm buffer. However, this is not the case. No relief from the zoning regulations is necessary in order to provide the property with protection from the activities conducted on the horse ring. The applicant makes the argument that the view to the bay itself is a substantial property right and that the garage/berm buffer would deny him that right. However, the view of the bay is not restricted because of the special characteristics of the property. The view is restricted by the applicant's solution. Staff views this as a self - imposed hardship that cannot be used to justify a variance. The applicant also argues that the residences on the adjacent properties were developed under an the earlier thirty -five (35) foot height limit and that the strict application of the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone deprives him of the privileges enjoyed by other property owners in that neighborhood. However, the proposed variance is not a case of allowing a deviation from the regulations to achieve parity with other properties. All of the structure's that exceed the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone, including the one currently on the subject property, are nonconforming structures and are subject to the same limitations on alterations and additions under Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code. Under these circumstances, allowing this structure to be altered beyond these limits and in a manner that increases its inconsistency with the height regulations would be granting a special privilege to this property. The applicant has proposed an attractive solution to the problems associated with the horse ring. The proposed garage and landscaped berm is certainly more aesthetically pleasing than other possible buffers, such as a fence or wall. However, in a 1993 report, the City Attorney found that the courts have routinely ruled that findings relating to the attractiveness or quality of the structure cannot be used to support the issuance of a variance. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of Variance 1226 with the findings contained in Exhibit "A." While staff cannot support the proposed variance, the investigation of this application has raised questions as to the appropriateness of the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone in the R -A District. When the Mesa Drive properties were reclassified to the new R -A District in 1997, the 24/28 Height . Limitation Zone was deemed appropriate because Mesa Drive is principally a single family residential area and this is the height limit for all single family and two family districts. However, Variance 1226 (Moriarty Residence) February 18,1999 Page 6 at the time, staff was not aware of the history of use permit approvals under the previous U District that allowed these properties to develop to a thirty -five (35) foot height limit. The R -A District requires a minimum lot area of two (2) acres and a minimum lot width of one hundred and twenty - five (125) feet. Given these requirements, the R -A District may be suitable for a higher height limit than other residential properties. Therefore, the Planning Commission may wish to direct staff to investigate an amendment to Chapter 20.65 (Height Limits) to apply the 32/50 Height Limitation Zone to all R -A District properties. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director A- MAJAN Prepared by: PATRICK J. ALFORD Senior Planner 1. Exhibit "A" (findings for denial) 2. The applicant's project description and justification. 3. Site plan, floor plans, and elevations. Variance 1226 (Moriarty Residence) February 18. 1999 Page 7 \e 0 • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: M00 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 699-3200: FAX (949) 644-3250 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: R -A District Height Limits April 8, 1999 Patrick J. Alford (949) 644 -3235 SUMMARY: An amendment to Section 20.65.040 of Title 20 of the Municipal Code to place all properties in the Residential - Agricultural (R -A) District in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. ACTION: Conduct public hearing; adopt Resolution No. recommending approval or modification of Amendment 887 to the City Council or disapprove Amendment 887. Background On February 18, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Variance 1226 for an R -A District property located at 2128 Mesa Drive. The variance was to exceed the height limits for proposed alterations and additions to an existing single - family dwelling. The investigation of the variance raised questions as to the appropriateness of the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone in the R -A District. There are only three (3) residential properties in the R -A District. The subject properties were annexed to the City in 1955 as part of the Upper Newport Bay Annexation. The subject properties were placed in the Unclassified (U) District. At that time, the height limits in the U District were specified on a case -by -case basis through use permits. In 1956 and 1962, the Planning Commission approved use permits for the single - family residences currently developed on the subject properties. In each case, the Planning Commission included a condition that the project to be constructed to R -A District standards. At that time, the R -A District had a maximum height limit of thirty -five (35) feet. The Planning Commission concluded that while Variance 1226 could not be supported, it may be appropriate to place the R -A District into a higher height limitation zone. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a resolution of intent. The Planning Commission initiated the amendment on March 18, 1999. Analysis When the Mesa Drive properties were reclassified to the new R -A District in 1997, the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone was deemed appropriate because Mesa Drive is principally a single - family residential area and this is the height limit zone for all single - family and two- family districts. However, most single - family and two- family lots have less than five thousand (5,000) square feet of land area and are less than fifty (50) feet wide. In contrast, the R -A District requires a minimum lot area of two (2) acres and a minimum lot .width of one hundred and twenty -five (125) feet. Therefore, it may be appropriate to place the R -A District into the 32/50 Height Limitation Zone. All three of the subject properties exceed the R -A District requirements for land area and lot width. 15 In the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone, the basic height limit for any structure is thirty -two (32) feet. However, a structure may exceed the basic height limit up to a maximum of fifty (50) feet through the adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. Special findings are required in order to exceed the basic height limit to insure that the visual character of the surrounding area is protected, that public visual open space is maintained, and that there are no undesirable or abrupt changes in building elevations. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director r Attachment: Draft resolution. Prepared by: PATRICK J. ALFORD Senior Planner • R -A District Height omits April 8, 1999 Pap 2 a City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 Davidsson Residence (D & L E 3000 and 3002 Breakers Drive • Amendment No. 882 • Resubdivision No. 1059 Amendment to re ' e Districting setback on Breakers ONve in conji land for the purpose of rientii exception to the Subdivision d, is less than the required 50 foot lots, and the corner parcel is less sq. ft. total area for corner lots. INDEX applicant) Item No. 1 Amendment No. 882 Resubdivision No. 1059 Map No. 18 to establish a 5 foot front yard Continued to inction with the resubdivision of two parcels of 03/04/1999 ig the front of the lots to Breakers Drive. An is also requested because the interior parcel width and 5,000 sq. ft. total area for interior th'NQ the required 60 foot lot width and 6,000 This item was continued, at staff's request, TNhe next Planning Commission meeting of March 4`" to allow for re- noticing of th applications. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to conti this item to March 4' ", as staff requested. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Moriarty Residence (Fleetwood B. Joiner, applicant) Item No. 2 2128 Mesa Drive Variance No. 1226 Variance No. 1226 A variance to exceed the height limits for proposed alterations and additions to I Variance withdrawn an existing single family dwelling unit. Mr. Patrick Alford noted the following: • Subject property possesses special circumstances: topography confining development to the southeast corner of the property and In close proximity to a horse rink. • At issue is whether strict application of height limits may deprive property owner of a substantial property right. • Garage and berm serving as buffer conform to the height limit - no relief is necessary from the zoning regulations to allow substantial use of the property. • View from first level may be impaired but this is a design consequence - not appropriate to use as justification for a variance. • Findings to support a variance are not present in this case. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Alford confirmed the following additional Ll I$ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • February 18, 1999 INDEX information: • Width of the lot is in excess of 125 feet based upon an average measured 20 feet in from the front and 20 feet in from the rear with an average or mean of those two measurements. • R -A District requires a minimum lot area of two acres (which this exceeds) and a minimum lot width of one 125 feet (which this exceeds). • Development in R -A District is unique for these properties which are rather large. rural and similar in nature. • Due to the location and size of properties. they are semi - agricultural in nature and might be able to support a higher height limit than the rest of the City. Most of the homes in that area have been approved in the past with a maximum height limit of 35 feet. • The existing unit on the property exceeds the 24/28 Height Limitation and was approved In 1956 to a maximum height limit of 35 feet. • This is a legal. non - conforming structure. • Consideration of a higher height limit on the subject. property would involve an amendment to the Zoning Code and would have to be initiated by the City. Chairperson Selich. referencing the large plan handout referred to the south elevation of the property. Discussion ensued regarding the existing grade. sloping topography and split building pads. Public Comment was opened. Fleetwood Joiner. architect on the property representing the property owner distributed an exhibit of pictures of the subject property. He noted that this is one of three neighboring unique acreage properties in the City. These properties were re- classified in 1997 to the 24/28 Height Limit Zone as explained in the staff report. The property owner wants the height limit to conform to the neighboring height limits of 35 minimum. Continuing. he noted this is a sloping piece of property. unique circumstance adjacent to an equestrian rink that creates a dust problem. The owner would like to reconstruct his property with the higher limit. But. based upon staff's recommendation. is willing to withdraw the request for a variance if the city would apply the 32/50 Height Limitation Zone to all R -A District properties. This property was purchased a little over a year ago. but the owner has not lived there. Commissioner Gifford clarified with Mr. Joiner that rather than have the variance denied: he would remove the variance request. Public Comment was closed. Commissioner Ashley noted that a variance should not be granted upon the information provided however. dealing with a particular zone that is not in 3 . Ib City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 18, 1999 any other are of the city, circumstances can be found to consider restoring the height limit that existed prior to the 1997 decision. The 35 -foot height limit is not out of the ordinary with an estate lot condition such as this. Concluding, he stated he is in favor of denying the variance request and amending the zoning ordinance to permit the development of homes in the R -A district that would have ceiling heights of 35 feet. Discussion continued on the responsibility of the applicant, timing of the initiation and hearings. Public comment was re- opened. Mr. Joiner affirmed that the time frame as discussed was acceptable. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford, resulting from the withdrawal of the variance request by the applicant, to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code to provide for the previous height limit to be prevailing in this District. Fuller, Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None supggCL Calculation of residential maximum floor area limit • Amendment No. 884 A resolution of intent to amend Section 20.10.030 (Prope evelopment Regulation M) of the Zoning Code to exempt bat ms, connecting corridors, foyers, and stairwells from the calculation of idential floor areas. Public Comment was opened and closed. Motion was made by Commissioner hley to adopt resolution of intent to revise Section 20.10.030 (Prope evelopment Regulation M) of the Zoning Code, since this item reflects JK decisions made at an earlier meeting. Ayes: Fuller, Noes: None Absent: No Abstain: ne Gifford, Kranzley INDEX Item No. 3 Amendment No. 884 Approved k1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 continue to be adhered to. • here is no be need to widen this to a four -lane road within the n t twenty or thirty year horizon. • Ther is now a means for the residents to have additional neighborhood traffic ntrols. Public opened. Irene Dunlap, 2201 S tiago Drive - spoke in support of this process noting the quality of life, apprecia s the hard work of both her neighbors.and the staff. She questioned the categV as a commuter roadway, is there anything else that can take place that is n obvious? Mr. Edmonston answered that it rawains on the City and County Master Plans as an arterial highway, currently p ted with weight restrictions. It is the Council's intention to minimize the use that road. This change will make it easier for additional restrictions to be app d by Council in the future. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner FullNHoglun . 1498 recommending to the City Council adoptiot 98 -3 (D). Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kr Noes: None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None sss SUBJECT: R -A District Height Limits • Amendment No. 887 An amendment to Section 20.65.040 of Title 20 of the Municipal Code to place all properties in the Residential - Agricultural (R -A) District in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. Public comment was opened. Mr. Fleetwood Joyner, architect on a project at 2128 Mesa Drive spoke in support of the staff report. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to adopt Resolution No. 1499 23 INDEX Item No. 6 A 887 Recommended Approval `ot 0 0 C� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 INDEX recommending approval of Amendment 887 to the City Ayes: Ashley. Selich. Gifford. Kronzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Fuller. Tucker Abstain: None SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments to the Newport I Item No. 7 Center Planning Study Group Chairperson Selich stated this is o subcommittee to address all the issues that Approved hove been presented to the City Council at the joint meeting. He appointed himself. Commissioners Kronzley and Gifford to work with staff. They will then be coming bock to the Planning Commission with o recommendation as to the approach on those items. Traffic Phasing Ordinance • Amendment No. 864 Propos amendments to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Tr fic Phasing Ordinance. to provide that circulation system improveme\this equired for o development ore roughly proportional to that project's im. to allow the City Council to exempt from improvements intersectiont eet criteria established in the ordinance. and to establish o threshold offi impacts that require circulation system improvements. Chairperson ch not that with the absence of Bob Burnham and Sharon Wood that rocedure or this item will be for the Commission to ask their questions of; then testi ny from the public which will be answered of the next pueeting on this m. Commission iries or concerns: • Mop shg intersec tions of or ob ve Classifications D - to be prepared. • Build ouer present ordinance id tifying those intersections in excess of Classion D - os of o Traffic Anal Model doted 1996. Feasibiliudy for improvements of de 'ent intersections with related costs. • Need to widen Jamboree Rood from Ford R\firmh • 1996 Austin Foust report - traffic engineerin with the City for post 15 years. • Traffic Model report to include the Son Joaquin ti diminish the LOS areas by the airport and Eostbluff Traffic Model updated to be consistent with the County 24 iy funding source. has been working rood and will it w often is the m el and how Item No. 8 A 864 k�