HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/2005"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
January 6, 2005
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Page 1 of 27
"file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2005\mn01 -06-05.htm 07/15/2008
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins all
Commissioners present.
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager
Dan Ohl, Deputy City Attorney
Richard Edmonston, Transportation/Development Services Manager
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
Chairperson Tucker stated he appreciated all the hard work that the Commissioners
put in on the St. Andrew's matter, and the long meetings.
Commissioner Hawkins complimented staff as well.
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on December 31, 2004.
CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of December 9, 2004.
ITEM NO. 1
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to approve the minutes as modified.
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
YFX W
HEARING ITEMS
SUBJECT: Medical and Dental Office Parking Requirements (PA2004 -007)
ITEM NO. 2
PA2004 -007
Proposed amendment to Section 20.66.030 of the Municipal Code (Off Street parkingl
Recommended
and loading spaces required) to increase the number of parking spaces required fo
for approval
medical and dental office uses.
"file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2005\mn01 -06-05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 2 of 27
Ramirez noted that at the request of some of the Planning Commissioners, st
ed to the table of the cities that were surveyed. Staff found parking requirements
additional cities. One of them was Irvine that has a parking rate of 1 space per 1
are feet of medical office; and, Fullerton has 1 space per 182 square feet
iical office with another provision that buildings that were 5,000 square feet or le
Id receive approval of a parking ratio of 1 per 250 square feet with the approval
Planning Director.
Ramirez then summarized the information contained in the staff report.
mmissioner Selich asked what was going to happen to existing complexes,
ample up at Newport Center, the Avocado buildings? Assuming they aren't par4
this ratio, under what circumstances would they have to bring their parking
npliance? What about tenant improvements?
Ramirez answered that they would be considered legal, non - conforming. The;
dd fall under the non - conforming parking section of the Code. They can continue
present use in perpetuity, but should they want to come in and do additions to thei
iblishments or alterations to the buildings, the non- conforming parking section o
Zoning Code would take affect.
Campbell added that if the existing tenant space is already devoted to medical
could remodel that space fairly readily and would not have to comply with the
:ing standards. If they were to expand the facility by less than 10 %, they v
s to provide the parking for the addition at the new parking ratio. If they
ing more than that, they might have to bring the entire facility up to Code. If
i't have the space for that, it might preclude those additions to the buildings.
ssioner Selich noted they could take one of those buildings and wipe out all
improvements on every floor, completely re -do it but as long as they didn't
ial square footage to the building it would be okay, is that correct?
r. Campbell answered if it is devoted to medical use now, that would be correct. If
general office and they are converting it from one to another, no.
iissioner Hawkins asked if instead of adding square footage, they divided it
rooms, would that trigger any additional parking demands? He then noted t
al organizations numbers noted in the staff report.
r. Ramirez answered, no it wouldn't, it is all based on the square footage and not
is divided. The ITE report was an empirical study that is going to be published.
imissioner Toerge noted given the different ways of calculating square footage,
able, rentable, useable square footage, shouldn't we designate this as 200 sqt
gross building area to be clear on that?
r. Ramirez answered we can add that to the resolution in Section one. As far as
chibit goes, the Code requires that all parking be based on gross unless othery
)ecified. So, on the tables when there is a straight 1 per 200 or whatever it is, if it
lowed to be parked at net, it would say 1 per 200 net.
missioner Cole asked about buildings that have mixed use such as general
"file:HN:Wpps\WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005
Page 3 of 27
that want to convert a portion of the building to medical, are you proposing for tha
portion of the building there would be a different parking requirement?
Mr. Ramirez answered yes. General office use and professional office use is parked a
1 per 250 of net square feet; whereas, medical office use is gross square feet. The ne
excludes certain areas such as stairwells and elevator shafts, things of that nature. I
here is a mixed development with general office and professional office, we have to
calculate the square footage of the general and the square footage of the medical and
figure out the parking for each.
Public comment was opened.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend approval of Cod
Amendment No. 2004 -004 (PA2004 -007) proposed amendment to Section 20.66.030
of the Municipal Code to increase the number of parking spaces required for medical
and dental office use subject to the findings with the added revision for clarity that in
Section 1 of the resolution we include the definition of gross building following the 20
square feet in the text.
Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins that instead of 200 square
feet it be 180 square feet.
Ayes:
Hawkins
Noes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Vote on the main
motion.
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
SUBJECT: Circle Residence (PA2003 -006)
ITEM NO. 3
3415 Ocean Blvd
PA2003 -006
Request for an amendment to an approved Variance and Modification Permit that
Approved
allowed a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and
subterranean portions of 3 floors to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard
setback. The applicant is requesting changes to the building design that include an
increase to the height on the bluff side of the proposed residence. The applicant does
not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard.
Mr. Ramirez noted a letter in opposition that had been received after publication of the
tall report and distributed to the Commission tonight. Additionally, there are photos o
he site that are available. At Commission inquiry, he noted:
• The variance is a request to exceed the 24 foot height limit.
• There had been previous discussions on the predominant line of developmen
and how this site lines up with that in relation to other houses on the block.
"file: / /N:1Apps1W EBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn01- 06 -05. htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 4 of 27
. The proposed project proposes features to exceed the height limit; they are t
upper floor that partially exceeds the height limit as well as a deck that protrud
off the upper floor.
. The house complies with the other top of curb height limit. The height variance
requested due to the slope of the bluff that causes the house to exceed tl
height limit.
. Referring to a PowerPoint presentation, he showed photographs of the
house in relationship to the adjacent houses along Ocean Boulevard with
del Mar State Beach below.
. The neighbors were concerned about the proposed development, so they
some boards erected, which show the extent of the proposed development
their property. (photograph)
. A pole erected by the applicant shows the extent of the farthest point of the
on the proposed house.
Tucker asked about the stringline issue.
r. Campbell answered that the stringline is an analytical tool that has primarily bees
>ed by the Coastal Commission to keep properties in line with each other as they an
cated on the bluff with the premise to minimize the alteration of the bluff. The Cit'
)es not have a standard for stringline and does not use that analytical method at a
ccept for this property as a variance was approved several years ago for the Ensigns.
r. Ensign is an architect who designed a home for this lot with stringlines in mind, an(
• house was designed with stringlines on the plans. His proposal was presented t(
• Planning Commission with a variance for structure height and that variance wa:
)proved. The Commission required that the project be altered to meet the stringlinc
sown on the plans and a deck at grade that was further oceanward than the stringline
;picted, and conditioned the project to be consistent with the stringlines. The
ringline drawn on those drawings was part of the project approval and made part o
e conditions. The Ensigns sold the property to the Circles who abandoned the
)proved design and have drawn up this new proposal. The new architect has drawl
new stringline based on his experience of how the Coastal Commission would appl,
stringline. At the prior approval with the stringlines drawn, there was no analysis c
)w they were developed. They were on the plans for demonstration purposes an(
ay have assisted in that approval.
his particular project does not adhere to the prior approval and that is why we <
ere, to amend the prior variance. In the prior staff report, we provided an informatioi
iscussion related to new Local Coastal Program (LCP) policies that were recer
dopted by the City that have yet to be certified by the Coastal Commission and
dopted by the City for application to projects. Staff felt it was important to provide tt
iformation to the Commission for informational purposes, and was never intended
uide how the site and project would come to resolution. This issue was discussed
ie last meeting and staff was asked to look at it and present how a stringline or simi
iethod might be implemented as our policies would refer to it as 'predominant line
evelopment'. The staff report outlines a method under consideration using t
iedian development depth of the 4 to 6 abutting lots. If you have 6 lots developed
arying depths from the front property line, you would take the median of those a
" file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 5 of 27
that to the lot in question and then look at what is being proposed at that point.
has not been discussed at any open forum except this evening, it has not beer
i to the LCP steering committee in context of the implementation plan of the LCP
i is what we are working on presently.
taff wants to emphasize the fact that this is a variance and the location of the
tructure is only relevant as to its height. Following discussions with the City Attorney
tall wants to stress the fact that we are dealing with the height of the structure where i,
; proposed and whether the findings can be met for approval of the variance. There
re facts to support findings for approval of the variance; however, staff question:
,hether the findings could be met for the upper level deck as it really is not s
ubstantial property right, which is a required variance finding. Staff believes that
lightly modified project can meet the test for approval of the variance. Although i'
asn't been constructed, there is still an approved variance that affords a two leve
ouse fairly consistent in size and bulk as the two houses adjacent to it based on the
nsign drawings. Making this house smaller than that prior approval, given the volume
f space and height that it would afford, it would not be appropriate, in staffs opinion
s it would be going back on what was already approved. The only aspect of thi:
roperty that is taller or outside that volume that the Ensign approval afforded is the
pper level deck. The actual main structure is fairly consistent in terms of its locatior
nd height when compared to the prior approval.
hairperson Tucker noted that the concept of the stringline is not really included in Citl
rdinance at this point and we do not have a certified Local Coastal Plan at this point.
iat concept is one that you can use to the extent that you want to use it, but it is no
)mething that we are obligated and indeed there is no basis to apply it as if it were
w because it is not law. We are back to our general approaches to variances.
Bople asking for variances usually ask for what they would like to have, not what the.)
:ed to meet the variance findings. It seems like on every variance, people ask fo
ore than what they need to become similar to other properties in the area. We ha(
ie in Corona del Mar not long ago who said as long as they were here, they asked fo
basement too. The square footage was well over what everybody else had, but this
as a perfect example of asking for more as long as they were here, but not having the
;ed. Is it staffs position that the decks that you refer to go beyond the necessity t(
all it in to parity with other similar properties in the area and fall in the category o
)mething the applicant wants, but really doesn't need, to become comparable to othe
operties in this area?
Campbell answered yes and it is applicable to the upper level deck proposed
applicant. An outdoor deck above the height limit is not in our opinion a substar
z)erty right that would need to be preserved. It is something that is more of a w
i a need. Staff questions whether the finding can be made for the height of
k. The finding indicates that the granting of the application is necessary for
nervation and enjoyment of substantial property rights by the applicant.
sting house is an existing property right although it is not necessarily as high as
Dr houses and we do have that prior variance to consider. It is questionable ab
deck is a substantial property right in my opinion.
immissioner Selich asked you don't think that on a property where there is a slo
d you have no yard area, having a deck as a substitute for a yard area is
bstantial property right?
" file: //N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07115/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 6 of 27
Campbell answered it is a sloping property and it does have constraints. You cou
at it in that light as well.
iairperson Tucker noted the area we need to look at is the granting of the varia
II not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to
iblic welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. So
where a lot of the decision is going to lie.
iissioner Eaton asked, if the Commission decided a variance was justified
:d that they did not want to eliminate the condition referring to string lines, t
the result of that be?
Ramirez answered that if this plan was approved, the project would have to
structed according to the approved plan and staff would not refer to a stringline.
. Campbell added that condition 16 talks about no portion of the structure mal
;eed the applicable deck or building stringline as established by the decks an(
ldings on the two adjoining properties. The current plans we have show a stringline
a different location. We might need to modify this language to refer to the stringlim
the current plans. You could use a similar condition to refer to the new stringlines.
Commission inquiry, he noted this proposal is an amendment to the old variance.
imissioner Cole noted he went to the adjacent properties to view the site. In tt
staff report, the potential encroachment out into the bluffs of the decks was fig
from the common development line that is there now. Today, it looked like c
e of those decks it went out as far as 7 or 8 feet from the adjacent deck. Is it 5 or
The one finding that I am having difficulty with is the fourth finding, a detriment
:t to the public welfare of the neighborhood and the adjacent property. Can yc
ess what the encroachment is for these decks?
Ramirez, referring to page 6 of the original staff report, noted the depth of
sting and proposed developments. He went on to explain the table and noted
poles as depicted in the photographs shown in the prior presentation were f
urate in relation to 3401 Ocean Blvd. and 3425 Ocean Blvd. All the measureml
,e based on the plans and surveys, and the measurements were taken from
perty line as that is static.
nmissioner Cole noted that 3415 Ocean Blvd would be the only home along
itch, so an aerial after this proposed project was built would actually show the c
Lion going out about an average 8 to 10 feet, is that what you are saying? Could
posed depths of those decks be reduced and still provide a useable deck?
Ramirez answered yes, and referred to the aerial in the presentation fo
rarisons. A redesign could get some deck area by pulling the whole building back.
)mmission inquiry, he added that the enclosed portion of the proposed residence
out on the bluff away from Ocean Blvd. as far as the decks do at the adjacen
:rty at 3401 and similar to 3425 on the other side, with the exception of the, lowe
that goes out another 4 feet.
Doug Circle, owner and applicant, noted he and his wife intend to make this thei
nanent home and asked that the Planning Commission approve their application.
' file:HN:1Apps1W EBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn01- 06 -05. htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 7 of 27
Brion Jeannette, architect for the proposed project, referred to an exhibit
d the following:
The furthest parcel (Tabak residence) has been approved by the Califon
Coastal Commission and the City with a height variance to exceed, out from t
street, 56 feet. They had asked for a variance and received it and Coastal h
given them the directive to not do any construction below an elevation of
which is about 50 feet beyond (away from Ocean Blvd.) where we are building
this point.
The house adjacent (Halfacre residence) an "approval in concept," which ha:
been granted that has an extension of the building to about 46 feet out. Th(
relationship I am drawing is from the front property line to the furthest extension.
That was granted approval to increase the depth of the basement and push th<
building out to about 46 feet with decks that went out as far as 50 to 60 feet an(
cascading pools, etc. down the bluff.
. He then distributed an exhibit of a site plan consisting of 8 properties alor
bluff and noted the dimensions of today and what they are anticipating and
been approved either by the City and /or by Coastal Commission.
. Referring to the handout, he noted the various depths of the properties
relationship to his proposal, site plans and silhouettes, cantilevered decks flow
down the bluff and side sections of buildings.
. He discussed comparisons of the adjacent properties to the Circle residence.
. At Commission inquiry, he noted that all the decks that are being added on
adjacent properties are within the height limits.
. He then compared the Butterrield's residence and the Circle residence and
lines drawn that were based on the deck support posts.
. What they are proposing is to align with the Butterfield's deck posts that
establishes a stringline in that case.
airperson Tucker noted you are proposing to have the house be to that point, but n,
deck. So in other words, the stringline you are talking about, the line for the houe
the Circle property, would be consistent with the line for the deck on the Butterfield
Jeannette answered, that is correct; and continued his stringlines align with
- tures, which is what the Coastal Commission uses as a definition of livable a
re the structure ends, that is where the stringline begins.
rperson Tucker asked why the applicants need the additional variance from �
already granted in order to enjoy the same property rights as others have. Is
Dthing that you are asking for more than what you need to enjoy the rights
rs have or is this the minimum you need to enjoy the rights that others have?
Jeannette referencing the floor plans - A3 the upper most floor plan of the deck
the variance, noted the need for an overhang to shade the deck, and that this
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 0711512008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 8 of 27
be adjusted. The house that was originally approved had on top of this
ier roof deck, so there was deck beyond this on the uppermost level of the I
would ostensibly be the roof of this house that we are not even proposing.
person Tucker asked how much of that deck area you said you would be willing
on? Are you talking about eliminating that deck?
r. Jeannette answered that the discussion is on that portion beyond the string lin(
id if that was a roof, I am satisfied with making that work. My upper floor in thi:
oposal is about a third the upper floor that was in the prior granted varianc(
oposal. So I have a much smaller footprint of the building on this upper floor.
irposely set it back away from the Butterfield residence to allow some views through
hich is that swath of land where the office area ends and the property line is. I move(
away to give them more distance between the two buildings. We also reduced th(
iilding by 1,400 square feet from what was originally approved. On the first leve
here the main living functions are, this is where the deck extends out furthest. Tha
eans there is a deck at 12 feet depth from the house at its greatest point, that is th(
;tent of their back yard. There is not a lot of yard to work with down below. This is
e primary living area of the house and is about 12 feet deep. For those of you wh(
are able to see the erected post on the property, that post represented the furthes
ojection of the radius deck at this level, not only in height but also in extension ou
)m the house. This extension has no affect on the Butterfield's view of Inspiration
pint and especially when these other two approved projects get built, I will be in th(
iadow of them.
iairperson Tucker asked why you believe that if we grant this variance, it would
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvem
the neighborhood.
. Jeannette answered that the public welfare issue is the substantive issue. Th
blic will get a better view of the ocean with this program than with the prior approve
lance. There is a view corridor between this house and the Butterfiled's house; th
use in portions is a little bit lower than the prior proposal; the decks are not eve
en; the building shadows them from the public viewing from Ocean Blvd. toward th
ach to the point you won't notice whether the deck is out there 9 feet or 15 feet.
ve enhanced the view corridors from the public viewing area on Ocean Blvd to th
ach. We are asking for what other people have asked for and been granted. Bein
.re is no limitation developed by a stringline through the City, I don't think it i
rmane, as staff recommends, that it all of a sudden be applied here without real)
derstanding how it should work and whether it is important, or whether the issue (
pattern of development, which if you look at the site plan I distributed, we ar
bstantially within the pattern of development and we are not reaching out further tha
iat the Tabaks or Halfacres have done.
comment was opened.
n Butterfield, 3401 Ocean Blvd., neighbor, noted she opposes this application
ad that it be denied. She noted:
. The proposed application differs significantly from the original design and
inconsistent with the original approval and its conditions.
"file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Intemet\PlnAgendas\2005\mn01 -06-05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 9 of 27
. The stringline restriction was conditioned on number 16 of the original approval.
. The Circles' proposed project exceeds both the deck and building string/
compared to current homes there today.
. The stakes we had erected on our property, based on the current pro l:
design, indicate how much further the project will encroach into the bluff
area than the previously approved plan. Top to bottom, the three levels e�
the stringline from 7 feet, 9 feet and 10 feet respectively.
. Thus further encroachment into the sensitive coastal bluff front represents
significant impact to the public of its views from Inspiration Point as well as frc
Corona del Mar State Beach and warrants denial of the project.
. The proposed project differs in height from the approved project on the bluff side
at existing grade and finished grade, 3 feet 9 inches and 5 feet, respectively.
This will increase the overall mass of the home and further encroach into the bluf
area changing the character of the bluff and alter public views.
. The second floor deck exceeds the 24 foot height limit by approximately 4
1/2 feet.
. The Local Coastal Plan adopted in 2004 by the City Council states where
coastal bluff has been altered establishes setback lines for the prim
structures based on the predominant line of development as to limit fur
encroachment on developed coastal bluff.
. It appears our bluff has been following this yet- to -be- certified LCP for over
years, so why change now?
. All six homes on the bluff have identical characteristics, sloping topol
narrow buildable decks, top of curb height limits and string line restrictions.
Our home is the newest re -build on the bluff with three levels and 3,200 squE
feet that was done without encroaching into the bluff front or past the stringline
our neighbors. This was done without a variance or modification. She noted tt
many of the Commissioners had viewed her site.
. This proposal is not similar to existing homes on the bluff in scale or size. It
larger and more intrusive.
. This project can be re- designed and she asked that this be denied as
proposed.
mmissioner McDaniel noted he too had viewed the site.
ommissioner Eaton, referring to the exhibits distributed by Mr. Jeannette,
bout the orange columns, which appear to be out further than house.
Ir. Jeannette answered that those are the columns of both the second and first
ecks. They do not align with one another, but there are portions of the building
Imost touch that line. He then discussed the rounded elements of the Butte
"file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
'Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 10 of 27
hairperson Tucker asked about the fall of the bluff. He was answered that it is
2 to 1 slope, straight down.
nmissioner Cole, referring to the exhibit presented by Mr. Jeannette, asked ab(
lines on the first drawing. Are they new deck lines or string lines allowed for t
roved development of these two properties? For the Tabak property, does this li
N how far the deck can come out?
r. Jeannette answered they are the deck stringlines and elevated decks and
r those two properties. Correct, the shaded area represents the approved b
id the Circle residence depicts the proposed development.
mmissioner McDaniel affirmed that the lines on the exhibits are down the hill and
the same level as the rest of the buildings are.
iairperson Tucker noted that a variance had been granted for the Tabak residence
thin the last few years.
r. Campbell added that the decks shown for the Halfacre and Tabak residences all
imply with the height limit. The upper level deck of the Circle residence does not.
:)n Kazarian, 3412 Ocean Blvd., who lives directly across from the Circle residence
rted that during the process of the original variance approval he had a discussion with
aff who showed him the plans and explained the views. Now, he is unable to look at
iy new plans, so questions if this proposal will open up any view corridors. The
ruse reduction noted by the architect is underground; and the procedure for the
isign variance front setback was underground. Mr. Tabak got those same setbacks
rove ground and now we have a request for additional setback variance than Tabak.
y question is, where does it stop?
iblic comment was closed.
) mmissioner Toerge noted he had been on the Commission when the Ensign
triance was discussed and approved. He then noted:
• The proposed building is 1,400 square feet smaller than the Ensign residence.
• An entire floor level has been eliminated in this plan as opposed to the o1
approved plan.
• The stringline tool is not an adopted policy by the City.
• The project eliminates a roof deck that was once approved on the En:
residence.
. The project is consistent with the pattern of development and the pattern of
development that is occurring there.
. Relative to the four findings that we have to make, the sloping topography of
subject property does create a relatively narrow buildable depth and
"file: / /N:\Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 11 of 27
proposed design complies with the Ocean Boulevard height restriction.
. The proposed design is similar in size and scale to existing homes on
sized lots in the vicinity.
. The variance request does not adversely impact any public views.
. The property complies with the height restriction at the curb height.
. The variance is not detrimental to the surrounding properties and our Code
that description that it has to be materially detrimental. It does not say you
not going to see it. You are certainly going to see the deck from neighbc
properties, but I don't believe it will be materially detrimental.
. Because these four findings can be met, I will be supporting the project.
was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve amendment to Variance
1 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based upon
and conditions of approval included with the staff report and the draft Plan
sioner Resolution dated December 8, 2004 and my comments heretofore.
immissioner Selich noted that the last time this subject was discussed, he got off c
stringline concept and after discussing it with staff and considering it and readin
staff report, it was probably not the way to approach it. The pattern of developmel
the way to approach it. As I look at the illustration provided by Mr. Jeannett
owing all the homes, it is clear to me the home fits within the pattern of developmei
the area. I agree with most of the comments made by Commission Toerge. H
ted he would rather see the decks that are proposed encroaching a little bit into th
ight area as opposed to say, looking at the Halfacre residence where you have thes
issive decks cascading down the hill. I think that is the better design solution to th
)perty. That doesn't mean that in the future someone can't come along and ad
cks going down the hill, because they wouldn't come before the Plannin
immission. As a design solution for this house and property, I think it is a goo
lution and fits within the pattern of development that has been established wit
ngs that have been approved out there. I don't believe there is any injury to adjacei
)perties through view impairment or any other aspect of this development. I suppo
s motion.
:ommissioner Cole noted he would like to modify the motion. He stated that he
relieves there is some detriment to the surrounding adjacent properties at it relates tc
irivacy issues. Looking at the elevations on the deck, the first floor deck appears tc
:antilever out substantially about 12 feet. I believe there is room to reduce, particularly
hat first floor deck down to 8 or 10 feet to be consistent with the other two decks.
refer to page A5 in the plans)
Tucker asked if that deck is over the height limit.
Campbell answered that, based on the drawings and information, it is the of
I deck only that is over the height limit and the two lower decks are not over
ht limit.
Cole noted he is referring to the middle deck.
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 12 of 27
immissioner Selich noted he would agree with Commissioner Cole if it was
Aangular deck. The way the deck is arched around, it does present some sensitiv
the adjacent neighbors. That was one of the things that convinced me on that whc
ck concept.
rerson Tucker noted that the applicant's architect had indicated that there
to pull back the upper deck back to what is designated on the plan as
ine, which appears to be about four feet at the place where it is bowed out
That one does have a height limit issue.
missioner Cole noted he agrees with that modification as well. He asked if
any support on the middle deck.
Tucker noted he was not sensing any.
issioner Toerge noted he does not understand this requested modification
to look at it.
Eaton and Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Cole on both decks.
mmissioner McDaniel noted he would not vote for this project unless there wer(
ne substantial changes. He noted he was on the Commission when the Ensigr
•lance was heard. He was concerned then about the development pushing out.
s is a bluff that is a very sensitive part of the community and he does not want t(
iigrate it any more than it has to be. He noted the decks would have to come it
nificantly before he votes for this project. The proposed decks pose a significan
)act to the neighbors.
missioner Eaton noted his agreement with the previous comments adding tl
)line issue will have to be implemented at some point in time. He noted the Tab,
ence is due to the bluff curving as well and had come before the Plannir
mission. The Halfacre residence did not come before the Planning Commission.
, mmissioner Toerge noted the deck on the plans narrow down three feet being
the stringline. However, there has been no validation or verification as to e>
at it was drawn from to confirm it is an accurate stringline.
irperson Tucker noted it is not being proposed to have a stringline. He noted
architect is willing to pull that deck back to where it says stringline on the pl
irdless of what you call it.
sion followed on the width of the deck; further reduction of the depth of tF
to preserve the deck width; proposed project comparisons; and actual need for
Jeannette noted that the deck at the upper level, which is the master bedroc
1, wraps along to the north as well. That would be one that we could give up
:r to work with the line that we have drawn diagonally across the paper. It is mu
e important to try and preserve the area where the family will be, which is the fr
- deck and is the extent of their back yard.
missioner Hawkins noted that there is support for this. Substitute Motion
"file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \I nternet \PlnAgendas\2005\mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 13 of 27
ie to give direction to staff to have this item come back at the next regula
eduled meeting to reduce either the size of the decks or the encroachment of t
re structure so that the Commission can come to some middle ground. He restat
motion so that it was to continue this item with direction to either reduce the size
decks or reduce the depth of the house so that the line that we are talking abo
is said to be a stringline at some point, is pulled back on both the second floor
I as the top floor.
iairperson Tucker noted that technically we are supposed to vote on the substitute
ntion first but would like to have more discussion on the main motion. He noted tha
a second floor deck could be pared back and should be pared back because it is no
necessity for the variance. It would make the house nicer, but it is not a necessity.
would suggest that we accept that offer on the second floor deck to move it back tc
a area on the plan that is labeled as a stringline, whether it is or is not is not the
Sue. As far as the first floor deck is concerned, he is not a fan of introducing change:
a project that aren't part of the variance itself. They have a right to build that decl
are and not be in violation of any requirements. As a real estate developer, when
:ar that you have to agree to not do something that you are entitled to do in order tc
ive us grant this permission, it sets wrong for me. He believes the second deck is it
ay, the first deck he doesn't see as being in play. With that change to the seconc
:ck, he supports the motion. There will be an effect on the Butterfields but he doe:
4 believe it will be a material adverse affect.
iirperson Tucker polled the Commission to move the second deck to the place
plan labeled as a stringline on page A3. The other decks would be left alone.
Hawkins - no
McDaniel - no
mmissioner Selich - yes
mmissioner Toerge - stated he did not know where the stringline originates on 1
tterfield property or the adjacent property that is apparently going to be
veloped. The encroachment into that area is some 50 feet away from 1
tterfields' property and is all the way out. The deck currently complies.
mmissioner Cole - yes. He added that he understands that the lower deck is i
rt of the variance request, but the first floor deck can be reduced by 2 - 4 feet a
uld be a great improvement to the adjacent neighbor and not impact the quality
project.
mmissioner Eaton - no
irperson Tucker advised Commissioner Toerge that the variance, with the secor
deck change, will pass tonight with your support of it. Otherwise, it sounds like
not pass.
missioner Toerge asked the architect if this suggestion would work, is
:thing you are willing to do to gain approval of what is before us tonight? I am
what you need to do to comply.
r. Jeannette answered two feet I can make work on the first floor; on the second fl
a all agree that I can bring it back and work that one out; the first floor deck area is
eir primary living space, and I don't want to make it more complicated, but if I tc
is curve and made it more rectangular, I would start to take the extension off but ke
close to the building but get a little more square feet on that deck. Again that is
"file:HN:1Apps1W EBDATAII nternet \PlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
'Planning Commission Minutes 01/0612005
i total of their outside back yard on the sunny side of the house. So, I am trying
that maybe there is a way I can pull it back but yet square it off a little bit, but it
usability of the deck issue that I am most concerned about for the family.
imissioner Toerge stated what I understand now that the Chairman proposed
e would be no modification to the first floor deck, which is at the living level, k
curaging some modification to the second floor deck, which is off the mas
room. You are suggesting that you can do that and I am not sure how mu
ctly we are asking you to move this back. Do we know, is it this dimension on t
Jeannette answered referencing the plans, it is taking the furthest projection
ng it in by approximately 4 feet.
irperson Tucker noted the architect would give up the space on the second c
leave the first deck the way it is. That was my proposal, and 1 have three ayes.
Toerge agreed to this.
Jeannette answered yes, that would be the best for the family.
arson Tucker asked if the maker of the substitute motion would like to have
voted on, or if he would like to withdraw it?
missioner Hawkins answered he wanted a vote and asked the architect if
room to pull back the first floor deck by some amount.
Jeannette answered, in light of a possible continuance to another Planni
emission hearing and finding the stringline in the City, etc., etc., we would want
with the Commission to come up with something that is agreeable. I threw tI
because it is certainly a viable choice. I fully agree with what Commissior
-ge is proposing, but I also want to come to a conclusion that is successful for
get it completed tonight.
:ommissioner Hawkins restated his Substitute Motion to continue this item v
irection to either reduce the size of the decks or reduce the depth of the house so t
ie line that we are talking about, that is said to be a stringline at some point, is pul
ack on both the second floor as well as the top floor.
Eaton, McDaniel and Hawkins
Selich, Toerge, Tucker and Cole
None
None
irperson Tucker suggested a modification to the main motion to pull the creso
)ed portion of the upper level deck back to the deck stringline as labeled on pe
second floor plan.
mmissioner Cole noted in light of discussion with Mr. Jeannette, it should be furtl
lified to reflect the willingness to reduce the first floor deck two feet, which
ething that he would be willing to work with. I would like the motion to reflect i
feet he offered to be part of the motion.
Page 14 of 27
"file: / /N:\Apps1WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005\mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
'Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005
Page 15 of 27
Commissioner Toerge affirmed that area (first floor deck) is not above the height limi
and therefore he does not support modifying the motion.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that the architect offered it. If the first floor deck can be
modified then I can support it; if not, I am not going to vote for it.
Mr. Jeannette suggested a 1 foot reduction of the first floor deck after conferring with
his client, the applicant.
The maker of the motion agreed.
Commissioner Cole stated he is not willing to vote in favor of the motion for only a 1
foot reduction of the first level deck and would not vote for it unless it was a 2 foo
reduction.
Mr. Jeannette stated they would go with the 2 feet reduction of the first floor deck and
he will come back to staff to assure that the first floor deck design is okay.
Modified motion to approve the applications with two changes; 1) reduce the second
floor deck such that it is not oceanward of the stringline as labeled on sheet A3 second
floor Ian; 2 reduce the depth of the first floor deck by two feet.
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
SUBJECT: Gates Residence Appeal (PA2004 -208)
ITEM NO.4
505 J. Street
PA2004 -208
ppeal of the determination of compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.65 of the
Continued to
Newport Beach Municipal Code (Building Height) by the Planning Director related to
01/20/2005
he approval of a plan revision for a project at 505 J Street. The appeal contests the
correctness of that determination.
Staff requested that this item be continued to January 20, 2005.
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to January 20, 2005
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
SUBJECT: Anthony Ciasulli representing Geoff Le Plastrier
ITEM NO. 5
227 Goldenrod Avenue
Determination
Appeal of the determination of the Planning Director on the applicability of City height
was Upheld
limits to a canvas patio cover on a third floor roof deck.
Commissioner Hawkins noted he had visited the site and viewed the canopy. He
asked if staff had reviewed the canopy this week noting that the poles are no longer
axed or screwed in but are in some potted plants, or otherwise fixed.
" file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 16 of 27
Campbell answered that planning staff has not been out to the property this week.
ed on what was just indicated, that particular alteration is not compliant with the
,ious stop work order that was presented to the property owner January of las
The Chief Building Inspector was sent out today to issue a second stop wort
:r. He was not granted entry to see the area in question. That was ar
uthorized alteration to the previous attachment of the structure to the building.
Anthony Ciasulli, representing Geoff Le Plastrier, noted the following:
• The appellant came into the City over a year ago and discussed with staff wha
he wanted to do and was told that this could be done without permits o
approvals.
• An architect had been hired by the appellant who drew up plans and drawings.
He went to staff and was told the same thing, that this could be installed withou
permits or approvals.
. The appellant tried to do everything he could by the book.
. There is a lot of ambiguity in the City's sections and definitions that are applica
to this. Staff points to one Section that says Title 20 regulates what
permanently installed.
. City planning staff gave the appellant numerous, conflicting definitions of
was permanent.
. Whether or not this awning is a structure under this definition, we agree that
the key determining factor.
. Your Code defines structure as requiring location on the ground or attachment
something having location on the ground.
. The Code does not define attachment, and your staff report uses a reference tc
the dictionary that an attachment means something connected, glued or tied
clearly something that is a connection between the awning and the building.
They refer to the straps and hooks, which are gone as Commission Hawkins
mentioned.
. This awning is sitting on the deck.
. The report is incorrect that the Building Department has concluded that you nef
to anchor this awning in order for it to be safe. We are working with the Buildir
Department and have hired an engineer who has prepared a report that shov
that the awning in its current configuration is safe, and in fact if you look at page
of the staff report it actually cites the report.
. The report says, 'it is sufficient to secure the patio cover in an
configuration', which is the configuration that is currently used.
. We believe the alternative should be approved and that is to allow the applic
to work with the Building Department to secure a building permit and to allow
awning to stay as is.
. He noted that staff should be directed to change some of the regulations so
confusing situation doesn't occur again.
"file: / /N:1Apps\W EBDATAI Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn01- 06 -05. htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005
Geoff Le Plastrier, appellant and owner of 227 Goldenrod, noted similar discussio
above adding he interviewed three contractors who had experience in this type (
ling. He knew there was a problem when a stop work order was issued. He calle
Building Department and was told there was a complaint lodged by staff. I
king with staff for over twelve months, I see it from staffs perspective and readin
various ordinances, I do acknowledge significant ambiguity. I would not be her
ight having expended a substantial amount of money, we wouldn't be having
:ussion, had, when I walked into the City initially, been told we could not do what
icipated doing. I express my desire to continue to work with the Buildin
)artment to resolve this issue. I did rely in good faith on what the City told me an
vended a substantial amount of money based on that representation.
person Tucker asked about a letter of determination dated October 2004.
what the original application was for as I don't have the language.
and the Commission were presented a copy by the appellant's counsel.
-person Tucker noted that the issue before us tonight is whether the structure, a:
led and the subject of the stop work order, is a structure for purposes of our
The secondary issue is, if it is not actually bolted or in some other manner
ned to the deck, is it still attached for the purposes of our definition of structure?
it comes down to is, if you put enough weight on the legs of this canopy, is tha
on of weight tantamount to an attachment to the structure? I think that is probably
our issues are going to end up being.
;ommissioner Selich asked does this necessarily have to be attached to the ground?
here is one part of the phrase, 'which required location on the ground or attachment tc
ie ground.' It seems to me that if the columns are required to be located on the
round to support the structure, that becomes part of the definition of structure and no
ecessarily having to be attached to something on the ground. Maybe I am no
; ading that right.
round
son Tucker noted that it says, "...the use of which required location on
which I don't think is on the ground because it is on a second floor c
'or attachment to something having location on the ground." That is where
is this thing attached and what does attachment mean? In the gen
ar, it would mean in some manner bolted or tied into the structure that
on the ground. Really, the issue before us is if you have instead of t
does that still mean it is attached even though it is not bolted in or tied
Selich noted he agrees with that.
r. Ciasulli, at Commission inquiry, noted that the applicant and his architect hE
;en working with the Building Department about obtaining a building permit to mE
ire that the canopy is safe and complies with the Code for safety and wind, etc. C
igineer prepared a report that was provided to the Building Department showing h
could make the canopy safe without having it attached by any straps, hooks
herwise, and just sitting on the deck. What we propose to do, which is the si
ternative to the recommendation, allows us to continue to work on the building per
r the canopy in a way in which the awning would not be attached in any other M
an it would be sitting on the ground. If we can do that, we propose to keep 1
vning as is. The Planning Commission would determine it is not a structure becac
is not attached, but the condition would be that the Building Department would he
conclude that in its unattached state, it was still safe, even though it was on 1
ound with some heaviness.
Tucker asked if, in order to meet safety regulations, say for instance,
Page 17 of 27
"file: / /N:lApps\WEBDATAII nternetlPlnAgendas 120051mn01- 06 -05. htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 18 of 27
high canopy was weighed down with 500 pounds on each leg, it would still not I
ched as long as there are no straps. The massiveness and the manner and weig
is needed to hold the structure down, in your mind, as long as it has no bolts
or other sorts, it is not attached?
Ciasulli answered that would be consistent with the definitions in the Code. In tl
eme situation that wouldn't be acceptable to this Commission and I don't thi
Ad be acceptable to this Commission. But, given this particular canopy, given t
s of the situation where we came in and were told after providing plans of tl
spy, that it didn't require any permits or approvals, after being given all tl
licting information, given we are not 20 feet in the air, given the height of ti
spy, which is not 500 pounds that will be needed, that is my proposal.
irperson Tucker noted that the next applicant may be standing before us with
;ture that is taller and requires more weighting. It strikes me it is no different if i
into the ground via weights than if it's attached in some other fashion. It seems it
amount to an attachment, why wouldn't that be the case?
Ciasulli answered it wouldn't be the case because right now the Code is ambiguoue
to that being the case. How can a citizen deal with anything other then what is
rrently in your Codes, which is why I think staff in their alternative said to allow Mr
Plastrier to make sure this particular awning /canopy has be safe and to modify the
ide to make sure this ambiguity in this situation does not happen in the future. We
I not come in to say we were putting up a patio umbrella; we told them what we were
ing to put up. Given these circumstances and the ambiguity, he asked that this iterr
approved.
missioner Selich asked in situations like this, in this definition of structure
aps it is not clear, isn't there provision in the Zoning Code that the Planni
mission can make reasonable interpretations as far as what that means if it is i
covered in the definition?
Ohl, Deputy City Attorney, answered that it was his understanding of the Zoni
brnmissioner Selich noted for example, if we don't find that it is physically attached
ie ground, we can find other elements that are inherent in the structure that woi
lake it a structure but not necessarily having it be attached to the ground. That is t
irection that I am heading.
Ohl answered that you have that discretion.
airperson Tucker noted it comes down to the definition of attachment. The purpo
adding weight to the legs is to keep the facility there. It is a permanent facility.
it weighting on each leg has a purpose to it and that is to make sure that the thi
esn't go into the neighbor's house in a wind stone. It is to keep it there as part
it structure; that is the function that particular weighting would perform.
mmissioner Cole noted it is an ambiguous wording in the Code, but originally the
s a strap to have it attached, which under the hard definition would constitute
icture. You have changed it, so technically there is a loop hole where it no long
)ears to be a structure per the language. Are you willing to reduce the height of tl
ning or canopy?
. Le Plastrier answered that he removed the straps in deference to what they hee
m staff. That was their definition, not mine. Clearly, if that was part of the solution
-npromise, I would be willing to live with that.
"file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 19 of 27
Wood noted that in a meeting that staff had with Mr. Ciasulli and Mr. Le Plastri
December 15th, we specifically directed them not to change to the weight syste
I after the Commission's determination. With regard to the ability to lower tl
)ht, that is another thing that would have to have review by the Building Departme
:ause there could be a clearance issue if it comes down. The canopy is a structu
the Building Code. At Commission inquiry, she noted the City has not issued
ding permit, in fact they have not formally applied for a building permit. Wheth
y attach or weight down the structure, they will need a building permit.
comment was opened.
J. Johnson, resident of Corona del Mar and a realtor, noted the following:
• She drove by the site.
• This did not appear to be aesthetically appealing and could block views.
• If this is allowed, others will be going up.
• Realtors will be selling that space as usable space; there will be side enclosu
and will be up there all the time.
• I feel that if this structure is allowed, people will take advantage and they will
all over.
Kazarian, noted that the simple solution would be that things that are put on a
deck have to live by the general height requirements; these issues there
Idn't come up.
comment was closed.
Selich noted:
. It is a structure.
. He is not compelled by the arguments that the attachment to the ground to
structure as being the criteria for determining as being a structure.
. Reasonable interpretations when they are not all encompassing, courts h
found that Planning Commissions can do them and they are upheld.
. Looking at this canopy structure, to me it is a structure that is intended to be tt
permanently.
. The primary motivation on my conclusion is all the metal support tubes
welded; they are constructed in a manner that it is meant to be permanent.
. Some awning structures like this are able to be disassembled and taken
and put up. This structure is not designed that way; it is a permanent str
that is meant to be up all the time.
. By virtue of that fact it falls within the definition of structure in our Zoning Code,
would uphold staffs determination that it is a structure.
missioner Hawkins noted his agreement with the prior comments.
"file: / /N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005
ommissioner Toerge noted it is always frustrating when a citizen is misled or feels I
as been misled by the City. Hopefully, tonight's ruling will clear up any confusion.
o do not buy into the technical argument that the patio cover enclosure /canopy is r
structure. In my opinion, the weight on the feet of it is simply another way of makii
fast and I believe it is a structure pursuant to the Zoning Code and subject to comF
ith our height restrictions.
Cole noted he concurs.
imissioner Eaton noted he concurs adding, when issues like this come to us,
not here to second guess what was said. This structure functions as a struc
when the sides are down, functions as an enclosure. So it is a structure.
tirperson Tucker note his agreement. The manner in which this will be attached
roof, either it will be bolted and tied in some fashion, or there will be weight ti
ses it to not go anywhere. It is intended to be a permanent facility, then it mel
definition of structure.
Ciasulli noted:
• We were told that even a patio umbrella is not a structure, but it could be lying c
a deck with enough weight to keep it there.
• By what you are saying here tonight, that is going to have to be attached as we
and will be a structure and subject to your regulations.
• You swing the other direction by making this finding here. It is incumbent upc
the City to adopt some regulations that can give some guidance to its residents.
• This thing was designed to be taken apart and can be taken down in 8 -1
minutes. It has 8 bolts to it that can come out and easily be taken apart.
• These pre -fab little rooms that are on decks all over town are now going to t
structures.
. We provided staff a number of people in the City that have awnings, we've c
them addresses of the exact same things that are on people's deck that are
going to have to come down because they are attached, or they are goir
have to come down because they are going to blow away in the wind an(
Building department finds them not safe.
. This is opening up a Pandora's box and is a decision that will affect a lot
people in town who have these awning structures.
ion Tucker noted, in this particular case, the only issue that I see on
aspect of it is it therefore has to comply with the height limit.
blic comment was closed.
ner Hawkins noted he believes what we have is an ambiguity
minds may differ on the interpretation. I don't believe there is
of anyone. I would hope in the near term we can correct this ambiguity.
was .made by Commissioner Hawkins to uphold the Planning
, I oerge,
Page 20 of 27
"file:/IN:lAppslW EBDATAIInternetlPlnAgendas 120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005
None
None
Page 21 of 27
:T: Orchid Plaza Appeal (PA2004 -194) ITEM NO.6
3600 E. Coast Highway
PA2004 -194
of the denial by the Planning Director of a Use Permit for a proposed
cial building to exceed the allowable building bulk limit established by Section Denied without
;0 of the Municipal Code. prejudice
airperson Tucker noted he had been in discussion with staff as to what the
mmission's jurisdiction is. There is an application that had been filed and a decisio<
be made by the Planning Director. The Planning Director made a decision that wa;
verse to the applicant. The applicant filed an appeal to the Planning Commissio<
d prior to the time that the appeal arrived to the Planning Commission, the applican
3mitted a new set of plans, which based upon the staff report appears that the
inning Director would have found acceptable had they been filed in the first place.
r me, the issue comes down to what is before us. In my mind, what is before us is
original plan that was filed that has been appealed, because the other plan wasn'
rt of what was filed with the Planning Director with the initial decision. If this were <
itter of first impression and had to come to the Planning Commission initially as <
e permit, then I could see having an "audible" change of plans as something that wf
uld consider. In this particular case, what really is before us is the original plan an(
it is it. The applicant has something that the Planning Director finds more appealinc
this point. I suppose one of the decisions that is possible for us is to deny the
peal without prejudice so that the applicant could continue to work with staff on thi;
itter. The first issue before us is do we have jurisdiction to consider the altemativ(
of plans, or do we just consider the original plans that were filed, denied an(
Ir. Campbell, referring to the Appeal Section 20.95 of the Municipal Code, noted
ppellant body shall consider only the same application, plans and project rek
iaterials that were subject to the original decision, unless otherwise deemed relw
y the appellant body. Staff reviewed the revised plan and the appeal and determi
is relevant. Given the fact the Planning Commission has the jurisdiction to modify
ecision, staff felt that the revised plan is•a picture of what the project might look
nd be relevant.
irperson Tucker noted what we may chose to look at the new plans in order
h a decision but it has no bearing on what is before us. What is before us is
nal application with original plans that were denied. We can look at a
mation we want, but I don't see that we have the ability to approve a plan that h
:r officially been submitted to the City. This is an appeal, we are either going
n the appeal or deny the appeal. He went on to note his concern of where t
is review fits in this process with the new plans.
mmissioner Cole noted if we have received an appeal, we can approve the api
)ject to modifications. We can look at the original plan and we could approve
)eal subject to the modifications that have been submitted during a hearing.
Wood added that generally that is the case. There have been examples
"file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 22 of 27
:one has appealed a project to either the Planning Commission or to the (
icil and those appellant bodies have approved the project but with modificati(
what had been approved at the lower body, even if the applicant had
iitted those modifications. What is different about this case, it isn't an appeal of
)val by the applicant or by an aggrieved party; this is an appeal of a denial com
the applicant who is submitting new plans in hopes of getting a better reaction.
,iairperson Tucker noted what we probably ought to consider is upholding
anning Director and rejecting the appeal without prejudice so that the applicant
irry on with whatever he wants to do. Apparently, he has a different plan that he i
more attractive alternative.
;ommissioner Toerge noted his agreement. It is frustrating whenever a plan chan
nd we have it and the public does not. It is important, since it is here today, that
ffer some feedback.
irperson Tucker asked that if we find the only thing that is before us is the origi
, then does it make any sense to talk about the revised plan because it is not
agenda? That is my sense. We can talk about the original plan and from
ments the applicant would be able to see how it would apply to the new plan.
Wood noted, earlier the Chairperson made the comment that even if you felt th
ur jurisdiction here was limited to the original plan that was considered by tt
anning Director, that the revised plan was still relevant to the discussion because
)uld show that something different could be accomplished on the site, so I don't thir
at needs any separate Brown Act notification and you are free to talk about it at lea
those terms.
Wiggle of Keisker & Wiggle Architects, Inc. representing the owner noted he
red to make a presentation of what is not before the Commission noting:
. He and the applicant had made a presentation to the Development
Committee.
. He made a submittal of plan
. He then received a denial of those plans but was not aware that it was a once
once out response.
._There were a number of comments made by staff that were addressed v
corrections, but it was not enough.
. In a follow -up meeting we were told we could appeal the denial and we w
made aware of additional information.
. A follow -up submittal was made and is attached to tonight's report.
. The new plans were what we perceived as the next step in working with staff.
. This is a complicated piece of property in Corona del Mar next to the post
and it does not have an attachment to an alley.
" file:// N:1 Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet \PlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01106/2005 Page 23 of 27
. These plans are our solution to staffs concerns.
. Following a brief discussion, he then asked that this appeal be denied
prejudice.
imissioner Selich asked, in doing the design, did you come up with a design
the floor area at ground level and had parking on the property? How many sq
did you end up with and were you able to park it?
ale answered, yes, they had done a study almost a year ago, but did i
-Ir the numbers. He thought it might be in the area of roughly 22 -2300 feet.
about a 50/50 prospect of building to parking.
imissioner Eaton asked about the turn around area behind the wall and asked v
Id happen if the wall was pulled back to allow planting of bushes and vines on
ide adjacent to Coast Highway.
Wiggle answered that could easily be done. They want to maintain
:uvering room in the garage, but we could pull that wall back somewhat.
iairperson Tucker asked why we should shift away from the massing requirem
,en the location of this property. One of the reasons that a use permit goes thn:
s process is so the Commission can evaluate each site. The ability to ask for
rmission is in the Code that applies throughout the City. We focus in on each p<
see whether or not it makes sense for the parcel in question. Because of the s
Corona del Mar, the massing issue I think is more sensitive than it may be in c
rations. This proposed building is right on the sidewalk and there it is. Why do
nk it is appropriate to have more bulk than what our baseline calls for?
Wiggle noted design wise, bulk and massing are two different issues.
mmissioner Tucker acknowledged that he misspoke when referring to mass. He
;ant bulk. Mr. Wiggle continued, the building to the south of us has sidewalk to the
ge of the building and has no planting relief in front of it and has storefront directly
ck of sidewalk. The back building in height as you can see by the sketches, you car
a the gray mass on both sides, one post office and one adjoining building. That is
indard one -story building built smack on the sidewalk with absolutely no relief. Mos
Corona del Mar has that same characteristic, back of sidewalk and storefront. There
not a lot of parking lots in front, most of them are adjacent, we do not have a lot o
;essed garden areas, it is very urban.
iat we have is the opportunity to do a site that is unique in that it does not sha
;ess to the alley like most of the neighbors do along there and can take their parkii
the rear and can develop in the manner as R -1 beside us. We came up with
ution that allows us to park on our site and create circulation that was acceptable
Traffic Engineer.
wall that is along the sidewalk is at the very similar scale of the adjoining buildings
i with the openings being similar in scale in character to the storefronts tha
)en on most of the other buildings around. We are under the allowable height it
site and there are other buildings that are higher than the final proposal we have.
second story area is set well back on the property creating the open deck above
We brought some trellis elements out and tied those to the front to create some
" file: / /N:1Apps \WEBDATA \Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 24 of 27
hitectural and visual interest. The follow -up proposal brought the building back ul
the rear of the property line in the same way, which allowed the sloping roof to gc
and the rear without having the impact of a parapet. On the side adjoining ou
ghbor to the south, the parapet is also lowered in relation to our building to mon
,ily step up into the sloped roof area that we are proposing so that the transition it
neighborhood is continuing much the same as it does in most of Corona del Mar.
Vt think our massing or bulk is out of sorts for the area. It is the technicality o
ring the parking on the ground floor, which made us have to conform to the bulk.
worked on the handling of that parking and the screening of that parking to be it
ijunction with the sidewalk experience you have up and down the highway.
issioner Cole noted the PCH elevation design of steel grill openings against
Ik, is that going to be painted? When this does come before the Commis:
it would be nice to see planting detail.
I. Wiggle answered that is going to be a decorative trellis, open and planted in front.
e construction of that 8 inch concrete wall with 4 inches of stone and along the bah
sidewalk there is an area for planting of vines. That foot, the grates are set on the
oide, and it is our intent to plant vines there as well. It will screen the cars and softer
openings.
comment was opened.
Dean, resident and property owner at 415 Orchid, noted the following:
. Didn't know this was a new plan.
. He noted traffic is a major issue in that area with the post office, Rose Doug
and Ritz Cleaners.
. He asked about the ingress and egress from the project.
. He asked that a traffic study be done.
If Pence, resident and owner of the property on the other corner. He noted the n<
in has to be resubmitted and notice has to be given to the public. The intersection
t signalized and if you allow a wall development to come in you literally can not s
get across the intersection. It is very congested. He asked that this be denied.
is comment was closed.
Toerge noted:
The project exceeds the building bulk limitation by at least 70 %, maybe the
plan by 50 %.
You have approximately 8,000 square feet of development and much of that
parking structure and is not counted as floor area, but it is still development
8,800 square feet on a 7,000 square foot lot.
. It is impossible to meet the building bulk limitation in that kind of design.
"file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATAII nternetlPlnAgendas 120051mn01- 06 -05. htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 25 of 27
Finding 1 deals with the compatibility of the proposed project and the abn
of scale compared to the development in the area. I find the scale of the
is not consistent with the immediate surrounding areas.
There was some discussion of what might be developed, but we need to look
what is developed or approved for development.
Condition 8 requires that all deliveries /trash pick up be performed on site. I d
think it is possible. There are only a couple of cars of parking outside of
parking structure and I don't know how a UPS or a Fed Ex truck can make
deliveries without blocking the driveway or the parking lot. The design is
adequate in that regard.
. If the project does get approved, whereby the curb cuts on Coast Highway m
be eliminated, I would like that condition to further state that concurrently with t
elimination of the curb cuts, that new parking stalls along Coast Highway will
fact be added, striped and installed.
. He noted his concerns of the parking structure and the elevated nature of
project compared to adjacent properties, building bulk, and inability for
deliveries.
. Parking garages are really parking of the last resort. You can compel employee:
in an office environment to park there but for any visitors or retail application it wil
not work.
. He noted he would be more supportive of a project that was more ground level,
smaller project that would include some on -site parking and maybe even reta
the curb cut on Coast Highway closest to Orchid if that suited the design; and ac
street parking derived by closing the easterly curb cut.
. He stated, preferable to this plan, he would be more inclined to support the use
that newly generated parking on Coast Highway as part of the parki
calculations and create some kind of parking waiver like we have done with sor
of the other businesses in town to bring the property into a more compatil
design, a smaller structure and it would be more consistent with what the visi
plan is for Corona del Mar, which is pedestrian oriented.
. He stated he could not support this type of development with office or retail
top of a parking structure.
missioner Selich noted his agreement with the previous statements, adding:
He could not support any plan that would use the concept of parking on the
level and all the floor area on the second level.
. He would not be able to make the findings 1 and 2 under the building bulk.
. He added his concern of the drive to get more floor area on these parcels due
the value of the properties. He see this as being the first of a number of potent
applications coming down and we end up having this kind of solution that
driven to get the parking and the floor area.
"file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01106/2005
. Whatever parking problem we have in Corona del Mar is not going to be
on a lot by lot basis, it is going to have to be solved on an area wide basis.
. He would like to see a solution with all the floor area on the ground floor a
using part of the site for parking and maybe count part of the adjacent str(
parking and some minor parking waiver.
McDaniel noted:
. Parking is a major concern on this site.
. Needs to be a smaller building with better ingress and egress.
Cole noted:
. He doesn't have a problem with the project.
. We can make the bulk findings as the building is compatible with the surroundi
area.
. This is the best use as far as impact to traffic as it is an office building with 1.
parking spaces at grade that will only by used by the tenant of that building. Nc
a tremendous amount of traffic would be caused by this development.
. This is a unique site.
Eaton noted:
. Compatibility with the village plan is a valid issue.
. A smaller building would be more desirable.
Hawkins noted that he agrees with the comments made
Toerge and Selich.
rperson Tucker noted his concern of supporting a use permit for bulk for a buildir
is out of place in the area. He would like to not have such an obvious look of
ing structure and be an integrated two -story look. Commissioner Toerge is on tt
track; maybe there is a way to do it and pick up a couple of spaces on the stre
do not exist today where you can get some credit.
Alon was made by Chairperson Tucker to deny the appeal and uphold the decision
the Planning Director without prejudice so that the applicant can work with staff and
me up with something for this admittedly difficult site.
missioner Toerge asked if there were financial ramifications to the applicant for
in which we approve or deny this for them bringing back the plan and paying
ler fee, etc.?
Wood answered she does not intend to charge them
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
None
Page 26 of 27
"file://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2005\mn01 -06-05.htm 07/15/2008
"Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005
Page 27 of 27
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted at that the last Council meeting o
December 14th, the amendment to the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan with
regard to accessory dwelling units was approved at second reading; and the
considered the Planning Commission's recommendation with regard to
scheduling the hearing on St Andrews' Presbyterian and accepted the
recommendation that it will not be heard until such time as a parking agreement
with the School District is finished and approved by the Planning Commission. A
Study Session that afternoon, they started reviewing the Land Use alternative
for the General Plan update and that will come back to the next study session.
b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee
- no meeting.
c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update
Committee - no meeting.
d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at
subsequent meeting - none.
e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda
for action and staff report - Following a brief discussion, it was agreed to have
Council recommend or not that the matter of the language regarding canopy be
reviewed.
f. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none.
g. Project status - The St. Andrew resolutions will be presented at the next meeting.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the Church has asked that he and Commission
Selich meet with them to discuss design issues. The Mayor and City Council are
forming a committee to consider alternative uses for Marina Park and he has
been invited to serve on the committee. Ms. Wood noted this will be on the
Council agenda January 11th, and there will be two committees, one a City
Council sub - committee that will deal with the Tideland boundary issue and
potential closure of the mobile home park, and a Council citizen advisory
committee that would deal with planning future use of the property. Following
discussion, the Planning Commission meeting for February 3rd will be cancelled
as that is the night of the Mayor's dinner.
h. Request for excused absences - none.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 p.m.
1ADJOUR NMENT
JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
" file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn01- 06- 05.htm 07/15/2008