HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-06-2005Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005
•
I
L
Page 1 of 27
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
January 6, 2005
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins - all
Commissioners present.
TAFF PRESENT:
Karon 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
ut in on the St. Andrew's matter, and the long meetings.
mmissioner Hawkins complimented staff as well.
OSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
he 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
•x:
HEARING ITEMS
UBJECT: Medical and Dental Office Parking Requirements (PA2004 -007)
ITEM NO.2
PA2004 -007
posed amendment to Section 20.66.030 of the Municipal Code (Off Street parking
Recommended
d loading spaces required) to increase the number of parking spaces required fo
for approval
medical and dental office uses.
file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 2 of 27
Ramirez noted that at the request of some of the Planning Commissioners, staff
ded to the table of the cities that were surveyed. Staff found parking requirements of
D additional cities. One of them was Irvine that has a parking rate of 1 space per 18
uare feet of medical office; and, Fullerton has 1 space per 182 square feet of
�dical office with another provision that buildings that were 5,000 square feet or less
uld receive approval of a parking ratio of 1 per 250 square feet with the approval of
Planning Director.
Ramirez then summarized the information contained in the staff report.
rsioner Selich asked what was going to happen to existing complexes,
up at Newport Center, the Avocado buildings? Assuming they aren't par
ratio, under what circumstances would they have to bring their parkinc
nce? What about tenant improvements?
Ramirez answered that they would be considered legal, non - conforming. Tt
ild fall under the non - conforming parking section of the Code. They can contir
present use in perpetuity, but should they want to come in and do additions to *
iblishments or alterations to the buildings, the non - conforming parking section
Zoning Code would take affect.
Campbell added that if the existing tenant space is already devoted to medical use,
r could remodel that space fairly readily and would not have to comply with the new
sing standards. If they were to expand the facility by less than 10 %, they would
e to provide the parking for the addition at the new parking ratio. If they were
ing more than that, they might have to bring the entire facility up to Code. If the
r't have the space for that, it might preclude those additions to the buildings. •
nmissioner Selich noted they could take one of those buildings and wipe out all th
int improvements on every floor, completely re-do it but as long as they didn't add
itional 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.
►issioner Hawkins asked if instead of adding square footage, they divided it
rooms, would that trigger any additional parking demands? He then noted 1
al organizations numbers noted in the staff report.
Ir. 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 sqr
gross building area to be clear on that?
Ramirez answered we can add that to the resolution in Section one. As far as th
bit goes, the Code requires that all parking be based on gross unless otherwis
;ified. So, on the tables when there is a straight 1 per 200 or whatever it is, if it wa •
med to be parked at net, it would say 1 per 200 net.
ommissioner Cole asked about buildings that have mixed use such as general offi
hat want to convert a portion of the building to medical, are you proposing for tha
file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 3 of 27
portion of the building there would be a different parking requirement?
Ramirez answered yes. General office use and professional office use is parked
it 250 of net square feet; whereas, medical office use is gross square feet. The r
udes certain areas such as stairwells and elevator shafts, things of that nature.
e is a mixed development with general office and professional office, we have
ulate the square footage of the general and the square footage of the medical a
•e out the parking for each.
comment was opened.
comment was closed.
Mon was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend approval of Co
iendment No. 2004 -004 (PA2004 -007) proposed amendment to Section 20.66.0
the Municipal Code to increase the number of parking spaces required for media
d dental office use subject to the findings with the added revision for clarity that
-ction 1 of the resolution we include the definition of gross building following the 2
uare feet in the text.
stitute Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins that instead of 200
it be 180 sauare feet.
Hawkins
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
None
None
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
None
None
None
ircle Residence (PA2003 -006) ITEM NO.3
3415 Ocean Blvd PA2003 -006
guest for an amendment to an approved Variance and Modification Permit thal Approved
+red a new single- family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and
terranean portions of 3 floors to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard
pack. The applicant is requesting changes to the building design that include an
ease to the height on the bluff side of the proposed residence. The applicant does
request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard.
Ramirez noted a letter in opposition that had been received after publication of t
F report and distributed to the Commission tonight. Additionally, there are photos
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 develi
and how this site lines up with that in relation to other houses on the block.
. The proposed project proposes features to exceed the height limit; they are
file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 4 of 27
upper floor that partially exceeds the height limit as well as a deck that protrudes
off the upper floor. II
. The house complies with the other top of curb height limit. The height variance i •
requested due to the slope of the bluff that causes the house to exceed th
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 been
sed by the Coastal Commission to keep properties in line with each other as they are
sated on the bluff with the premise to minimize the alteration of the bluff. The City
)es not have a standard for stringline and does not use that analytical method at all
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, and
e house was designed with stringlines on the plans. His proposal was presented t •
e Planning Commission with a variance for structure height and that variance was
)proved. The Commission required that the project be altered to meet the stringline
sown on the plans and a deck at grade that was further oceanward than the stringline
:pitted, 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 of
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 draw
new stringline based on his experience of how the Coastal Commission would app)
stringline. At the prior approval with the stringlines drawn, there was no analysis o
)w they were developed. They were on the plans for demonstration purposes and
ay have assisted in that approval.
> particular project does not adhere to the prior approval and that. is why we are
to amend the prior variance. In the prior staff report, we provided an informational
oussion related to new Local Coastal Program (LCP) policies that were recent)
pled by the City that have yet to be certified by the Coastal Commission and re.
pled by the City for application to projects. Staff felt it was important to provide that
rmation to the Commission for informational purposes, and was never intended to
le how the site and project would come to resolution. This issue was discussed at
last meeting and staff was asked to look at it and present how a stringline or similar
hod might be implemented as our policies would refer to it as 'predominant line o
elopmenf. The staff report outlines a method under consideration using the
Ilan development depth of the 4 to 6 abutting lots. If you have 6 lots developed at
ling depths from the front property line, you would take the median of those and
ly 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 been
file: //H:1Plancomm12005\0I06.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 5 of 27
taken to the LCP steering committee in context of the implementation plan of the LCP,I
hich is what we are working on presently.
aff wants to emphasize the fact that this is a variance and the location of the
ucture is only relevant as to its height. Following discussions with the City Attorney
iff 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
a facts to support findings for approval of the variance; however, staff question:
tether the findings could be met for the upper level deck as it really is not
bstantial property right, which is a required variance finding. Staff believes that
ahtly modified project can meet the test for approval of the variance. Although i
sn't been constructed, there is still an approved variance that affords a two leve
use fairly consistent in size and bulk as the two houses adjacent to it based on the
sign drawings. Making this house smaller than that prior approval, given the volume
space and height that it would afford, it would not be appropriate, in staffs opinion
it would be going back on what was already approved. The only aspect of thi:
) perty that is taller or outside that volume that the Ensign approval afforded is the
per level deck. The actual main structure is fairly consistent in terms of its locatior
d height when compared to the prior approval.
nairperson Tucker noted that the concept of the stringline is not really included in Cit.
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 wen
N because it is not law. We are back to our general approaches to variances.
aople asking for variances usually ask for what they would like to have, not what the'
*d 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 thi:
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(
ill 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
party 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. l
sting house is an existing property right although it is not necessarily as high as
5r houses and we do have that prior variance to consider. It is questionable ab
deck is a substantial property right in my opinion.
missioner Selich asked you don't think that on a property where there is a slo
you have no yard area, having a deck as a substitute for a yard area is
tantial property right?
Campbell answered it is a sloping property and it does have constraints. You
: at it in that light as well.
file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 6 of 27
iairperson Tucker noted the area we need to look at is the granting of the variance
II not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the
iblic welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. So that
where a lot of the decision is going to lie. •
)mmissioner Eaton asked, if the Commission decided a variance was justified but
sided that they did not want to eliminate the condition referring to string lines, wha
Auld the result of that be?
Ramirez answered that if this plan was approved, the project would have to
>tructed 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 ma}
ceed the applicable deck or building stringline as established by the decks an(
ildings 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 stringline
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.
rmissioner 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 fi%
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
A 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 th •
Ling and proposed developments. He went on to explain the table and noted that
poles as depicted in the photographs shown in the prior presentation were fairly
irate in relation to 3401 Ocean Blvd. and 3425 Ocean Blvd. All the measurement
s based on the plans and surveys, and the measurements were taken from the
lerty line as that is static.
ssioner Cole noted that 3415 Ocean Blvd would be the only home along
so an aerial after this proposed project was built would actually show the d
going out about an average 8 to 10 feet, is that what you are saying? Could
ed depths of those decks be reduced and still provide a useable deck?
Ramirez answered yes, and referred to the aerial in the presentation fo
)arisons. A redesign could get some deck area by pulling the whole building back.
ommission inquiry, he added that the enclosed portion of the proposed residencc
, out on the bluff away from Ocean Blvd. as far as the decks do at the adjacen
erty 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.
Brion Jeannette, architect for the proposed project, referred to an exhibit and •
.d the following:
. The furthest parcel (Tabak residence) has been approved by the CalifomiI
file: //H :\Plancomm\2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 7 of 27
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 i
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. The
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 the
building out to about 46 feet with decks that went out as far as 50 to 60 feet anc
cascading pools, etc. down the bluff.
. He then distributed an exhibit of a site plan consisting of 8 properties alon
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 Butterfield'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 ach
establishes a stringline in that case.
airperson Tucker noted you are proposing to have the house be to that point, but
deck. So in other words, the stringline you are talking about, the line for the ho
the Circle property, would be consistent with the line for the deck on the Butterfle
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.
Brson Tucker asked why the applicants need the additional variance from 1
'eady granted in order to enjoy the same property rights as others have. Is
ling that you are asking for more than what you need to enjoy the rights
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
Id be adjusted. The house that was originally approved had on top of this I
ther roof deck, so there was deck beyond this on the uppermost level of the he
it would ostensibly be the roof of this house that we are not even proposing.
Phairperson Tucker asked how much of that deck area you said you would be willing tol
file: //H:\Plancomm\200510106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 8 of 27
(work on? Are you talking about eliminating that deck?
r. Jeannette answered that the discussion is on that portion beyond the string line
id if that was a roof, I am satisfied with making that work. My upper floor in this •
oposal is about a third the upper floor that was in the prior granted variance
oposal. So I have a much smaller footprint of the building on this upper floor. I
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 the
gilding 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 the
dent of their back yard. There is not a lot of yard to work with down below. This i
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 Inspiratio
Sint 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. The
is will get a better view of the ocean with this program than with the prior approved
ince. There is a view corridor between this house and the Butterfiled's house; th •
ae in portions is a little bit lower than the prior proposal; the decks are not eve
r the building shadows them from the public viewing from Ocean Blvd. toward the
;h to the point you won't notice whether the deck is out there 9 feet or 15 feet. I
% enhanced the view corridors from the public viewing area on Ocean Blvd to the
;h. We are asking for what other people have asked for and been granted. Being
s is no limitation developed by a stringline through the City, I don't think it is
lane, as staff recommends, that it all of a sudden be applied here without really
:rstanding how it should work and whether it is important, or whether the issue of
pattern of development, which if you look at the site plan l distributed, we are
stantially within the pattern of development and we are not reaching out further than
t the Tabaks or Halfacres have done.
comment was opened.
Butterfield, 3401 Ocean Blvd., neighbor, noted she opposes this application
I that it be denied. She noted:
. The proposed application differs significantly from the original design and
inconsistent with the original approval and its conditions.
• The stringline restriction was conditioned on number 16 of the original approval.
• The Circles' proposed project exceeds both the deck and building stringline •
compared to current homes there today.
. The stakes we had erected on our property, based on the current
file : //H:1Planconun\2005Wl06.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06 /2005 Page 9 of 27
design, indicate how much further the project will encroach into the bluff front{
area than the previously approved plan. Top to bottom, the three levels exceed)
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 bluff
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 print
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 sq
feet that was done without encroaching into the bluff front or past the stringlir
our neighbors. This was done without a variance or modification. She noted
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.
McDaniel noted he too had viewed the site.
iissioner Eaton, referring to the exhibits distributed by Mr. Jeannette,
the orange columns, which appear to be out further than house.
r. Jeannette answered that those are the columns of both the second and first
:cks. They do not align with one another, but there are portions of the building
most touch that line. He then discussed the rounded elements of the Buttei
rirperson Tucker asked about the fall of the bluff. He was answered that it is
to 1 slope, straight down.
Commissioner Cole, referring to the exhibit presented by Mr. Jeannette, asked about
Ithe lines on the first drawing. Are they new deck lines or string lines allowed for th
file: //H:\Plancomm1200510106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 10 of 27
�pproved development of these two properties? For the Tabak property, does this lined
how how far the deck can come out? II
Jeannette answered they are the deck stringlines and elevated decks and patios •
those two properties. Correct, the shaded area represents the approved building,
1 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.
erson Tucker noted that a variance had been granted for the Tabak
the last few years.
Campbell added that the decks shown for the Halfacre and Tabak residences
iply with the height limit. The upper level deck of the Circle residence does not.
i Kazarian, 3412 Ocean Blvd., who lives directly across from the Circle residence
ad that during the process of the original variance approval he had a discussion with
f who showed him the plans and explained the views. Now, he is unable to look at
new plans, so questions if this proposal will open up any view corridors. The
ise reduction noted by the architect is underground; and the procedure for the
>ign variance front setback was underground. Mr. Tabak got those same setback
eve ground and now we have a request for additional setback variance than Tabak.
question is, where does it stop?
)lic comment was closed.
nmissioner Toerge noted he had been on the Commission when the Ensign •
ante 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
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
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
proposed design complies with the Ocean Boulevard height restriction.
• The proposed design is similar in size and scale to existing homes on simila
sized lots in the vicinity. •
• The variance request does not adversely impact any public views.
file: //H:1Plancomm1200510106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 11 of 27
I . 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 neighbe
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.
:)mmissioner Selich noted that the last time this subject was discussed, he got off
e stringline concept and after discussing it with staff and considering it and read
e staff report, it was probably not the way to approach it. The pattern of developmi
the way to approach it. As I look at the illustration provided by Mr. Jeanne
lowing all the homes, it is clear to me the home fits within the pattern of developm
the area. I agree with most of the comments made by Commission Toerge.
)ted he would rather see the decks that are proposed encroaching a little bit into I
sight area as opposed to say, looking at the Halfacre residence where you have the
assive decks cascading down the hill. I think that is the better design solution to I
operty. That doesn't mean that in the future someone can't come along and
scks going down the hill, because they wouldn't come before the Plann
:)mmission. As a design solution for this house and property, I think it is a gc
elution and fits within the pattern of development that has been established H
ings that have been approved out there. I don't believe there is any injury to adjao
operties through view impairment or any other aspect of this development. I supp
is motion.
missioner Cole noted he would like to modify the motion. He stated that he
ves there is some detriment to the surrounding adjacent properties at it relates tc
cy issues. Looking at the elevations on the deck, the first floor deck appears t(
lever out substantially about 12 feet. I believe there is room to reduce, particularly
first floor deck down to 8 or 10 feet to be consistent with the other two decks.
r 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 ul
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.
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.
Jerson 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
file: //HAPlancomm\2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 12 of 27
stringline, which appears to be about four feet at the place where it is bowed out they
most. That one does have a height limit issue.
missioner Cole noted he agrees with that modification as well. He asked if therel •
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.
nissioners Eaton and Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Cole on both decks.
nissioner McDaniel noted he would not vote for this project unless there were
substantial changes. He noted he was on the Commission when the Ensigr
nce was heard. He was concerned then about the development pushing out.
is a bluff that is a very sensitive part of the community and he does not want tc
Irate it any more than it has to be. He noted the decks would have to come it
icantly before he votes for this project. The proposed decks pose a significan
:t to the neighbors.
immissioner Eaton noted his agreement with the previous comments adding the
ingline issue will have to be implemented at some point in time. He noted the Taba
;idence is due to the bluff curving as well and had come before the Planning
,mmission. The Halfacre residence did not come before the Planning Commission.
mmissioner Toerge noted the deck on the plans narrow down three feet being held •
the stringline. However, there has been no validation or verification as to exactl•A
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 tt
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
I, 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 fi
deck and is the extent of their back yard.
nmissioner Hawkins noted that there is support for this. Substitute Motion was
Je to give direction to staff to have this item come back at the next regular)
eduled meeting to reduce either the size of the decks or the encroachment of the
re structure so that the Commission can come to some middle ground. He restated
motion so that it was to continue this item with direction to either reduce the size o •
decks or reduce the depth of the house so that the line that we are talking about,
t is said to be a stringline at some point, is pulled back on both the second floor as
I as the top floor.
file: //H:1Plancomm1200510106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 13 of 27
hairperson Tucker noted that technically we are supposed to vote on the substitute
otion first but would like to have more discussion on the main motion. He noted tha
e 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.
e would suggest that we accept that offer on the second floor deck to move it back tc
e 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 dect
ere 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;
rt 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.
nmissioner Hawkins - no
nmissioner McDaniel - no
nmissioner Selich - yes
nmissioner Toerge - stated he did not know where the stringline originates on i
ierfield property or the adjacent property that is apparently going to be
eloped. The encroachment into that area is some 50 feet away from 1
ierfields' property and is all the way out. The deck currently complies.
nmissioner Cole - yes. He added that he understands that the lower deck is i
of the variance request, but the first floor deck can be reduced by 2 - 4 feet a
ild be a great improvement to the adjacent neighbor and not impact the quality
project.
nmissioner Eaton - no
rperson 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 flo
e all agree that I can bring it back and work that one out; the first floor deck area is i
eir primary living space, and I don't want to make it more complicated, but if I toi
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 tl
im total of their outside back yard on the sunny side of the house. So, I am trying
iy that maybe there is a way I can pull it back but yet square it off a little bit, but it
e usability of the deck issue that I am most concerned about for the family.
iissioner Toerge stated what I understand now that the Chairman proposed
would be no modification to the first floor deck, which is at the living level, I
iraging some modification to the second floor deck, which is off the mas
om. You are suggesting that you can do that and I am not sure how mu
y we are asking you to move this back. Do we know, is it this dimension on t
file: //H:1Plancomm1200510106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 14 of 27
Jeannette answered referencing the plans, it is taking the furthest projection an
ng it in by approximately 4 feet.
irperson Tucker noted the architect would give up the space on the, second deck
leave the first deck the way it is. That was my proposal, and I 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 tl
because it is certainly a viable choice. 1 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.
nmissioner Hawkins restated his Substitute Motion to continue this item wit •
ction to either reduce the size of the decks or reduce the depth of the house so that
line that we are talking about, that is said to be a stringline at some point, is pulled
k on both the second floor as well as the top floor.
Selich, Toerge, Tucker and Cole
None
None
tirperson Tucker suggested a modification to the main motion to pull the cre
ped portion of the upper level deck back to the deck stringline as labeled on
second floor plan.
imissioner 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
iething that he would be willing to work with. I would like the motion to reflect 1
feet he offered to be part of the motion.
imissioner Toerge affirmed that area (first floor deck) is not above the height
therefore he does not support modifying the motion.
sioner McDaniel noted that the architect offered it If the first floor deck can bed •
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.
file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005
4
Page 15 of 27
he maker of the motion agreed.
ommissioner Cole stated he is not willing to vote in favor of the motion for only a 1
of reduction of the first level deck and would not vote for it unless it was a 2 foo
duction.
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
oor deck such that it is not oceanward of the stringline as labeled on sheet A3 second
oor Ian; 2 reduce the depth of the first floor deck by two feet.
yes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
bsent:
None
bstain:
None
OBJECT: Gates Residence Appeal (PA2004 -208)
ITEM NO.4
505 J. Street
PA2004 -208
Appeal 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
rrectness of that determination.
aff requested that this item be continued to January 20, 2005.
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to January 20, 2005
yes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
oes:
None
bsent:
None
At stain:
None
OBJECT: 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. H
asked if staff had reviewed the canopy this week noting that the poles are no longer
fixed or screwed in but are in some potted plants, or otherwise fixed.
Mr. Campbell answered that planning staff has not been out to the property this week.
Based on what was just indicated, that particular alteration is not compliant with the
previous stop work order that was presented to the property owner January of Iasi
ear. The Chief Building Inspector was sent out today to issue a second stop work
order. He was not granted entry to see the area in question. That was an
nauthorized alteration to the previous attachment of the structure to the building.
r. Anthony Ciasulli, representing Geoff Le Plastrier, noted the following:
. The appellant came into the City over a year ago and discussed with staff wha
file: //11:\Plancomm\2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 16 of 27
he wanted to do and was told that this could be done without permits orb
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 t
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 need
to anchor this awning in order for it to be safe. We are working with the Building
Department and have hired an engineer who has prepared a report that show
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 applican
to work with the Building Department to secure a building permit and to allow th
awning to stay as is.
. He noted that staff should be directed to change some of the regulations so this
confusing situation doesn't occur again.
Geoff Le Plastrier, appellant and owner of 227 Goldenrod, noted similar discussion
above adding he interviewed three contractors who had experience in this type of
ping. He knew there was a problem when a stop work order was issued. He called
Building Department and was told there was a complaint lodged by staff. I
rking 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
aussion, had, when I walked into the City initially, been told we could not do what I •
icipated doing. I express my desire to continue to work with the Building
partment to resolve this issue. I did rely in good faith on what the City told me and
)ended a substantial amount of money based on that representation.
file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005
hairperson Tucker asked about a letter of determination dated October 2004.
iow 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:
ied and the subject of the stop work order, is a structure for purposes of oui
. The secondary issue is, if it is not actually bolted or in some other manner
ied 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 probabh
our issues are going to end up being.
imissioner Selich asked does this necessarily have to be attached to the ground?
re is one part of the phrase, 'which required location on the ground or attachment t(
ground.' It seems to me that if the columns are required to be located on the
ind to support the structure, that becomes part of the definition of structure and no
zlssarily having to be attached to something on the ground. Maybe I am no
ling that right.
son Tucker noted that it says, "...the use of which required location on
which I don't think is on the ground because it i5 on a second floor r
'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 ma
ire that the canopy is safe and complies with the Code for safety and wind, etc. (
igineer prepared a report that was provided to the Building Department showing h
e 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
temative 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 w
an it would be sitting on the ground. If we can do that, we propose to keep i
vning as is. The Planning Commission would determine it is not a structure becal.
is not attached, but the condition would be that the Building Department would hs
conclude that in its unattached state, it was still safe, even though it was on i
ound with some heaviness.
irperson Tucker asked if, in order to meet safety regulations, say for instance, a
high canopy was weighed down with 500 pounds on each leg, it would still not
,hed as long as there are no straps. The massiveness and the manner and weil
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
ame situation that wouldn't be acceptable to this Commission and I don't V
Ad be acceptable to this Commission. But, given this particular canopy, given
s of the situation where we came in and were told after providing plans of
spy, that it didn't require any permits or approvals, after being given all
7icting information, given we are not 20 feet in the air, given the height of
spy, which is not 500 pounds that will be needed, that is my proposal.
Page 17 of 27
file: //H:\Plancomm1200510106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 18 of 27
airperson Tucker noted that the next applicant may be standing before us with
icture that is taller and requires more weighting. It strikes me it is no different if it'
i into the ground via weights than if it's attached in some other fashion. It seems it is
tamount to an attachment, why wouldn't that be the case? •
Ciasulli answered it wouldn't be the case because right now the Code is ambiguous
to that being the case. How can a .citizen deal with anything other then what is
rently 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
de to make sure this ambiguity in this situation does not happen in the future. W
not come in to say we were putting up a patio umbrella; we told them what we were
ng to put up. Given these circumstances and the ambiguity, he asked that this item
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 Plannin
mission can make reasonable interpretations as far as what that means if it is no
covered in the definition?
Ohl, Deputy City Attorney, answered that it was his understanding of the
imissioner Selich noted for example, if we don't find that it is physically attached
ground, we can find other elements that are inherent in the structure that woi
:e it.a structure but not necessarily having it be attached to the ground. That is t
crtion that I am heading.
Ohl answered that you have that discretion
iirperson Tucker noted it comes down to the definition of attachment. The purpos •
idding weight to the legs is to keep the facility there. It is a permanent facility. All
weighting on each leg has a purpose to it and that is to make sure that the thing
sn't go into the neighbor's house in a wind storm. It is to keep it there as part of
structure; that is the function that particular weighting would perform.
missioner Cole noted it is an ambiguous wording in the Code,. but originally there
a strap to have it attached, which under the hard definition would constitute
lure. You have changed it, so technically there is a loop hole where it no longer
ars to be a structure per the language. Are you willing to reduce the height of the
ig or canopy?
Le Plastrier answered that he removed the straps in deference to what they heE
i staff. That was their definition, not mine. Clearly, if that was part of the solution
ipromise, I would be willing to live with that.
Wood noted that in a meeting that staff had with Mr. Ciasulli and Mr. Le Plastrier
December 15th, we specifically directed them not to change to the weight system
I after the Commission's determination. With regard to the ability to lower the
)ht, that is another thing that would have to have review by the Building Department
:ause there could be a clearance issue if it comes down. The canopy is a structure
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. Whether
V attach or weight down the structure, they will need a building permit.
Ac comment was opened. •
J. Johnson, resident of Corona del Mar and a realtor, noted the following:
file: //H:\Plancomm\2005\0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 19 of 27
1 . 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 tl
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.
ommissioner Toerge noted it is always frustrating when a citizen is misled or feels I
3s 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 n
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 comr
ith our height restrictions.
Cole noted he concurs.
imissooner 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 strut
when the sides are down, functions as an enclosure. So it is a structure.
file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 20 of 27
iirperson Tucker note his agreement. The manner in which this will be attached to
roof, either it will be bolted and tied in some fashion, or there will be weight that
ses it to not go anywhere. It is intended to be a permanent facility, then it meet
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 C
structures.
• We provided staff a number of people in the City that have awnings, we've give
them addresses of the exact same things that are on people's deck that are no
going to have to come down because they are attached, or they are going to
have to come down because they are going to blow away in the wind and the
Building department finds them not safe.
• This is opening up a Pandora's box and is a decision that will affect a lot o •
people in town who have these awning structures.
arson Tucker noted, in this particular case, the only issue that I see on
re aspect of it is it therefore has to comply with the height limit.
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. 1 would hope in the near term we can correct this ambiguity.
was made by Commissioner Hawkins to uphold the Planning
None
None
None
: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
-ial building to exceed the allowable building bulk limit established by Section Denied wit
10 of the Municipal Code. prejudie
Tucker noted he had been in discussion with staff as to what
file: //H:\Plancomm\2005\0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 21 of 27
immission's jurisdiction is. There is an application that had been filed and a decisioi
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 Commission
d prior to the time that the appeal arrived to the Planning Commission, the applican
bmitted 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 i;
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 wE
wId 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 appealing
this point. I suppose one of the decisions that is possible for us is to deny thi
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 alternative
It of plans, or do we just consider the original plans that were filed, denied an(
r. Campbell, referring to the Appeal Section 20.95 of the Municipal Code, noted
)pellant body shall consider only the same application, plans and project rely
aterials that were subject to the original decision, unless otherwise deemed relei
r 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
icision, staff felt that the revised plan is a picture of what the project might look
id be relevant.
,erson Tucker noted what we may chose to look at the new plans in order to
a decision but it has no bearing on what is before us. What is before us is an
d application with original plans that were denied. We can look at an
ation we want, but I don't see that we have the ability to approve a plan that has
officially been submitted to the City. This is an appeal, we are either going to
the appeal or deny the appeal. He went on to note his concern of where the
review fits in this process with the new plans.
ssioner Cole noted if we have received an appeal, we can approve the apl
to modifications. We can look at the original plan and we could approve
subject to the modifications that have been submitted during a hearing.
Wood added that generally that is the case. There have been examples wh
eone has appealed a project to either the Planning Commission or to the C
ncil and those appellant bodies have approved the project but with modificatic
what had been approved at the lower body, even if the applicant had i
nitted those modifications. What is different about this case, it isn't an appeal of
oval by the applicant or by an aggrieved party; this is an appeal of a denial corn
the applicant who is submitting new plans in hopes of getting a better reaction.
hairperson 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.
Toerge noted his agreement. It is frustrating whenever a plan
file: //H:1Plancomm\200510106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 22 of 27
hand we have it and the public does not. It is important, since it is here today, that wed
offer some feedback.
irperson Tucker asked that if we find the only thing that is before us is the origina •
, then does it make any sense to talk about the revised plan because it is not on
agenda? That is my sense. We can talk about the original plan and from our
ments the applicant would be able to see how it would apply to the new plan.
a. Wood noted, earlier the Chairperson made the comment that even if you felt th
wr jurisdiction here was limited to the original plan that was considered by tl
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 this
at needs any separate Brown Act notification and you are free to talk about it at lea
those terms.
Gary Wiggle of Keisker & Wiggle Architects, Inc. representing the owner noted he is
prepared to make a presentation of what is not before the Commission noting:
. He and the applicant had made a presentation to the Development Revievy
Committee.
. He made a submittal of plan.
. He then received a denial of those plans but was not aware that it was a once in,
once out response.
. There were a number of comments made by staff that were addressed wit •
corrections, but it was not enough.
. In a follow -up meeting we were told we could appeal the denial and we were
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 office
and it does not have an attachment to an alley.
. These plans are our solution to staffs concerns.
. Following a brief discussion, he then asked that this appeal be. denied withou
prejudice.
Commissioner Selich asked, in doing the design, did you come up with a design tha
had the floor area at ground level and had parking on the property? How many squar
feet did you end up with and were you able to park it?
r. Wiggle answered, yes, they had done a study almost a year ago, but did noq •
member the numbers. He thought it might be in the area of roughly 22 -2300 feet.
came about a 50/50 prospect of building to parking.
file: //H:1Plancomm\200510106.htm 01!21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 23 of 27
ommissioner Eaton asked about the turn around area behind the wall and asked wha
ould happen if the wall was pulled back to allow planting of bushes and vines on th
utside adjacent to Coast Highway.
Wiggle answered that could easily be done. They want to maintain
suvering room in the garage, but we could pull that wall back somewhat.
iairperson Tucker asked why we should shift away from the massing requirem
fen the location of this property. One of the reasons that a use permit goes thr<
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 (
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
cant 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 directll.
ck of sidewalk. The back building in height as you can see by the sketches, you cal
e 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. Then
not a lot of parking lots in front, most of them are adjacent, we do not have a lot c
Messed 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
lution 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
in with the openings being similar in scale in character to the storefronts tha
)pen on most of the other buildings around. We are under the allowable height ii
t 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 abov(
I. We brought some trellis elements out and tied those to the front to create som(
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
lily step up into the sloped roof area that we are proposing so that the transition if
neighborhood is continuing much the same as it does in most of Corona del Mar.
it 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:h
ijunction with the sidewalk experience you have up and down the highway.
issioner Cole noted the PCH elevation design of steel grill.openings against
ilk, is that going to be painted? When this does come before the Commis:
it would be nice to see planting detail.
file: //H:\Plancomm\200510106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 24 of 27
Wiggle answered that is going to be a decorative trellis, open and planted in front.
ie construction of that 8 inch concrete wall with 4 inches of stone and along the back
sidewalk there is an area for planting of vines. That foot, the grates are set on the
side, and it is our intent to plant vines there as well. It will screen the cars and soften •
openings.
iblic comment was opened.
I 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 Doughnut
and Ritz Cleaners.
• He asked about the ingress and egress from the project.
• He asked that a traffic study be done.
ff Pence, resident and owner of the property on the other comer. He noted the new
an has to be resubmitted and notice has to be given to the public. The intersection is
1 signalized and if you allow a wall development to come in you literally can not se
get across the intersection. It is very congested. He asked that this be denied.
sblic comment was closed.
)mmissioner Toerge noted: .
. The project exceeds the building bulk limitation by at least 70 %, maybe the ne
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.
. 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 don
think it is possible. There are only a couple of cars of parking outside of the
parking structure and I don't know how a UPS or a FedEx truck can make the
deliveries without blocking the driveway or the parking lot. The design is no
adequate in that regard. •
• If the project does get approved, whereby the curb cuts on Coast Highway may
be eliminated, I would like that condition to further state that concurrently with th
file: //H:\Plancomm1200510106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 25 of 27
elimination of the curb cuts, that new parking stalls along Coast Highway will in
l
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 empli
in an office environment to park there but for any visitors or retail application
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.rete
the curb cut on Coast Highway closest to Orchid if that suited the design; and ai
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 parld
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 compatit
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.
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.
. 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
using part of the site for parking and maybe count part of the adjacent s
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.
issioner Cole noted:
file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \0106.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 26 of 27
. He doesn't have a problem with the project.
• We can make the bulk findings as the building is compatible with the surrounding
area. •
• This is the best use as far as impact to traffic as it is an office building with 14
parking spaces at grade that will only by used by the tenant of that building. No
a tremendous amount of traffic would be caused by this development.
• This is a unique site.
Timissioner Eaton noted-
. Compatibility with the village plan is a valid issue.
• A smaller building would be more desirable.
,nmissioner Hawkins noted that he agrees with the comments made b
mmissioners Toerge and Selich.
irperson Tucker noted his concern of supporting a use permit for bulk for a building
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 the
track; maybe there is a way to do it and pick up a couple of spaces on the street
do not exist today where you can get some credit.
ion was made by Chairperson Tucker to deny the appeal and uphold the decision •
ie Planning Director without prejudice so that the applicant can work with staff and
e up with something for this admittedly difficult site.
imissioner Toerge asked if there were financial ramifications to the applicant for the
in which we approve or deny this for them bringing back the plan and paying
:her fee, etc.?
s. Wood answered she does not intend to charge them another fee.
yes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins
Noes:
None
bsent:
None
bstain:
None
)DITIONAL 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.
file: //H:\Plancomm1200510I06.htm 01/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 27 of 27
b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committe�
- no meeting.
c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan
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 ages
for action and staff report - Following a brief discussion, it was agreed to h;
Council recommend or not that the matter of the language regarding canopy
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 cancellec
as that is the night of the Mayor's dinner.
h. Reauest for excused absences - none.
JEFFREY COLE, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
•
file: //H:\Plancomm\200510106.htm 01/21/2005