Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes• LJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Commissioners Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - Commissioner Gifford was excused STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the minutes of March 6, 2003 as written. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Excused: Gifford Public Comments: Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, March 28, 2003. INDEX Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 SUBJECT: McDonald's Corporation - (PA 23001 -155) 700 West Coast Highway Use Permit and Development Plan to redevelop the existing McDonald's restaurant in the Mariner's Mile area. The existing 3,045 sq. ff, restaurant will be demolished and a new 3,113 sq. ft. restaurant building will be constructed with a reconfigured drive - thru. The application also requests a modification of required parking. Ms. Temple reported that the applicant had requested an additional continuance of this matter. However, due to the number of continuances and the fact that there is still no final plan of the project, staff believes that the project should be re- noticed and therefore recommend that the Planning Commission remove this item from the calendar. Mr. Campbell noted that the applicant is aware that this item is being removed from the calendar and that it will need to be re- noticed. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to remove this item from calendar. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Thai Del Mar (PA2003 -002) 2754 East Coast Highway Request to amend Use Permit No. 3153 to allow a change in operational characteristics from a take -out restaurant to a full service, small scale restaurant and to permit the addition of customer seating which is prohibited by the existing Use Permit. Ms. Temple noted that following consultation with the Building Department staff on the need for the installation of a handicap accessible restroom in association with approval of a use permit to allow on -site seating with food service, our local building code requires a restroom because there is patron seating present. However, there is a restroom on site. It is the Health and Safety Code that prohibits its use by patrons due to its location since customers may not pass through the kitchen in order to access the restroom. It is a Health and Safety Code requirement and the County Health Department is the enforcing agency on that limitation. Because of this, staff feels it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to eliminate condition 16 altogether, thereby not requiring any changes to the existing restaurant arrangement. However, if this is done, it should be done with the acknowledgement of the applicant that the Health Department does have the power to enforce the requirements of the Health and Safety Code and could create compliance problems for the business later on. If the Health Department got to the point of requiring a restroom consistent with the requirement not to pass through the kitchen, we also think there is a possibility that the kitchen could be INDEX item 1 PA2001 -155 Removed from calendar Item 2 PA2003 -002 Approved . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 redesigned to provide a path that could be considered outside the area of food preparation. However, until the process has gone through the Health Department, we can not assure the Commission that the Health Department would in fact conclude the alternate method would be satisfactory. If the Planning Commission wishes that path to be pursued then condition 16 should be maintained At Commission inquiry, she added that no letters of objection had been received and several of support had been received. Chairperson Kiser noted that he was not present for the February 20th meeting but had read the minutes of the meeting and the prior staff report and is prepared to participate tonight. Chairperson Kiser asked about the feasibility of using the back door as an entrance to the restroom. Ms. Temple noted that this would not be acceptable because: There is an intervening commercial property, • Patrons would have to come out to Coast Highway, over to the street and over Goldenrod and come back in; this would be a long path to travel and not meet the requirements for accessibility. • Building Department suggested an arrangement within the cooking and • storage area where a path could be created down one side in order to create a path to the restroom facility. • The current floor plan is the revised floor plan dated January 3b that was in the last meeting packet and it has not been changed. • The tenant space is only 11 1/2 feet wide and a 3 foot travel path will take substantially from the kitchen width. Commissioner Tucker noted that the continuance for this item was for the purpose to see if staff had a means to resolve condition 16. The codes are great and meaningful, but this a 600 foot space and you can not have a handicap restroom with perfect access without spending so much money to redo it that it is a choice of remaining in business or not. As for as the Planning Commission is concerned, I would like not to be the one who decides to put them out of business. If the Health Department does that, there is nothing we can do. I will be making a motion to delete condition 16 and approve this application and move it on. Public comment was opened. Mr. Robert Wynn, spoke representing the lessees of the restaurant. He noted he had met with the Building Director due to the concern of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) restroom requirement. The Director noted that the Building Department does not require ADA restroom unless a new one is required and built. The County Environmental Health Agency has a prohibition of passing through the areas of food preparation. He noted that there are two bids for the restroom work, one at $18,500 and one for $17,950. The Health Department is concerned • about patrons walking through the food preparation area. The applicant is s INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3.2003 planning on moving some shelving and putting signs up to lead patrons directly to the restrooms. The back door leads through a corridor out onto Goldenrod and is used for deliveries. He requests that item 16 be removed because if the applicant can not satisfy the Health Department, they have the rules and regulations to require a new restroom. If there is a new restroom, the Building Department will require that it be ADA compliant. If the Health Department is satisfied, the Building Department has no problem with the restroom as it now stands. At Commission inquiry, he added that the lessee is trying to get his lease renewed next year. Chairperson Kiser noted his support of Commissioner Tucker's statement. Commissioner Agajanian noted that this is an abnormally small structure that was intended for a small restaurant use, not a regular restaurant use, due to the parking. We are fighting against a required restroom; this may not be the right place for this type of restaurant. Even with condition 16 removed, I don't mind it remaining the way it is but letting this use expand into a space that is too small for what it is intended, I am not going to be able to support it. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the requested amendment to Use Permit No. 3153 (PA2003-002) based on the findings and conditions of approval within the draft resolution with the removal of condition 16. • Chairperson Kiser added: In Section 2 of the resolution, add tonight's public hearing date. In Section 4, the plans were dated January 3, 2003 not January 1, 2003. Date the resolution to April 3, 2003. Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Noes: Agajanian Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendment Citywide Amend Chapter 20.85 to be compliant with Assembly Bill No. 1866, Chapter 1062, Statutes 2002. This amendment would make the existing Use Permit requirement for a granny unit subject to the approval by the Planning Director. Copies of Ordinance No. 88-39 and 88-46 were distributed to the Planning Commission. Public comment was opened and then closed. Commissioner Tucker, noting that the Planning Director was uniquely suited to handle this as opposed to the Planning Commission and since it is appealable to the Planning Commission made Motion to Adopt Resolution No. 1592 A INDEX Item 3 PA2003 -054 Recommended for approval City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 2003 -001 to the City Council. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, , Selich, Tucker Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Peter and Theresa Casteton (PA2003 -028) 1112 Dolphin Terrace Appeal filed by Peter and Theresa Castleton of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2003-012 allowing the construction of a privacy wall to encroach within the required front yard and side yard setback. Ms. Theresa Castleton, the applicant, noted the following: • Her husband sits on the homeowners' association and the architectural committee for the association; neither of these groups have objections nor are there specific requirements that plans be submitted for approval. • The existing wall provides a 3 '/2 foot courtyard and they are trying to push this wall out closer to the curb. • On the analysis prepared in the staff report, she does not disagree with the two primary concerns of proximity of the encroachment to the curb or • sidewalk; and the precedent that it could set in the neighborhood. • They have had some errors since the beginning of this process with their architect and the initial layout; and, she did not realize where the encroachment was when talking at the Modifications hearing. • They are asking for the Planning Commission to approve a wall that would be 11 feet back from the curb. • There would not be a precedent if this was approved as various properties in the neighborhood have higher walls and some that are closer to the curb. • All they are asking for is consistency with what other neighbors have listing a few properties that she looked at for comparisons • They have the support of neighbors as there is no infringement to their views. • The measurements mentioned were taken from the curb. Chairperson Kiser, referring to the plans, asked about the measurement of a 7 foot block wall that was penciled in red over 6 feet. Is this an essential part of your proposal as well? I believe it was intended to be 6 feet and not 7 feet in the original submittal. It could have an impact on the visual aspect. Ms. Castleton answered that the Modifications Committee approved a 7 foot wall because that courtyard and wall provides privacy for the master bedroom and a window that overlooks the master bathroom. When the plans were re- drafted for the appeal, I noticed they were set for 6 feet even though the Modifications Committee had approved 7 feet. I made that notation after talking to the architect. The height right now of the wall is 10 feet. At Commission inquiry, she noted that the issue of 7 versus 6 feet is not that critical as they plan to landscape 0 the planter in front to provide privacy. S INDEX Item No. 4 PA2003 -028 Appeal denied City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes ADril 3.2003 Commissioner Tucker noted he would like to know the dimensions off the sidewalk as the edge of the sidewalk appears to be the property line. Mrs. Castleton stated that was another source of confusion. Looking at Exhibit 3, the original plan had the error. The property line is actually 2 % feet back from the sidewalk, but when it was discussed at the Modifications Committee that was one of the things that came up, where the,property line was in relation to the sidewalk. Commissioner Tucker noted that the applicant is requesting to have: • The wall be 6'/z feet back from the back of the sidewalk; and 4 feet from the properly line. • What are the reasons to support the Modifications Committee recommendation$ Mr. Campbell added that the ten foot wall is 14 feet from the back of the sidewalk, so the applicant is asking for the wall to come closer to the sidewalk by approximately 8 feet from where it is today. The Modifications Committee felt that having that wall that close to the sidewalk would be a detriment to the area. They based that on the proximity of the wall to the public space that is the sidewalk, not based on where the applicant thought the property line was. The error on the depiction of the property lines on the plans did not play a significant role, although it • did create confusion, but was not a critical factor in the decision, it was really the proximity issue of moving it closer to the sidewalk by 8 feet. Commissioner Toerge noted it was not clear what the Modifications Committee approved and what the applicants want as we have sets of plans that have errors in them. I want to understand exactly what you are trying to accomplish and what the Modifications Committee approved. Ms. Castleton answered: • The Modifications Committee approved 13 feet back from the curb. • We are seeking to have it 11 feet back from the curb. Commissioner Toerge confirmed that there is no plan in the packet that reflects what the Modifications Committee approved. Mr. Campbell answered that the Modifications Committee approved a 4 foot encroachment within the setback. They did not approve the wall be 8 feet closer to the sidewalk. That would provide a measurement from the sidewalk, 8'/2 feet back. Comparing the two projects, the applicant wants the wall 2 feet closer to the street than what was approved by the Modifications Committee. Commissioner McDaniel asked why the 2 feet was a significant concern to staff. Ms. Temple answered that the setbacks in Irvine Terrace vary from lot to lot. Presumably that was established for specific purposes in terms of maintaining a varied streetscape so that there was not a solid frontage all along. The nature of this 0 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 encroachment in the overall scheme is relatively minor as it does not create structural floor area as it is a patio enclosure. The Modifications Committee does attempt to look at things in context to the neighborhood and particularly when walls are being built near to or adjacent to public ways such as sidewalks to look at maintaining acceptable and aesthetically pleasing streetscape. They draw their judgments based on what is in the neighborhood. There is no absolute technical reason why one or the other size of encroachment is wrong except with your own determination. We do know that once staff starts approving these kinds of encroachments at certain scales, then the next property owner will look to the more recent approvals and how much might be accommodated for them as well. We do not know if the other properties encroach or not because the setbacks may be different. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser noted that when he looked at the area of the property, there are some walls that appear as close to the sidewalks as is being proposed. He noted he does not have a problem with it. If the applicant does not have a problem with the wall being 6 feet since the home sits up over the street, along with the landscape plans suggested in the applicants plans dated January 28th, 2002 he suggested with the one change it be a 6 foot high wall, not 7 feet high. • Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser that the Planning Commission approve the structure as shown on the plans included in the staff report dated January 28, 2002, which should be changed to 2003, but with the height of the wall being 6 feet versus 7 feet. Commissioner Tucker noted he would not support the motion. The Modifications Committee deals with these issues many times throughout the year. It is something that since I don't sense they have committed an error on this application, I support what the Modifications Committee approved; although the idea of moving it down to 6 feet is a good one. Commissioner Selich noted his support of the comments by Commissioner Tucker, adding that he tends to rely on the Modifications Committee for their judgment. He therefore is not in support of the motion. Commissioner Agajanian noted he is not in support of the motion because he supports less encroachments and variances. Commissioner Toerge noted he supports the Modifications Committee recommendation. The City is granting an encroachment into the setbacks in either circumstance and he hasn't heard any compelling reasons to overturn their decision. Chairperson Kiser withdrew his motion. Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to uphold the decision of the Modifications 7 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes AD►II 3.2003 Committee to approve Modification Permit No. 2003012 with the wall at 7 feet. Ayes: Toerge, Aga)anian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Excused: Gifford SUBJECT: Generl Plan Amendment (PA2002 -244) 129 Agate Avenue Request to amend the General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations from Retail and Service Commercial (Residential) to Two - Family Residential, amend the Zoning Code to change the Zoning District from Retail and Service Commercial (RSC -R) to Restricted Two - Family Residential (R -1.5). The application also requests approval of a parcel map that would create two parcels out of the three existing lots for the future construction of up to four dwelling units. Chairperson Kiser recused himself from this matter as he had been compensated within the last year by the applicant in a different partnership. He then turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman McDaniel. . Mr. Ramirez confirmed that the Planning Commission received revised page 4 of the draft resolution and the conditions of approval for the parcel map that were omitted with the staff report. Scott Laidlaw, architect spoke for the applicants noting the following: • The change in use is due to a change in ownership. • Looking for a viable use for the property at the current property value as the service commercial use, given the current values and traffic patterns, is not a viable use. • The pedestrian traffic associated with the ferry splits and takes the boardwalk along ocean front or at best, goes along the s/w side of the street with the destination back towards the village. • There is existing commercial use on this section of Agate, it is older use associated with property values that go back with that older ownership. • The existing parking use, though convenient, currently is clearly not a viable use given the value of the property's location. • The R1.5 use is a much better use. We will look at probably doing single family homes, although we do not know for sure at this point as that is consistent with the uses on the two sides of the property. • The proposed change will reduce the intensity of land use. • We ask that the Commission adopt staff recommendation number one and approve this application. • He requested clarification of condition 6 regarding the 10 foot radius comer cutoff as it seems at odds with the setbacks. At Commission inquiry he added: INDEX Item No. 5 PA2002 -244 Recommended for Approval . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes Anril 3. 2003 • The three lot use does not support residential use consistent with the other residential use on Balboa Island. • The idea is to go from three to two lots and then have residential lots that will be slightly larger but more consistent with the neighborhood. • This will result in either single family or duplex homes on each lot. • Both of those development patterns are consistent with the residential development already on Balboa Island. • This is generally a lower intensity use. • There will only be two property owners, whether there is a duplex or single family residence that decision has not been made yet. However, they are leaning towards two single family homes. • The garages are off the alley. Commissioner Tucker noted: • The pure housing is rather incompatible with the area. • Something other than a parking lot is certainly an entitlement, although the parking is nice to have there. Public comment opened. Alan Beek, resident of Balboa Island noted that this conversion is a great idea and • more is needed in the City. He asked that this be approved. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -003, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2003 -001, Code Amendment No. 2002 -009, Newport Parcel Map No. 2002 -031 (PA2002 -244). Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Selich, Tucker Recused: Kiser Excused: Gifford ••• SUBJECT: Ensign Residence (PA2003 -006) 3415 Ocean Blvd. Request for a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit. The application also includes a request for a modification permit to allow subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new residence to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The applicant does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. Chairperson Kiser noted the additional conditions of approval distributed. is T: Item No. 6 PA2003.006 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 Mr. Ramirez noted those additional conditions reflect required Fire and Building Code policies that, considering the scope of the project, should be in written form so everyone can be made aware of these issues. He then made a short slide presentation noting the project site, aerial photo depicting access off the frontage road along with five other homes, and noted a couple of those properties that had variances that either allowed height above top of curb (no access off frontage road) or height above natural grade, as well as views of the property from the beach. Also included in the slide presentation were the plans and artist rendering of the proposed project that were also included as part of the packet. He then noted the 24 foot height limit of the existing grade, the line of existing grade, the site topography, and the line of the finished grade on the plans as well as the slab on grade deck. Also noted was the elevation of the floor of the roof deck as it relates to the curb height, which measured approximately 6 feet below the top of curb height. Commissioner Selich, noting the existing topography of the property, stated it was curious that the house on one side had to get a variance in order to be constructed and the house on the other side was constructed without a variance. Both the houses appear to be at the some height so I suspect that one was in condition like this site where they had to grade a pad out on the bluff, where the house on the other side the pad had already been excavated and were able to construct without a variance. Is this true? • Ms. Temple answered she could research that but added that in addition to the natural grade a lot of the issues related to compliance with the 24 foot height limit oftentimes flow out of the actual design of the roof as well. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Ramirez noted that all the homes on that frontage road as depicted in a slide taken from the beach area will have similar roof heights as they all must comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitations. Chairperson Kiser acknowledged receipt of a letter from Mr. Phil and Lynn Butterfield; a copy of the letter from Zumbrum Law Firm dated April IA opposed to the project, and a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Halfacre in support of the project. Public comment was opened. Kurt Ensign, resident and applicant noted the following: • Care was taken in consideration of views and issues related to scale and size with regard to the neighboring properties. • The height does not exceed the top of curb limitation; does not exceed the 24 foot height limit as viewed from the front of the house; compared to the neighbors, the rendering matches the ridge line of the neighboring home and on the other side, it slopes down. • We have preserved view corridors on either side of the project. • This is a three story home that does have a split with a basement. The homes on either side are three stories. • A denial of this proposal would be inconsistent with what is built around the 0 10 .101 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 • We are all held to the fact that we can not build out towards the ocean and over 2/3 of our lot on the rear is not buildable. • We only have 25 feet of buildable depth of house once the front yard setback is subtracted and comply with the string line in the back. That is the hardship that necessitates a variance. • The building height on the beach side is why we need the variance. We have been careful to match what the existing homes have on the base of the home. • We are requesting to encroach into the front yard setback but it is entirely below the street grade. The livable space will not be visible to anyone. • We have proposed a basement. We will be subject to the Building Department and the basement will be constructed pursuant to appropriate codes and structural engineering standards and requirements, etc. and all our contractors will provide the essential insurance. • The roof deck is a concern of our neighbor across and above us on the other side of the street. Therefore, I have offered and will be recording a covenant that restricts any portable furnishings that exceed top of curb height not be allowed on the roof deck. It will be recorded and subject to civil litigation. • The variance is more of a technical one as the proposed height is consistent with the neighbors; the size is three stories, the same as the neighbors'; the • design complies with the string line along the rear of the home and the variance for the front yard is not visible and is consistent with recent approvals. Chairperson Kiser noted that every variance granted is done so on its own merits and is not considered a precedent. Commissioner Selich, referring to the slides noted his concern of taking away more of the bluff area. Mr. Ensign noted that there is an existing retaining wall on the right side of the house. When that is removed, we will intersect the dirt at that natural grade line. Referring to the slides, he noted the slab at the ground, retaining wall and the natural grade between the homes. The adjacent homes are three stories and do not have basements. Alan Beek, resident of the City noted the following: • The setback is a vital part of the narrow street which gives access to other houses and the project should be conditioned upon the ceiling of these rooms being constructed with sufficient strength to support these heavy vehicles and the setback area being paved to form a continuation of the street. • The maximum height of the house should not be more than the minimum height of the Ocean Blvd., curb that is 91.91 MSL, as proposed it is 92.53 MSL. The loss of half a foot of the view of the ocean is significant. • The encroachment of four feet beyond the string line for the grade level 0 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 patio on the ocean side should not be granted and the applicant should be made to hold the line. If you hold to the standard and grant no exceptions, everyone has equal treatment and the homes present a smooth front with no exceptions. • The proposed findings are slanted for the applicant. The same circumstances and conditions apply to the whole row of homes on the top of the bluff. The proposed project does not comply with the Ocean Blvd. top of curb height limitation; it actually violates the limitation by 0.62 feet. The other properties have been held to the string line criterion and the curb height criterion; to grant even small exceptions for this property does constitute a grant of special privilege. • The project as designed is unreasonable. Given the number of bedrooms and the total floor area, this six - bedroom house with 5,627 square feet is more than a 'luxury'. These bedrooms average only 138 square feet - somewhat more like a barracks than a home. The five of them have only two bathrooms and one of those must be accessed through the game room. • 1 ask that you condition the project on not exceeding the string line with the grade level patio, on being lowered 0.62 feet to meet the height -of -curb criterion, and the front setback be made part of the street and supported with enough strength to carry City trash trucks. I strongly recommend that you require more garage spaces for six bedrooms as we all know that bedrooms translate to cars. Let's be realistic. • Commissioner Selich noted that the area referenced as the low point of the curb is also the low point of the roof and that roof is substantially below the 92.53, which appears at the other end of the property. Is that correct staff? Ms. Temple answered that the curb adjoining this property at Ocean Boulevard is not at a consistent elevation and in fact slopes from a high to low point. This particular house was designed so that at any static point along the frontage, the building conforms to the limitation of no higher than curb. The City's Zoning Code does not require no higher than the lowest point of curb adjoining the property, but only that it be no higher than the curb at that point. This particular property does conform to that provision. Chairperson Kiser noted that the project will be conditioned so that no part of the structure will be built higher than the curb height. The home is not being built underneath that access road. The excavation below grade into the setback and to the property line will only go up to the ocean side of that access road and no portion of the residence will be underneath the access road. Staff concurred. Continuing, he noted that we will be discussing the lower grade patio. Phil Butterfield, neighbors of the proposed project noted the following: • Concerned that the applicant stays within the restrictions that all the neighbors had to abide by. • Concerned with the excavation that is proposed and wants to be assured that the licensed contractors have insurance and that it will be built 0 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 according to City guidelines. • There is a difference between a retaining wall and actually removing an enormous amount of dirt that is planned. Not knowing the bluff stability, thinks that would be a great concern to the other neighbor as well. Lynn Butterfield, distributed handouts to the Planning Commission and noted: • The size of her newly constructed home and comparisons to the proposed project. • Asked that the project not be given anything more than the neighbors. • Concerned with safety issues of bluff erosion. • Roof deck with no umbrellas is not feasible as it gets very hot. • The granting of this application would be preferential treatment to the applicant. • At Commission inquiry, she stated that other than the excavation issue, she is concerned with the public right of way; exceeding the string line with the deck; and the height in back is taller than other projects. Don Cozarion, 3412 Ocean Boulevard across from the Ensign project noted: • The top deck could have been eliminated. • The project is a nice design. Chairperson Kiser asked if this project could be conditioned to require the recordation of a view easement that would prevent anything being placed on the top deck that would exceed the curb height. Ms. Clauson answered not in that regard. The concept of being involved with reviewing covenants, their effectiveness and what they are in exchange for along with rights would put the City in the position to see what is complied. You could look at puffing a condition in to prohibit anything on the roof, although I do not know the practicality of it. Chairperson Kiser noted that since we are talking about a public view and we have the authority to condition this for the public view from the walkway along Ocean Blvd., could we not condition the project? Ms. Clauson answered you could. Ms. Temple added that this is a legitimate concern, however from a practicality standpoint if someone puts out an umbrella for three hours on Saturday afternoon and brought it back in and on Monday there is a complaint, there is nothing we could do about it. If there was a storage shed, that may require building permits. It would not be permitted because it would exceed the height limit. There are a number of things after fact that people do try that require a building permit. I am concerned as an enforcement officer, not an attorney, that implying to the community that by imposing such a condition we could also effectively enforce it. I think it would be very difficult to stand up before the community and say we can impose it and yes we are going to be able to enforce it. • 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 Ms. Clauson stated that if the owner puts on their own covenant and there is no consideration for it, the next owner can take it off. There is really no enforcing capability that comes out of that particularly with future owners. Public comment was opened. Mr. Ensign noted that he has prepared the covenant and is going to record it because he gave his word. He added that the house was designed with two string lines in mind, one for the house and one for the deck. In both cases we comply and do not exceed either one. Mr. Ramirez added that per the plans the string lines are complied with. The confusion may lie in the deck that goes beyond the string line is the one that is on the lowest level on grade 4 feet beyond the string line. Mr. Ensign answered that it is not a deck, it is a slab that is on grade. Following a brief discussion he added that he has no intention of protruding beyond the string line on any level. Mr. Ramirez added that according to the plan from the front property line to the back of the furthest most portion of the deck /slab on grade (sheet A2), the lower level floor plan, that dimension as identified on plan is 44 feet. The other decks from the front setback to the farthest most portion dimension is 41 feet. • Mr. Ensign noted that these are concept plans and there will be no deck there. If you want to add a condition to preclude any decks from extending beyond the string lines from the adjacent properties, I am fine with that. Chairperson Kiser noted that anything that is approved tonight is based on the plans that are presented with the proper dimensions. Commissioner Selich noted that if this is a slab on grade, it could be landscape as well. Mr. Ensign noted that any railings on the decks will be glass. Rod Jones, 3328 Ocean Boulevard commended the applicant on the design and feels it will be an asset to the neighborhood. He voiced his concern with the amount of excavation that could happen. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich noted his support of the project: • Variance is warranted as the property has a steep slope going down. • There are two homes on either side, one needed a variance and one did not. • The topography of the property makes it difficult to build a reasonable house. 40 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 • The basement is the primary contributor to the extra square footage and any home can dig down and create a basement area as long as they are within the square footage limits. • It is a well designed home and stays below the curb height from Ocean Boulevard. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the project for similar reasons stated above. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the project as it gives consistency with everybody else. Commissioner Toerge noted his support of the project stating: • This parcel is not unique compared to the properties next door to it. • I am disappointed in our aged General Plan and Zoning Codes allow six bedrooms in this house while requiring only two cars of parking that on a frontage street that provides no off - parking. • Putting 6 bedrooms and providing two parking spaces can only create problems for the neighbors. • Concerned that the size of the home would start to encroach into the bluff area and change the character of the bluff, however, with the existing retaining wall in place, there will not be a significant difference. • With the retaining wall in place and the amount of grading to be done, • hopefully there will not be a tremendous difference. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the project: • The excavation issues are challenging and outside our purview. • The setback encroachment in front is not an issue. • The string line issues have been addressed. Chairperson Kiser noted his support of the project for similar reasons stated and made Motion to approve Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003-004 (PA2003-006) based on the findings and conditions of approval included within the staff report with the additional conditions 13, 14 and 15 distributed at the meeting with additional conditions that no portion of the residential structure would exceed the string fine from the homes on either side of the project, no portion of a project deck would exceed the string line from the decks of the homes on either side of the project, and the word 'deck' would be deleted from the plans which include the words 'slab on grade' so that no approval of a deck on the slab on grade shown on the plans would be implied. An additional condition that nothing is to be placed on the roof deck that would exceed the height of the curb at Ocean Boulevard. Ms. Clauson noted that the condition may be worded that nothing shall exceed the height of 4 -6 feet on the top deck so that it would be enforceable for any item, such as furniture, plants. Chairperson Kiser stated the condition should read no plantings, structures, • 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach is Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 furniture or any other objects can exceed the hi approved by this variance, which is about 6 feet Public comment was reopened. of the rail of the roof deck as ,e the level of the deck. Mr. Ensign said he agrees with the additional conditions. Public comment was closed. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Excused: Gifford ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council on March 251h, discussed the staffing levels of the Planning Department as two new positions are requested; the Council endorsed the Vision Statement; and introduced and passed to second hearing the Landmark Building statute. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that the April 23rd • meeting will have a presentation of the City's traffic model being used for the General Plan update. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanian reported that nominations had been approved to fill out the vacancies; and agreement was reached on the process and how the Planning Commission and City Council will be involved. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - create a consent calendar mechanism for the Planning Commission meetings. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple distributed an updated listing. Following a brief discussion item 4 is removed, item 9 is finished, and item 13 is going to be placed on the City Council Study Session in two weeks. h) Project status - We have received two applications, St Marks and St Andrews and staff has determined both require an environmental impact report. The • 16 INDEX Additional Business City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 Southcoast Shipyard will have a negative declaration and will come forward in the summertime. Requests for excused absences - Commissioners Tucker and Kiser are excused from meeting on April 17th and Commissioner Toerge is excused from the meeting on May 22nd. ADJOURNMENT. 9:45 p.m. SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION to 17 INDEX Adjournment