No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Rowe Residence - 2231 Pacific Drive04 rEW ADRT� m 0 ,.�a� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644.3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Rowe Residence 2231 Pacific Drive May 10, 1999 17 Marc Myers (949)644 -3210 PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: An appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission which upheld the decision of the Modifications Committee, which denied a request to change Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538. The Condition of Approval requires that use of an attic space over a garage be limited to storage only, and that the storage area is not to be used as additional living space. The applicant is requesting that the condition of approval be changed to allow the area over the garage to be converted to living area and used as a home office. SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve, modify or deny: • Modification Permit No. 4843 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block D, Corona del Mar Tract ZONE: R -1 (Single Family Residential) OWNER: Phil and Mary Rowe, Corona del Mar DISCUSSION: At its meeting of April 8, 1999, the Planning Commission upheld the decision of the Modification Committee to require the area above the garage to be limited to storage use only, and not as living space. The applicant "finished" the area above the garage by converting the storage area to living space which was specifically prohibited by the Modification Committee. The conversion of the storage area was done against the specific findings and conditions of Modification No. 4843 and without the benefit of the appropriate permits. Since the Modification application did not include a request to build living area over the garage and the applicant agreed to the condition of approval limiting the area over the garage to storage, and found that use of the existing garage beyond storage would worsen the existing unsafe traffic condition, the Planning Commission denied the appeal. A copy of the staff report to the Planning Commission and an excerpt of the meeting minutes are attached for the Council's review. Based on the appeal application, the applicant feels that the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the request was "arbitrary and capricious" and was an "emotional and punitive response to the applicant's failure to obtain the necessary permits" and that the decision was not based on existing building or land use restrictions. The applicant believes that denial of the request deprives them of the lawful use and enjoyment of their property. A copy of the Application to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Commission is attached for the City Council's review. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Prepared by: MARC W. MYERS Assistant City Manage Associate Planner Attachments: Staff Report to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 8, 1999 Appeal Application Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations Page 2 9 0 4e` =W �Rr O F :� IR U = CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: Period: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Rowe Residence 2231 Pacific Drive April 8, 1999 1 Marc Myers (949) 644 -3210 14 days PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: An appeal of the decision of the Modifications Committee, which denied a request to change Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538. The Condition of Approval requires that use of an attic space over a garage be limited to storage only, and that the storage area is not to be used as additional living space. The applicant is requesting that the condition of approval be changed to allow the area over the garage to be converted to living area and used as a home office. ACTION: Approve, modify or deny: • Modification Permit No. 4843 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block D, Corona del Mar Tract ZONE: R 71 (Single Family Residential) OWNER: Phil and Mary Rowe, Corona del Mar Points and Authority • Conformance with the General Plan and Zoning The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single Family Detached" uses. A single family residence is a permitted use within this designation. • Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act) It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). • Modification Permit procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.93 of the Municipal Code. 3 VICINITY MAP Y .aar.w•n •�+r AAY+ /O[ Dil /VC r Modification No. 48431 Current Development: The subject property is developed with a single famil residence and two garages. To the north: Across Pacific View Drive north of Acacia Avenue are single family residences. Across Pacific View Drive south of Acacia are two-family Residential units. To the east: Are additional single family residences. To the south: Across Ba side Drive are additional single family residential homes. To the west: Are additional single family residential units. 0 Appeal of Modification No. 4843 April 8, 1999 Page 2 u 10 0 Back -,round At its meeting of March 4, 1997, the Modifications Committee approved Modification Permit No. 4538, a request to permit the addition of a storage loft and roof on to an existing accessory structure that encroaches 15 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback along Bayside Drive. The justification for the application request was that the structure has existed since 1965, and is retaining the hillside for additional parking on this lot. Additionally, the existing structure was uncovered, and the alteration and new roof would improve the aesthetics of the structure to make it look more residential than industrial. It was found that the site area was of sufficient size to accommodate the construction of additional living space adjacent to the main structure, and for that reason, use of the area over the garage was limited to storage only. A copy of the letter of approval is attached for the Commission's information. On March 2, 1998, Code Enforcement received a complaint regarding the subject property. The complaint indicated that work was being done to the area over the garage along Bayside Drive. The work reported included building and plumbing improvements without the proper permits, and concerns were raised regarding the possibility of a second dwelling unit. On October 14, 1999, Code Enforcement received another complaint regarding the subject property. The complaint directly concerned the occupancy and use of the storage area over the garage along Bayside Drive. On October 15, 1999, a letter was sent to the owners of the subject property from the Code Enforcement Department wishing to arrange for an inspection of the premises. On October 26, 1998, a letter was faxed to Code Enforcement from the owner of the subject property stating their intentions to make the property available for inspection in approximately 2 to 3 weeks due to business travel. Code Enforcement spoke to the owners and made arrangements to inspect the property November 9, 1998. On November 10, 1998, Code Enforcement sent a letter to the owners of the property acknowledging the inspection, the additions and changes made to the structure without necessary permits, and the time frame in which the violations must be permitted or removed and corrected. On November l la' and 13th, 1998, Code Enforcement received letters from the owners' attorney acknowledging the owners intent to cooperate with the City, and that the owner had contacted their contractor and instructed him to apply for the necessary permits and approvals required for the violations cited in the letter, pursuant to the site inspection. At its meeting of February 9, 1999, the Modifications Committee denied Modification Permit No. 4843 (unanimous), which was a request to change Condition No. 4 of Modification Permit No. 4538, that limited the floor area over the garage for use as a storage loft only. The Committee found that conversion of the storage area to living space could set a precedent for the approval of other similar requests, which could be detrimental to the neighborhood. Additionally, it was found that the change in use would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and the surrounding property owners were opposed to the conversion. A copy of the letter of denial is attached for the Commission's information. Appeal of Modification No. 4843 April 8, 1999 Page 3 It should be noted that the storage area over the garage was converted to living area prior to the Modification request to permit the conversion. Additionally, no building, electrical, mechanical or plumbing permits were obtained for the work to convert the approved storage area to living area. The property owner subsequently filed an appeal of the Modification Committee's decision, based in part on the misrepresentations that the proposed addition would be used as a rental unit and adversely impact the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. Statement from the Appellant The appellant does not believe that the. Modifications Committee had adequate or accurate facts at the time of the hearing and they do not agree with the findings of the committee. The applicant does not believe that using the area over the garage as a home office would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the area. A copy of the Application to Appeal is attached for the Commission's review. The appellant has raised issues related to the specific use of the floor area, the impact of using this area on the neighborhood, and the enjoyment of his property rights. Additionally, the applicant does not believe that any views are affected, and that the improvements have improved the property's appearance and enhanced the neighbor's view. Furthermore, the applicant does not believe that it is fair for the Modification Corrurlittee to use the finding for denial that adequate space exists within the buildable area of the site for such an addition, rather than in the required front yard setback area. The applicant emphasized that the converted storage area is to be used as an office and not as a rental unit. The letters of opposition, support, and appeal by the appellant and . his attorney are attached for the Comrission's information. Analysis The project as proposed will allow the addition of living area over an existing detached garage which encroaches 15 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback along Bayside Drive. The area in question was approved as a storage loft area, and has been converted to living area without approval of the Modification Comrittee. The Modification Committee crafted the original condition of approval to limit the room to storage use only, with the intent that the room was to remain unfinished and used strictly for storage of the owner's artwork and sails. Though the condition makes no specific reference to the extent or nature of the finished condition of the storage area, the fact remains that the intention of the Modifications Committee was for the area to not be used as living space. The storage area in question has now been converted to living area with an additional loft area constructed without necessary approval and permits. Access to the loft area is from an interior spiral staircase from the main floor of the storage (living) area. The main floor of the storage (living) area measures approximately 12 feet by 21 feet long. The converted storage area is completely finished and fully equipped with telephone, electricity, cable television, a heating unit in the wall, a full size kitchen sink with hot and cold running water, a garbage disposal, an under - Appeal of Modification No. 4843 April 8, 1999 Page 4 counter refrigerator and cupboard space above and below the sink counter. Additionally, the sink - countertop has a cutout area provided in the countertop space suitable for an apartment size stove or dishwasher appliance, although it is currently occupied by a filing cabinet. Also, it should be noted, the previously approved plans identified a new opening to be placed in the wall that leads beneath the exterior stairs which lead up to the primary residence. Presently, the area identified as a "new opening" on the approved plans for the original improvements, is a built - in shelf unit approximately the same size as a door. There is also a 3 inch pipe which leads into the wall in the area beneath the stairs, which the Building Department indicates is the size commonly used as a sewage drain line from sanitation facilities. Additionally, the drain lines beneath the sink lead into the area beneath the exterior stairs. The loft area measures approximately 8 feet by 14 feet and has an average ceiling height of approximately 6 feet 6 inches. Based on the field measurements made by staff, the Building Department has indicated that the additional loft area does not meet the minimum ceiling height requirements for a living area of this nature. The Building Department has also indicated that the spiral staircase used to gain access to the additional loft area does not meet the minimum size requirements for access of this nature. The Public Works Department is opposed to the garage structure with living area above on Bayside Drive because it encroaches 15 feet into the required 15 foot setback. The Public Works Department believes that if the structure is used for storage, it's low level of usage would prevent it from becoming an increased hazard due to the unsafe traffic condition the encroachment creates along Bayside Drive. However, should the structure be used for living area, the owners may be more inclined to utilize the garage below, resulting in a negative affect on the neighborhood by further contributing to an already unsafe traffic condition along Bayside Drive at that location. Planning Commission Alternatives The Planning Commission can either overrule the decision of the Modification Committee and approve the request, or sustain their action and deny the application. A decision to overrule the decision of the Modifications Committee would permit the storage area to be converted to living area and used as an office, provided the necessary permits are obtained for the improvements made to the storage area. This alternative would not only require that the owner obtain the appropriate permits for the improvements made to the structure in a timely matter, but also ensure that the improvements are in compliance with the applicable codes and regulations. In considering this alternative, it should be acknowledged that the Zoning Code does not restrict homeowners from constructing detached accessory structures which contain rooms or offices used for living purposes separate from the main dwelling and used for living, provided the room(s) are not used as an additional dwelling unit. The revised findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A" would implement this alternative. Appeal of Modification No. 4843 April 8, 1999 Page 5 A decision to deny the applicant's appeal and uphold the decision of the Modification Committee would require the area above the garage to be restored to a storage area. This would support the Committee's determination that the addition of living area within the front yard setback on Bayside Drive could be detrimental to the neighborhood due to the more intense utilization of the area along Bayside Drive, and that additional living area can be accommodated within the buildable area of the lot. If the Commission selects this alternative, staff suggests an additional condition to limit the use of the area above the garage to storage only, that the area shall remain "unfinished ", nonhabitable storage area only, not be used for living purposes, and the area above the garage shall be returned to an "unfinished ", non - habitable condition within 90 days of the final decision. Exhibit "B" containing findings for denial would implement this alternative. Specific Findings and Recommendations In order to grant relief to an applicant through a modification permit, the Modifications Committee or the Planning Commission on review or appeal of the decision of the Committee shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code. 0 Since the Zoning Code does not restrict homeowners from constructing detached accessory structures which contain rooms or offices used for living purposes separate from the main dwelling, the Planning Commission may find that under the circumstances of this particular case, the storage room conversion is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Modification No. 4843, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. However, the location of the loft area as living space within the 15 foot setback can be found, under the circumstances of the particular case, to be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood by adversely affecting the flow of light and air to the adjoining property since the roof of the garage was built higher to accommodate the storage area, and the traffic condition due to more intense utilization of the area along Bayside Drive. Therefore, the Planning Commission could also reasonably make findings for denial. Should the Planning Commission not wish to approve Modification No. 4843, the findings and conditions of denial are set forth in Exhibit `B" are attached. u Appeal of Modification No. 4843 April 8, 1999 Page 6 0 Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE MARC W. MYERS Planning Director Associate Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Modification No. 4538 Approval Letter Modification No. 4843 Denial Letter Photographs of Subject Property Letter from Property Owner Letters from Surrounding Property Owners Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations F: \USERS\PLN\SHARED \I PLANCOM\I999\04- 08\m48431p1 Appeal of Modification No. 4843 April 8, 1999 Page 7 q EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Modification No. 4843 Modification No. 4843 Findings: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Single Family Detached" residential use and the proposed development is consistent with this use and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act 3. The approval of Modification No. 4843 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • The Zoning Code does not restrict homeowners from constructing detached accessory structures which contain rooms or offices used for living purposes separate from the main dwelling and used for living. • The conversion of the storage to living area will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties. • The conversion of the storage to living area will not obstruct views from adjoining residential properties. • The living space is within the framework of the existing structure and the height of the structure will not change. • A condition has been included to further restrict the area from becoming a rental unit. • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations except as noted in the following conditions. 2. All applicable conditions of approval for Modification Permit No. 4538 shall remain in effect with the exception of the following changes. 9 Appeal of Modification No. 4843 April 8, 1999 Page 8 �d 0 3. The area above the garage shall be permitted to be converted to living area. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, the applicant shall provide revised working drawings which show proposed work to be completed to the storage area. All applicable permits must be obtained and the work must be completed within 90 days of this approval. 4. A covenant to hold the property as a single family building site shall be recorded in the County Clerk's office. 5. The proposed improvements to the storage area conversion to living space and the loft addition shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 6. Upon obtaining the appropriate permits for the storage room conversion, the owners shall provide inspectors full access to the area in question beneath the stairs leading up to the main structure. 7. The appropriate permits including, but not limited to building, mechanical, electrical plumbing shall be obtained by the property owners for the improvements within 30 days of this approval. 8. Additionally, that prior to final of building permits, an inspection of the premises shall be performed to show to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the improvements have been completed within these limitations. Appeal or Modification No. 4843 April 8, 1999 Page 9 �I EXHIBIT `B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF Modification Permit No. 4843 Findings: 1. The approval of Modification Permit No. 4843 will, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The use of the structure for other than storage use will create undue traffic hazards along Bayside Drive. • The proposed construction will adversely impact the flow of light and air to the residential property immediately adjacent and to the subject property. • The conversion of the storage area to living area will adversely effect the use the subject property and those in the surrounding neighborhood. • Improvements to the storage area have been completed without the necessary approvals and permits. • The addition of living area within the front yard setback on Bayside Drive is detrimental to the neighborhood due to the more intense utilization of the area along Bayside Drive. • Additional living area can be accommodated within the buildable area of the lot. Added Condition for Modification No. 4538: 1. The use of the area above the garage shall be limited exclusively to storage only, and that the area shall be returned to, and remain "unfinished ", nonhabitable storage area only, and shall not be used for living purposes, and the storage area above the garage shall be returned to an "unfinished, non - habitable" condition within 90 days of the meeting which a final decision was made. 0 Appeal of Modification No. 4843 April 8, 1999 Page 10 1.2 Ll E 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644 -3200 Ken Friess c/o Friess Company Builders 31726 Rancho Rd., #219 San Juan Capistrano, Ca 92675 Application No: Applicant: Address of Property Involved: Legal Description: Dear Ken Friess: MODIFICATION PERMIT March 6, 1997 4538 Ken Friess c/o Friess Company Builders 2231 Pacific Drive Lot 1, Block D, Corona del Mar Modification Requested: Request to permit the addition of a storage loft and roof to an existing accessory structure that currently encroaches 15 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback. The Modifications Committee on, March 4. 1997, unanimously approved the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That the roof over the garage shall not exceed the height limit (24 feet at the midpoint) measured from the existing grade of the floor of the garage. 3. That a covenant be recorded to hold the property as a single family dwelling site. 4. That the use of the area above the garage be used for storage only and this area not to be used as additional living space. 5. That an encroachment agreement and encroachment permit be approved by the Public Works Department for any proposed work in the public right -of -way. The Modifications Committee determined in this case that the proposal would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the modification as approved 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 13 March 6, 1997 Page- 2 would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and made the following findings: 1. That the proposed alterations to the garage are a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for the following reasons: • The existing structure has existed since approximately 1965 and is being used as a retaining wall for the hillside on this property. • The existing structure has an operable roll -up garage door and is being used for additional parking on this lot. • There exists sufficient area located elsewhere within the buildable area to obtain more living space and for this reason, the only use allowed above the garage would be for storage use. • The existing structure is uncovered, and for that reason, a new roof will improve the aesthetics of the structure. 2. That the proposed alterations to the roof and the additional storage area will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use because: • The pitch of the roof required to cover the structure results in a roof element that is more aesthetically pleasing than a flat roof. • The volume of space above the garage that is created by adding a roof is only to be used for storage and is not to be used for additional living area. 3. That the proposed alterations will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties because: • There are no other residential structures adjacent to the garage on this side along $ayside Drive. 4. A new garage door, new siding and new roof will contribute to the overall look of the building which results in an accessory structure that fits in with the residential character of the neighborhood. 0 /V ,, March 6, 1997 Page - 3 5. That this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class I (Existing Facilities). 6. The proposed roof and storage area will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties. 7. That the proposed roof and storage area will not obstruct views from adjoining residential properties because the structure is located at the base of the hill and views are from the top of the hill. 8. That the dwelling provides the required parking elsewhere on the property and the garage parking is surplus parking. NOTE: This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.81.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the . date of the decision. Any appeal filed shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $876.00. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired. MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE By Eu iaGarcia Associate Planner cc: Phil and Mickey Rowe 2231 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar Ca 92625 Letters of Opposition Received From: Victoria Street, 2235 Pacific Drive Matthew A.. Cox, 2027 Tahuna Terrace . Appeared in Opposition: ,r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 Phil Rowe 2231 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Application No: Applicant: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 644 -3200 Address of Property Involved: Legal Description: Dear Mr. Rowe: February 16, 1999 MR Phil Rowe 2231 Pacific Drive Lot 1, Block D, Corona del Mar Tract Modification Requested: To change Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538 that limited the area over the garage located on Bayside Drive for use as a storage loft only and convert the use to a home office. The Modifications Committee on, February 9, 1999, unanimously disapproved the subject application, (3 noes and 0 ayes) and made the following conditions and findings for denial: CONDITIONS: 1. Asper Modification No. 4538, Condition No. 4 shall remain in effect for storage use only. 2. A building permit shall be obtained within 30 days to remove the following: • All plumbing, including potable and waste lines; • All heating sources; • All electrical sources; and • The interior circular stairway. 3. All work to remove the above noted items shall be completed within 60 days of the date of this letter. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 0 0 I /6 i�l 0 Page 2 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: 1. The Modifications Committee determined that in this case, the proposal would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the applicant's request would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The approval of the proposed conversion could set a precedent for the approval of other similar requests which could be detrimental to the neighborhood. 3. There is no justification for changing Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538 to intensify the use of the area over the garage, since adequate space exists within the buildable area of the site. 4. The proposed change in use would have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The surrounding property owners are opposed to the proposed conversion. The decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the date of the decision. Any appeal filed shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $691.00. Please contact the Planning Department at (949) 644 -3200 for full particulars. MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE B� EAenia Garcia, Associate Planner Chairperson EG:jrj Letters Received in Opposition: Smith Bacon, 2315 Pacific Drive Douglas Lax, 2224 Pacific Drive Phyllis Rodeffer, 2227 Pacific Drive Mathew Cox, 2235 Pacific Drive Susan and Jerry Vaughn, 2200 Pacific Drive Al Ross, 2209 Pacific Drive Harry and Leann Westover, 2301 Pacific Drive Mr. and Mrs. Irving Burg, 2301 Bayside Drive Anonymous Appeared in Opposition: Phyllis Rodeffer, 2227 Pacific Drive Dorothy Westover, 2305 Pacific Drive Barbara Dawkins, 2329 Pacific Drive Harry Wallace, 2305 Pacific Drive /1 a Its. j I rk It, J I ; 4,17,77 :7V 4,11 0 file:\\ MIS_ 11SYS\Users\PLNUSinasek\Digital Photos\2231 Pacific Ave. 1109981MVC- 008F.JP11/16/98 1�f I , v q� r ' wa, s p ;: L 0 ♦���.ii� VI,,,: '1L� \ /JJIIIJ]l'.V Ii II�JI / ✓l, VJ. %'1 %pail L l.— VVJI'.JYU 7 I of 3/30/99 738 AM • • a� file : \ \MIS_1 \SYS \Users\PLN\JSinasek \Digital Photos\2231 Pacific Ave, 110998 \MVC- OOIF.JP11 /17/98 7"Inno UNVD-k Top if I of 1 I., .:.- I , I,-, , J- --J , , -l. 'V J_ / / /..,1 , ', , , ., , , 0 A 3/30,99 7:37 AM r f �•� �r �.s y t z -, '1: °h vas •' � 1 1 '� � , [r .i ll r � ■666 h � S ■■ � I , l6 4 � � \ \ «���� �m ^° yA� <« t ' � \:£© / \� �z ; � c�� �� i � � l ...:.. vT..� . :« �� � � �� �� /\\ g/ƒ �� `�� \ � � � � \ !1-; noi4zz iAlumc i MMMMIIItiU 40 NICHE MARKETING, INC. NICHE PLAN SPONSORS, INC. Phillip D. Rowe, CLU President Lic #0211071 March 29, 1999 Marc Myers, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Marc: 128 POI LIAR 29 99 Od:10 (800) 552 -9252 (714)966.1401 FAX(714) 966.1422 Via Fax: (949) 644 -3250 You have asked for further clarification on our appeal to the Modifications Committee's ruling of February 16, 1999, Application #4843. We do not agree with the Committee's findings for the following reasons: 1. We cannot find any reasons why using the area over the garage as a home office would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements or the intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A. The building exists — no views are affected. In fact, the improvements that are there have significantly improved the property's appearance and enhanced the neighbor's views. B. No neighbor is affected any differently than before the improvements. C. I am not sure what Title 20 is, but if it has to do with multiple usage of the property, Mr. Sinesek has inspected on this issue. 2. Our property is very unique. It was built originally in 1932. The original structure (which the city approved) was allowed on the right of way set back line and that is the only reason the Modification Committee is now involved. When we were allowed to put the building on the old garage and retaining walls, we did set the building itself back reducing the usable space we wanted as per the Modification Committee. It is hard to see how using this space for occassional home office purposes would set a precedent the city does not want. No other property in the area is restricted as the Committee is trying to restrict us. In addition, the City has continual regulatory control on any new structures or usage as is evidenced by this action. 3. Where does the Modification Committee get the right to say, "adequate space exists within the buildable area of the site" when, a) much larger homes have and are being approved on our street and, b) the building in question is already within our buildable area? Or c) how many bedrooms we have as long as it is within the rules? 3190 -1 Airport Loop, Suite G, Costa Mesa, California 92626 Niche Marketing License # OA91400 UwLozammng Committee Securities offered through Ogilvie Security Advisors Corporation, Lake Forest Illinois 33 4. The change will have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood. We have stairs to that area already and we use them. The garage is used by us now and will continue in that use. 5. There has been a campaign waged against us by a disgruntled neighbor (letter enclosed) and she has single - handedly sought out the negative letters. Since her campaign, and the City's denial, I have gone to my neighbors for letters and they have been filed. As indicated by the letters received by the City. In addition, two of the letters listed in Ms. Garcia's denial letter are actually for not against out project (Mr. Bacon and Burg). Also, Mr. Wallace and Ms. Westover live in same residence and Ms. Dawkins never wrote or declared against. Marc, the issue raised by some of the letters and the one the Committee seems to be concerned with is whether or not we are using the property for R2 usage. This issue has been spread mainly by Phyllis Rodeffer and is not true. We have guests and friends stay with us from time to time, but their presence is as our guests. In addition, this issue is not a part of the Modification Application it seems to be a subjective position of the Committee. I can understand their concern about future transfers of ownership, but 1 assure you, with the neighbors I have, no future owner would get away with anything. For these and other reasons that my attomey, Keith Dawson will present (since we will be traveling on the 81) we feel the Planning Committee should approve our request. Sincerely, Phillip D. Rowe 0 0 UW Aanning Committee 3`� 7149661422 NICHE MARKETING An Open Letter to the Newport Beach Planning Commission April 8, 1999 200 P03 APR 01 '99 14:34 Let us first say how sorry we are not to be able to appear in person. We did not wish to further delay resolution of this matter. However, we could not miss this business trip, a company awards trip that has been scheduled for over a year. However, we believe we are well represented by our attorney, Keith Dawson. As many of you familiar with Corona Del Mar history know, when we acquired this property there was a partially constructed garage on Bayside Drive that had been an eyesore and a safety hazard for almost thirty years. We have spent considerable resources in completing the building and in improving the appearance from Bayside Drive and from Pacific Avenue. We are dismayed that a couple of our neighbors campaigned so actively against our finishing the lower garage, and now want to prevent us from using the building to its full potential now that it is complete. It is significant to note that our request for the modification change is supported by many of our other neighbors as is evidenced by their many letters to the City. The conversion of the garage to an in -home office in no way impacts anyone on Pacific Avenue. We find it interesting that no one on Bayside Drive has objected, when it is the Bayside Drive neighbors who have the largest potential of impact because the building is located on Bayside. In fact, Mr. Burg who lives across the street on Bayside has written in favor of our request. Granting our request to use the area over our garage as an in -home office will have no visual impact since the structure is already completed. Its profile will not change. We understand and are sensitive to the City's concern regarding multiple use and we are agreeing again to adhere to the rules. However, we do not believe that the City intends to restrict how we use our home with respect to our guests and friends. The enforcement of multiple use is compelling but it is clearly wrong to impose penalties on us based on finger pointing and insinuations. (The City's Jim Sinasek inspected the property in November and found no violations.) It is my intention and desire to use the space as a home office facility as it is quiet, peaceful, private and just downstairs. There will be no employees or commercial traffic. Together we find ourselves where we are as a result of a chain of mistakes. The first mistake was the City's approval of the building's original walls in 1968 on the Bayside Drive setback. The second was the Modifications Committee originally restricting the building use to storage. The third was our accepting the restriction instead of fighting it at the time. The fourth was our improving the space to make it usable believing "storage" could be used for other than storage. We now find ourselves appealing to the Commission's good judgment and sense of fairness to end the chain of mistakes. U:WIOpen Letter to Planning Commission2doc ✓-5 7149661422 NICHE MARKETING 200 PO4 APR 01 '99 14:34 We are asking not only for a change to the Modification Committee's ruling, but also we are asking for approval as it is built (any safety hazards excepted). To improve the modifications change and then have the City put impossible requirements on us to modify what is done would clearly be winning the battle and losing the war. The space works very well as it is built and it is structurally sound. My wife and I believe we should be allowed to use this space for productivity on our property. We appreciate that there are mechanisms for appealing the Modification Committee's decision 'and we hope we do not have to go any further. The commission has the opportunity to now end a situation that is unfortunately way out of hand and should not escalate further. We feel the neighbor mentioned earlier is disgruntled and appears to be using the City to create an economic hardship on us. (Please consider the number of times Phyllis Rodeffer has complained to the City). We believe it is unfair to have the usage of our property controlled in this fashion by a disgruntled neighbor, especially in light of the fact that many other neighbors feel otherwise. Many neighbors we approached did not wish to write a letter because they had previously been approached by Mrs. Rodeffer and did not want to "get between" neighbors. We respect their decisions. My wife and I both thank the Commission for their consideration. We apologize that this matter has escalated to this point. consuming the Commission's agenda time. Sincerely, Phillip and Mickey Rowe 11 U:Uv%Open Letter to Planning Commission2.&C 2(. RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT clTVO = ;. -;rl ._. I•i��� `L 6 iy99 PM � "7181 ii01i11i2i! iii °Pk,U /i9 1;,4X119 . . 4 ssez/,�rG / -AkwFe kk,rjR?zr te9cy. RO -e)ox 17 (5. Su4sjF -( : / ASSuo /e- /%<i-,qcl� /ll/ Rq. 223 / C'.4c�F /c Z�vr�� C, D, NI, r 7-WE f�zEsajrc -r, AurwolvzEb DQ5S /JO7- /rr,&Vr-- H-uMe 9z625. ZD-e-7,qc /,/ &D S1`2U y7UR� A0,2 *'15MARGF- cxic'y It .)G 7-"T- 64-�ctc4b .acccxd roc /9 7#9eS 0--yi6b -&- 467191 A. SP- TqE 400VZ— Fcr;:,51e/Ur�e t7�FA / AA? //j /E;4vO/Z Oil= 4a-ol-W/JG ?/?€ ra Go . AQ- W4Pp . -7 -s ALL%jc-D ey Tm�: /8QtiD /x)r, D! r nv 7#,rs Ae69 TIAT- /r 5�A sC %d'NT[Z.-s 7o dgc/&-T . To 7711.5 ,sEEIy/IJGLy IVOOIGS7 ._ ... PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY nc: ct='ACH HAR 212 1999 Melody D. Orr AM 2324 PacRM Drive, Corona Del Mar, California 92625 71819110111112111213141516 (�Q�r aak �a F�C�RiZCIC> Q�SSOG1(3L1= Ci Y�1SN C 1T� C O T lQo<2� v • � mC 1-1 !oY h°"�C•-'tc -�'n a-w 4.Zo • X153 Y� 5� -•PC<Z l-�-S � F�rZCa Ca � e -c�Sar W SQU, - (2S c� cz wU�.�c4 &k'�Ta-c� 0 L Is 0 OMGNAINI March 17,1999 IMPORTS, LLC Genia Garcia, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Condition No. 4 Modification No. 4538 Dear Ms. Garcia, MARTA ZIELONKO PHONE 949 673 -9299 REGIONAL DIs1RIDUTOR TOLL FREE 1 800 967 -7724 417 BEGONIA AVENUE Fax 949 673 -4392 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 HTTP: / /WWW.MUGNAINI.COM RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY n E=ACH Affil HAR '1 X0'1999 KA 71131E 110111I!2;1I2131` A6 4 This letter is in regard to the Phil and Mickey Rowe request to modify their usage of the structure over their Bayside Drive garage as an in -house office and not restrict the usage to storage only. As a neighbor who has lived here since 1983, and who has converted (and built via city of Newport Beach permits) the space above my garage into a studio /office, I have no objection whatsoever to their similar request for such usage of valuable space. Their request should have no impact on neighbors and only a positive impact on the Rowes who wish to use the space for limited office purposes. Sincerely, Marta Zielonko 417 Begonia Ave. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 S P E C I A L I Z I N G IN I T A L I A N WOOD B U R N I N G O V E N S 39 March 30, 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF P AM M 71819 1! 011? 1121 1213141516 Re: Modification Permit No. 4843, Phillip Rowe, property owner I strongly object to the modification requested by Phillip Rowe, 2231 Pacific Drive-to change the area over the garage located on Bayside Drive to a home office. It was to be used as a storage loft only and that is what it should remain. Sincerely, A concerned neighbor E s0 7149661422 NICHE MARKETING 42S Thirtieth Street, Suite 21 Newport leach, Q 92663 (949)673 -1369 To Whom It May Concern: 200 P02 APR 01 '99 14:33 "r0 - {AA-iz-L Myzrs ve : PA-clvt(j "- For the past 23 years I have lived in Corona Del Mar and commuted to work on Bayside Drive- Bayside, to me, is a small but lovely sample of what makes old Corona Del Mar beau- tiful- The view of the bay, the yacht clubs, the old trees and the Wheeler property (where my mother learned to swim) have always been a welcome sight when I travel on Bayside. For years, however, there was one sight which severely marred the beauty. It was a huge dilapidated garage cut into the hillside which seemed to diminish the other beautiful homes. I noticed also that this "scar" on the hillside was visible from the bay. About a year ago I was encouraged to see that the ugly garage and the rest of the run -down property (located at 2231 Pacific Drive) was being renovated. I was very impressed with the design of the remodel and the way it fit into the neighborhood. The positive effect this reno- vation has had on appearance and property values in the neighborhood is wonderful. Today when I look at Bayside Drive, I am once again struck by the serene beauty of the area we live in. So many locals and visitors admire this part of Corona Del Mar — from the bay, the Wedge, or the street — it is nick to ]mow that a new homeowner took pride in making the view better. 0 .sidering the opinion of a long -time resident, 11 ,r PHYLLIS M. RODEFFER 2227 PACIFIC DRIVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 MARCH 31st, 1999 City of Newport Beach Planning Division 3300 Newport Blvd. P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1769 BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY C1c ,\i._,Ar�P ^T r.EACFI AM P 71819 110 111112 il-1121318 1516 k Re: Request to Change Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538 Location: 2231 Pacific Drive Dear Commission Members: As a next door neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Rowe, I wish to restate my objections to the modification of the original conditions which stated three times "This space was for storage space ONLY and not to be used for additional living space ". These conditions were agreed to by Mr. and Mrs. Rowe. Shortly after the final inspection of the garage modifications, Mr. and Mrs. Rowe started the interior modifications knowing they were in direct violation of the conditions of approval set forth by this Commission. Since Mr. and Mrs. Rowe finished the remodeling of the main house there have been numerous house guests and renters at this location. It appears from the degree of improvements done to the garage and the addition of the overhead living area that this structure could lend itself to be used for additional rental income rather than +the original permitted use as storage only. As stated above, I wish to restate my objections to this modification request and ask you to uphold the original restrictions to storage only. Very t Y�urs, PHYLLIS M. RODEFFER 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 Phillip Rowe 2231 Pacific Drive • Modification Permit No. 4843 An appeal of the decision of the Modifications Committee. which denied o request to change Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538. The Condition of Approval requires that use of on attic space over o garage be limited to storage only. and that the storage area is not to be used as additional living space. The applicant is requesting that the condition of approval be changed to ollow the area over the garage to be converted to living area and used as o home office. Ms. Temple noted the correspondence the Commission received in the Planning Deportment. most of which expressed opposition to the application. Additionally. in reviewing the Exhibit B for denial of Modification Permit No. 4843 noted that this recommendation for denial. if it were the action of the Planning Commission. would not actually require o modification to the structure. but merely the reinstatement of the storage area. Therefore. the second bullet point is not pertinent to the findings for denial and it is suggested that it be omitted. Chairperson Selich. referencing the plans that were approved by the Modifications Committee. noted the concern of safety from having access from Boyside Drive. Commissioner Fuller clarified the following: The conversion to living area in the storage area over the garage was done without benefit of proper permits and is therefore considered not - legal. The converted storage area was finished and equipped with telephone. electricity. cable television. o heating unit in the wall. o full size kitchen sink with hot and cold running water. o garbage disposal. on under counter refrigerator and cupboard space above and below the sink counter as port of that non -legol conversion. r' Public Comment was opened. Mr. Keith Dawson. 2660 East Coast Highway. attorney represented the applicants stating they were out of town. He noted on the letter from Mrs. Garcia doted 02/16/1999 that the letters listed from Mr. Smith Bacon and Mr. and Mrs. Irving Burg were in support of this project. Continuing. he noted the applicants rebuttal to the reasons for denial: • Detrimental to persons. property and improvements in the neighborhood and not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code - if this was o rental unit. it would be detrimental to INDEX Item No. 1 Modification Permit No. 4843 Modification Committee Decision Upheld N3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 INDEX Is person's property in neighborhood. This is a home office project with no bathroom facilities. The Rowes will submit to building inspections and if this application is approved; they will have to get permits for the modifications they have done. They understand that the building permits may require that some of those modifications be removed. • The approval could set a bad precedent in the neighborhood - this is a unique property that has been increased in value by the improvements done by the Rowes. • Adequate area exists within the buildable area of the site for this office - this would mean an addition on the property with a second floor which would adversely affect the flow of light and air to the adjoining properties since the roof of the garage was built higher to accommodate the storage area. In conclusion, Mr. Dawson suggested that there could be a covenant recorded against the property to restrict this project to a home office use. He requests that the Commission find in favor of the applicants. At Commission inquiry Mr. Dawson stated: • There is a third level in the house, not connected and is eighty steps above the garage. • Family friends have stayed there. • He does not personally know if it wasn't used as a rental unit. • The storage area above the garage was for the storage of sail cloth and art work and was the original request. It was not specified or requested that it could become a home office instead. • The plans submitted for improving the structure above the garage did not include the improvements that were put into the storage area. • The applicant realizes that the stairway is not to standard nor is the ceiling height up to standard. • The Rowes would have to remove staircase and are prepared to remove any access to the loft area. The ceiling is too low. Appearing in opposition to this application: Mr. Henry Wallace - 2305 Pacific Drive Mrs. Phyllis Rodeffer, 2227 Pacific Drive For the following • Threat of rental of proposed project • Two garages, one on Pacific and one on Bayside • No ability to monitor • Cooking facilities on different floors • Improvements done with no permits 3 yy City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 building permit states three times, "for storage only' Public Comment closed. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that this is an older building that has permits for a completely separate living area. It is very difficult to prove illegal dwelling units. What the City has, by building code definition, are two dwelling units that by zoning is single family dwelling since the improvements were made prior to the definitions regarding independent dwelling units. This is considered legal, non - conforming. For consideration tonight, this building which is the subject of the hearing, represents space that is a third living area. Mr. Edmonston noted that the use of the garage would not be allowed to be established today in terms of where it is in the setback. It is a very narrow portion of Bayside Drive, and if it were used as a garage, it would present dangerous conditions for access onto Bayside Drive. Commissioner Fuller stated he is not in support of this application because that after the Modifications Committee denied it, the applicant went in and finished the unit out with ostensibly sewer pipes, kitchen facilities and everything else. . Commissioner Ashley stated he was not in support of this application as it is an egregious violation of the building code and the building permit that was issued. It is clearly not intended to be storage and it is evident that when the kitchen facilities were put in, it was an obvious intent to make this into a living unit. Under the staircase one could add total bathroom facilities. It would be a violation of the R -1 zoning. Continuing, he stated that all of the improvements that have been made that went beyond the building permit that was issued have to be removed. This area can be used for no purpose, other than storage. It is very dangerous to back out of that garage onto Bayside Drive because of the curve of Bayside Drive. I am very opposed to that garage being occupied by a resident, where they would be doing this with some regularity. He noted that the garage is being used to store two cars. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the original modification and was told that the original modification was approved with a condition that the area to be added above the previously existing parking space be limited to storage. Mrs. Eugenia Garcia, as Chairman of the Modification Committee, stated that at the time of the first modification hearing in 1997 there was a lot of opposition from the neighborhood. The applicant had expressed that the project was for storage use, and she did not express that they would be finishing it or adding any other plumbing. Electrical probably would have been acceptable for the garage. There was no discussion of the finished 4 INDEX 7S City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 INDEX product that you see now. The Rowes at that time were very agreeable to the condition that was placed upon it for storage area only for art pieces and artwork. They gave no indication that they were going to use this as an office. Continuing. Mrs. Garcia stated that if they had expressed at the original hearing they wanted to use this for an office then given the concerns of the neighborhood and the access point being hazardous as it is. the Modification Committee may have denied the request. The Modification' Committee felt that the garage was to be used intermittently. perhaps store an antique car or boat but it was not to be used going in and out of on a daily basis due to the hazardous conditions on Bayside Drive. Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to uphold the decision of the Modifications Committee and approve Exhibit B. The uses that were permitted to be constructed for loft purposes be approved and all other improvements beyond which were allowed by the building permit be removed. Chairperson Selich asked if the Commission could include with this denial some type of notice to be recorded against this property. It would indicate that this space is to be used for storage only in the event the property is sold to someone else. Ms. Clauson. noting that this would be a form of giving notice to future buyers. stated that this approval constitutes a city record and any new buyer would know that through a Residential Building Report. The Report would have copies of the Modification Committee decision as well as any other document affecting the property. To put a restriction of this nature on the title would be above and beyond what the regular restrictions are. Ms. Temple clarified that the motion would include the removal of the second bullet point and the addition of a condition regarding the return to an "unfinished. non - habitable" condition within 90 days of the meeting. Commissioner Ashley agreed. Ayes: Fuller. Ashley. Selich. Gifford. Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF Modification Permit No. 4843 Findings: 1. The approval of Modification Permit No. 4843 will. under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health. safety. peace. morals. comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in 5 . y6 City of Newport Beach . Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1999 INDEX the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious' to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • The use of the structure for other than storage use will create undue traffic hazards along Bayside Drive. • The conversion of the storage area to living area will adversely effect the use the subject property and those in the surrounding neighborhood. • Improvements to the storage area have been completed without the necessary approvals and permits. • The addition of living area within the front yard setback on Bayside Drive is detrimental to the neighborhood due to the more intense utilization of the area along Bayside Drive. • Additional living area can be accommodated within the buildable area of the lot. Additional Condition for Modification No. 4538 The use of the area above the garage shall be limited exclusively to storage only, and that the area shall be returned to, and remain "unfinished, non - habitable" storage area only, and shall not be used for living purposes, and the storage area above the garage shall be returned to an "unfinished, non - habitable' condition within 90 days of the meeting which a final decision was made. s <. Galeos Cafe (Andrei Leontieff, contact person) Item No. 2 930 West Coast Highway UP No. 3649 • Use Permit No. 3649 Request to convert an exists ecialty food service establishment (Specialty Approved Food Service Permit No. 61) to a service, small -scale eating and drinking establishment with alcoholic beverage silrMce. The application also includes a request to establish a new alcoholic bever service outlet pursuant to Chapter20.89 of the Municipal Code. Public comment opened. Andre and Gordana Samardzic owners of the cafe stated that they /11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. Name of Appellant or person filing: Phone: 401 — w b` Address: 223t QP+C►AC �(L Grptl�l' Date of Planning Commission decision: 4 -4 '19 9� Regarding application of: �1 rt_c� P '1> e �P,2Y K '-eeA>Jr for (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) okta P,4FL= chi b N i'O -R-'E V-�-a%A C Pq-� czNS Csb^c%%-4,r,> tTTEy "ia C+-ko�1t Cce.n',brn » t-%0 4. u-w ii c�Ti b`N tJ 45 3—�r�. sRJt�F. t� C -' G E 1 �'-�Y� �j �i-1) V till f'- A.J. fZ mot C.A I ce Reasons for Appeal: 1 q--SF_L- -TE-Fc (?l Nlr CtTircmi93tarJ "s 'tj21JiPNL br VAY AP1 ON L--3A9 P,(;-- D TRPXY 4 C'P6 P U bU5 p ti-*1 U-A9 /4N 10 '� ONZA Lt_ 4 �� iii V E Z� 'Ta 1)-lit' T7A+L`3 E `10 OETAt 1V .%Prz1r ('F(LWt'is: %" 1 1S(6t.3 Vim' (5Pg–tz� &QV=- Wsj-jnt( -� Date--4— 22 -11 ZRJ-n—ature of Appel CITY CLERK FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: i a� 19 9" Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec. 20.95.050) cc: Appellant Planning (Fumish one set of mailing labels for mailing) File APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.0406 Appeal Fee: $278 pursuant to Resolution No. 98 -52 adopted on 7 -27 -98 (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) y �' ROSS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN 2209 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 (949) 831 -2187 May 3, 1999 City of Newport Beach Planning Division 3300 Newport Blvd. P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1769 Re: Modification Permit No. 4843 a s Modifications Committee which Modification No. 4538, Location 92625 Dear City Counsel: F ^CEI V EC '99 MAY -4 P3 :32 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF H'LVOUT REACH pertains to an Appeal of the decision of the denied a request to change Condition No. 4 : 2231 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar, CA This letter is to inform you that as trustee for 2209 Pacific Drive, I am in accord and agreement with the position taken by many property owners as pertains to the matter before you. I am objecting to the applicants request to convert the use of a storage loft to use as a home office. If the applicant is allowed to modify his property, which is contrary to the requirements of your office, then all property owners should be allowed to alter their properties as they desire. This would affect the R -1 character of the property in this outstanding neighborhood, which cannot be allowed. In addition, you are to be informed that the project is not exempt under the Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Quality Act, since this is a new conversion and there was not an exisiting facility which I was told that your code enforcement officer, Jim Simecek, knew about. Very truly yours, AR ss, Trustee AR /sj • JOHN HARLAN OAWSON (1907 -1957) KEITH ABBOT DAWSON DAWSON & DAWSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2660 EAST COAST HIGHWAY NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92625 May 4, 1999 City Clerk City of Newport Beach VIA TELECOPIER 3300 Newport Boulevard (949)644 -3039 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Planning Deoartmenc City of Newport Beach VIA_TELECOPIER 3300 Newport Boulevard (949)644 -3039 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: 2231 Pacific Drive. Corona del Mar Modification Permit No. 4843 Request for Continuance of Public Hearing Greetings: TELEPHONE (949) 720 -9414 TCLCCOn1CR (949) 779 -9144 I represent the Phillip and Mary Rowe, the Applicants in the above- referenced matter, which is scheduled for a public hearing before the Newport Beach City Council on May 10, 1999. Unfortunately, due to an unavoidable conflict in my calendar, I cannot appear on the Rowe's behalf on May 10th, and I hereby request that the hearing be continued to the next City Council meeting which I understand is scheduled for May 24, 1999. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. and Mrs. Rowe to confirm their availability on May 24th, I assume that they are available and I will notify you immediately if they are not. Thank you for your consideration of this request. KAD \es cc: Phil and Mickey Rowe very Truly Yours, gyration E /" _� TOTAL P.02 C� "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" 0 /1- 5[(0 .4q1 • PHYLLIS M. RODEFFER 2227 PACIFIC DRIVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 May 5th, 1999 City of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1769 '99 MAY -6 P 1 :56 OF'FiCE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY 8F :;-W'CRT REACH Re: Appeal of Modification of Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538 Dear Council Members: As the next door neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Rowe, I wish to restate again my objections to the modification of the original . conditions which stated "This space was for storage space ONLY and not to be used for additional living space ". In seeing the analysis and picture prepared by the Building Department showing the extensive interior modifications, I agree with their conclusions that this property could easily be used as a living space. I feel if these modifications are left intact this eventually will be utilized as living space if not by current owners then future owners, which could set a precedent for the approval of other similar requests and be detrimental to the neighborhood. This was denied on April 8, 1999 by the Planning Commission and opposed by Public Works due to unsafe traffic conditions in addition to other issues. In view of the above it is my sincere hope that you will come to the same conclusion of those before you and deny this appeal. S' er ly, PH LLIS M. RODEFFER 0 2312 Pacific 'Drive Corona del 'far, CA 'day 4, 1999 City Council of the City of Newport Beach "RECEIVED AFTER GENDA City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. PRINTED:" 5 !0 r.0. 3ox 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Modification cermit #4343 May 10, 1999 Phillip Rowe 2231 Pacific Drive Dear City Council members: I am resoonding to the above modification request, 3ublic hearing to be held May 10, 1999. I objsct to an office replacing the current storage loft at 2231 Pacific Drive. • Cur street has always been a quite residential area but an office with roughed in plumbing_ and utilities suggests other planned development. I would hate to see additional traffic and parking as a result of an office at 2231 ?acific Drive. Sincerely, Eli beth C. JeLamat =r 2312 Pacific Orive Corona del Mar, CA. W 7 1 C3 - a � A Ar A C-1 W x b C 1