HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 - Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal - PA2015-120 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
August 6, 2015 Meeting
Agenda Item No. 4
SUBJECT: Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal - (PA2015-120)
1608 West Ocean Front
Appeal to Planning Commission
APPLICANT/OWNER: Jeff and Holly Miller
PLANNER: Makana Nova, Associate Planner
(949) 644-3249, mnova@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
An appeal of the Community Development Director's establishment of grade for
purposes of determining height in accordance with Section 20.30.050 (Grade
Establishment) of the Zoning Code for the construction of a new single-family residence.
The applicant artificially filled in the front yard and is seeking to use the raised elevation
points for purposes of determining height. The applicant seeks to construct a new
single-family residence utilizing an average grade of 12.31 feet (NAVD 88 datum) rather
than 11.27 feet (NAVD 88 datum) as established by the Community Development
Director.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a de novo public hearing; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. _ denying the applicant's Appeal to Planning Commission
and upholding the Community Development Director's establishment of grade
(Attachment No. PC 1).
INTRODUCTION
The subject property is located on the Balboa Peninsula along West Ocean Front
between 16th and 17th Streets. The neighborhood is characterized by single-family and
two-unit residential structures. The two adjacent properties are currently developed with
duplexes. The property faces the beach along West Ocean Front with alley access to
the rear. Photos of the sites are provided as Attachment No. PC 3.
The property is designated RT (Two-Unit Residential) by the General Plan Land Use
Element and the lot is within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District, allowing for a
maximum of two residential units located on a single legal lot. The property is designated
RT-D (Two-Unit Residential) by the Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan and
development of a single-family or two-unit residence in this location requires a Coastal
Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission.
1
V�
QP
�P
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
;84
r �A
®a( Subject Property '.
Q . 1616)
12
10
lsos lsos' � t',
+' 1604
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
• e
fj N,q
Ny
NN
•4
.W u•
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
ON-SITE RT(Two-Unit Residential) R-2 (Two Unit Single-Family Residence
Residential
NORTH RT(Two-Unit Residential) R-2 (Two Unit Single and Two-Unit Residences
Residential
SOUTH PR (Parks and PR (Parks and Newport Beach and the Pacific
Recreation Recreation) Ocean
EAST RT(Two-Unit Residential) R-2 (Two Unit Single and Two-Unit Residences
Residential
WEST RT(Two-Unit Residential) R-2 (Two Unit Single and Two-Unit Residences
Residential
3
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 3
Background
The property is currently developed with a single-family residence that was built in 1939.
On September 25, 2014, the Code Enforcement Division received a complaint regarding
dirt dumped in the alley behind the property. The responding Code Enforcement Officer
visited the site the following day and found that the contractor was landscaping the front
yard area. The Officer advised the contractor to clean up the dirt from the street. The
Public Works Department then inspected the alleyway and determined that there was
no damage to the concrete within the alley.
On October 28, 2014, the Building Division responded to a complaint regarding dirt
dumped onto the front yard to almost the same level as an existing 3-foot block wall
along the front property line. The responding Building Inspector visited the site and
advised the contractor to cut back the earth to a 1 to 1 slope to eliminate surcharging on
the existing block wall. The Inspector determined that the scope of work was too small
to require a grading permit then closed the complaint once the fix was made.
On January 29, 2015, the Planning Division received a phone call from a concerned
citizen that the grade of the subject property had been artificially filled and that a
surveyor was now assessing the increased height of the subject property. The Planning
Division conducted a site visit, reviewed the prior complaints, and determined that the
grade elevation of the property had been artificially filled two to three feet above the
adjacent boardwalk. Lidarl data from 2006 and March, 2014, confirms that the existing
grade elevations were two to three feet lower at the front of the property prior to
September/October of 2014 (Attachment No. PC 4). The elevation points from the 2006
and 2014 Lidar data show that the elevation points are approximately 12 feet (NAVD88
datum).
On February 9, 2015, the applicant submitted an Approval in Concept (AIC) application
for the development of a new single-family residence in the coastal zone. An AIC from
the City is required prior to submitting a Coastal Development Permit application to the
California Coastal Commission. A topographic survey was submitted showing the
artificially filled grade elevations. The elevation points within the front yard area from the
topographic survey are approximately 15 feet (NAVD88 datum). The Planning Division
reviewed the AIC and posted corrections on February 10, 2015, noting that the grade
elevations on the two adjacent properties should be utilized to establish average grade
for purposes of determining height since the grade on the subject property had been
artificially filled. The corrections are attached as Attachment No. PC 5.
On April 1, 2015, the Planning Division sent a letter to the property owner, advising that
the resulting elevations are no longer representative of the property's original
' Lidar data is a remote sensing technology that measures distance by illuminating a target with a laser and analyzing
the reflected light. Lidar detects subtle topographic features to measure elevations.
.y.
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 4
topography. Thus, the resulting grade elevations on the property are not consistent with
the prevailing grades on the two adjacent properties. Unless additional documentation
could be provided that illustrates the grade elevations prior to artificial fill, grade for the
purposes of measuring structure height would be calculated utilizing the grade of the
two neighboring properties. Refer to the attached letter sent by the Planning Division
(Attachment No. PC 6).
Planning staff met with the owner and architect on May 22, 2015, to discuss the
establishment of grade. Following the meeting, staff advised the applicant that to
dispute the determination, they may submit an appeal of the Community Development
Director's establishment of grade.
Appeal
On June 19, 2015, Jeff and Holly Miller, property owners of 1608 West Ocean Front,
filed an appeal (Attachment No. PC 6) of the Community Development Director's
establishment of grade.
Staff notes that the Planning Commission is not bound by the Community Development
Director's decision and is not limited to the issues raised in the appeal. Pursuant to
Municipal Code Section 20.64.030 (Filing and Processing of Appeals and Calls for
Review), a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new
hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the appeal
was filed. The appellate body is not bound by the decision being appealed or limited to
the issues raised on appeal.
DISCUSSION
Establishment of Grade
Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) identifies the methodology by which grade is
established for the purposes of determining height. The establishment of grade sets the
parameters for future development on the site but does not directly consider the design
for a residence.
The property is characterized by a three percent slope, where the boardwalk along
West Ocean Front is approximately three feet higher than the elevation points adjacent
to the rear alley. In cases where the slope is five percent or less, the grade is
established by a plane using the average of the existing grade elevations at each corner
of a four-sided polygon (typically at the buildable areas).
Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) of the Zoning Code defines existing grade as, "the surface
of the ground or pavement at a stated location as it exists prior to disturbance in
preparation for a project." As discussed above, the subject property was altered in
5
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 5
September/October of 2014 so that the grade is no longer representative of the
condition prior to disturbance.
In accordance with Section 20.30.050.0 (Grade Establishment — Establishment by
Director) of the Zoning Code, if the Community Development Director finds that the
existing grade has been previously altered (e.g., contains retaining structures, property
line walls, planters, or excavation/fill), or other conditions are present to the degree that the
existing grade is not representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining lots and/or the
general area and, therefore, is not appropriate for the purpose of establishing the grade of
the subject lot, the Community Development Director may establish the grade that is
reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and that will not be
detrimental or injurious to property and improvements on adjoining lots.
Community Development Director Determination
In this case, the Community Development Director found that the existing grade on the
subject property had been previously altered and that it was not representative of the
prevailing grades on adjoining lots in the area. Thus, as identified in the letter from the
Planning Division dated April 1, 2015 (Attachment No. PC 6), the Community
Development Director determined that the grade elevations on the two adjacent
properties were the most representative of the prevailing grades in the area adjacent to
West Ocean Front.
Average grade per Community Development Director's Determination:
As established by the Community Development Director, the determination of average
grade utilizes the two front elevation points on the adjacent properties and two elevation
points on the subject property adjacent to the alley. The resulting average grade is
calculated as follows:
12.95' + 12.8' + 9.67' + 9.65' = 11.27' average grade
Appeal
On June 19, 2015, Jeff and Holly Miller, the property owners of 1608 West Ocean Front,
filed an appeal of the Director's determination.
Average Grade as Requested by Appellant:
The average grade requested by the appellant utilizes elevation points on the subject
property based on the topographic survey, which was prepared after artificially filling the
front yard area. The resulting average grade is calculated as follows:
15.00' + 14.9' + 9.67' + 9.65' = 12.31' average grade
With the higher grade elevations suggested by the appellant, the resulting slope of the
property is 5.2 percent. Thus, grade for the purposes of determining height would be
0
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 6
established by five section points taken at equal intervals in accordance with Section
20.30.050.6 (Establishment of Grade, More than Five Percent Slope). In this case, an
average would not be used for the establishment of grade.
The appellant has identified the following reasoning in their appeal letter, provided as
Attachment No. 7:
a. "Average grade as indicated at 12.31 feet [NAVD88 datum] is below the adjacent
neighbor grades of 12.8 feet and 12.95 feet. The current design indicates a
finished floor of 12.67 feet, which is slightly below the grade of both existing
adjacent neighbors, an elevation which will flow quite nicely."
The subject properties along West Ocean Front have higher grade elevations adjacent
to the boardwalk area and lower grade elevations at the rear adjacent to the alley.
Should the two adjacent properties be redeveloped, the higher elevations at the front
would be averaged together with the lower elevations along the alley to create an
average grade elevation that is lower than the 12.8 feet and 12.95 feet indicated by the
appellant (approximately 11.24 feet [NAVD88 datum] and 11.30 feet [NAVD88 datum]
respectively).
b. "With the granting of average grade of 12.31 feet [NAVD88 datum] and allowing
the project as currently designed to go forward as planned, that would make the
maximum roof height of a sloped roof 41.31 feet at its high point and 38.31 feet
at its low point assuming the required 3/12 slope. Our project's design, attached
(Attachment No. PC 8), presented only 164.5 square feet of roof area,
approximately 7 percent, of the 2,244 buildable area as a sloped roof within
these height limits. The other 93 percent of roof heights fall well below the
maximum height of 41.31 feet to heights ranging from 32.58 feet to 36.08 feet."
The applicant desires to construct a residence with four levels of habitable floor area
including a subterranean basement level and roof deck with appurtenant structures. In
reviewing the project plans, Planning staff has issued corrections, noting that several
rooflines covering the third floor roof deck exceed the 24-foot height limit for flat roofs
and the 29-foot height limit for sloping roofs based on the grade as established by the
Community Development Director.
Staff acknowledges that utilizing the lower average grade elevation of 11.27 feet results
in a lower height limit elevation of 35.27 feet [NAVD88 datum] for flat roof structures
(including roof deck guardrails) at 24 feet in height and 40.27 feet [NAVD88 datum] for
the ridge of a sloping roof at 29 feet in height. A single-family residence can typically be
designed with two floors of living area and a portion of a third floor area living area with
an adjacent roof deck within the height limit. The basement level garage access and
rooflines at the third floor deck level would need to be modified in order to comply with
the height limit per the Community Development Director's determination.
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 7
The Public Works Division has also reviewed the project plans and noted that the slope
of the proposed basement level parking is too steep and does not comply with City
standards. Parking is prohibited on slopes greater than five percent and the maximum
driveway slope is 15 percent. The proposed driveway profile has a slope of 23 percent
and exceeds the maximum slope permitted by the Public Works Department.
Regardless of the establishment of grade as determined by the Planning Commission,
the design of the residence needs to be modified to conform to City development
standards.
Public Correspondence
Staff has received one letter of opposition to the appellant's request for a higher grade
establishment. This letter is provided as Attachment No. PC 8.
Summary
The establishment of grade sets the parameters for future development on the site but
does not directly consider the design of the residence. Staff recommends the denial of
the applicant's appeal to use the higher grade elevations, upholding the Community
Development Director's establishment of grade by utilizing front elevations on the two
adjacent properties. The artificially filled front yard elevations are not representative of
the existing grade as defined by the Zoning Code or representative of the prevailing
grades on adjoining lots in the area. Granting of a higher average grade would provide
special privileges that are not granted to similar residential properties in the vicinity.
Alternatives
The Planning Commission could:
1. Uphold the Community Development Director's original determination, as shown
in Attachment No. PC 6.
2. Identify a different average grade methodology for purposes of determining
height.
3. Grant the applicant's request to utilize the higher grade elevations resulting from
the artificially filled front landscape area as shown on the topographic survey.
Environmental Review
Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review.
If the applicant's request is approved, the project is categorically exempt under Section
15303, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 3 (New
2
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 8
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). The Class 3 exemption includes the
construction of one single-family residence. The subject appeal involves the potential for
the future redevelopment of a single-family residence on an individual property. The
existing structure may be partially or fully demolished. Therefore, the proposed project
qualifies for an exemption under Class 3.
Public Notice
Notice of this appeal was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property
within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and
waterways) including the applicants, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days
prior to the meeting. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting,
which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Maka& N a Br n a Wisnes i, ICP, Deputy Director
Associate Planner
GR/mkn
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution for Denial of Appeal
PC 2 Draft Resolution for Approval of Appeal
PC 3 Site photos dated January 30, 2015
PC 4 Lidar Data from 2006 and March of 2014
PC 5 AIC Corrections
PC 6 Planning Division Correspondence dated April 1, 2015
PC 7 Appellants Appeal letter
PC 8 Public Correspondence
PC 9 Topographic Survey and Project Plans
9
V�
QP
�P
20
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution for Denial of Appeal
11
V�
QP
�P
2�
RESOLUTION NO. ####
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING THE APPLICANT'S
APPEAL TO UTILIZE A HIGHER AVERAGE GRADE AND
UPHOLDING THE AVERAGE GRADE ESTABLISHED BY THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR PURPOSES OF
DETERMINING HEIGHT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1608
WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2015-120)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An appeal of the Community Development Director's establishment of grade was filed by
Jeff and Holly Miller ("Applicant'), with respect to property located at 1608 West Ocean
Front, and legally described as Lot 4, Block 16, Section B, of Newport Beach, in
conjunction with an approval in concept (AIC) application for the construction of a new
single-family residence.
2. The Applicant has filed an appeal of the Community Development Director's
establishment of grade for purposes of determining height in accordance with Section
20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Zoning Code for the construction of a new
single-family residence. The Applicant desires to use a higher average grade than the
grade elevations determined by the Community Development Director. The Applicant
artificially filled in the front yard and is seeking to use the raised elevation points for
purposes of determining height. The Applicant seeks to construct a new single-family
residence utilizing an average grade of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) rather than 11.27
feet (NAVD88 datum) as established by the Community Development Director.
3. The subject property is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District and
the General Plan Land Use Element category is RT (Two-Unit Residential).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is RT-D (Two Unit Residential).
5. A public hearing was held on August 6, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic
Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was
given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written
and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this
meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to
CEQA review.
13
Planning Commission Resolution No. eft
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
In this case, the Planning Commission finds:
1. The Applicant's suggestion to utilize elevations following the artificial fill of the site is
contrary to the definition of, "established grade," as identified in Section 20.70
(Definitions) of the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission does not consider the
topographic conditions resulting from the artificial fill of the property to be a unique
circumstance resulting to warrant approval for a higher average grade for purposes of
determining height. The Planning Commission, in this case, determined that the
average grade proposed by the Community Development Director is consistent with
the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC.
2. The grades on adjacent properties are most representative of the existing grade
elevations prior to disturbance and alteration on-site. Granting of the higher average
grade would provide special privileges to the subject property that are not granted to
similar residential properties in the vicinity.
3. The higher average grade for purposes of determining height as proposed by the
Applicant is neither required by code nor necessary for the enjoyment of the property.
As shown through previously approved building permits, the subject property can be
designed to comply with the requirements of the NBMC and be used for the
construction of a new single-family or two-unit residence.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies the appeal and
upholds the grade establishment by the Community Development Director made on April
1, 2015 (PA2015-120). The Applicant shall utilize the average grade elevation of 11.27
feet (NAVD88 datum) for purposes of determining height at 1608 West Ocean Front.
2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in
accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 6T" DAY OF AUGUST, 2015.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
03-03-2015
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 3 of 3
BY:
Kory Kramer, Chair
BY:
Peter Koetting, Secretary
03-03-2015
15
V�
QP
�P
2�
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Resolution for Approval of Appeal
17
V�
QP
�P
sg
RESOLUTION NO. ####
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GRANTING THE APPLICANT'S
APPEAL TO UTILIZE HIGHER GRADE ELEVATIONS FOR
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING HEIGHT AND OVERTURNING
THE AVERAGE GRADE ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1608 WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2015-120)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An appeal of the Community Development Director's establishment of grade was filed by
Jeff and Holly Miller ("Applicant'), with respect to property located at 1608 West Ocean
Front, and legally described as Lot 4, Block 16, Section B, of Newport Beach, in
conjunction with an approval in concept (AIC) application for the construction of a new
single-family residence.
2. The Applicant has filed an appeal of the Community Development Director's
establishment of grade for purposes of determining height in accordance with Section
20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Zoning Code for the construction of a new
single-family residence. The Applicant desires to use a higher average grade than the
grade elevations determined by the Community Development Director. The Applicant
artificially filled in the front yard and is seeking to use the raised elevation points for
purposes of determining height. The Applicant seeks to construct a new single-family
residence utilizing an average grade of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) rather than 11.27
feet (NAVD88 datum) as established by the Community Development Director.
3. The subject property is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District and
the General Plan Land Use Element category is RT (Two-Unit Residential).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is RT-D (Two Unit Residential).
5. A public hearing was held on August 6, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic
Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was
given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written
and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this
meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations (Section 15315, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for
19
Planning Commission Resolution No. fit#
Page 2 of 5
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 3 New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
2. The Class 3 exemption includes the construction of one single-family residence. The
subject appeal involves the potential for the future redevelopment of a single-family
residence on an individual property. The existing structure may be partially or fully
demolished. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for an exemption under Class 3.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
In accordance with Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
1. The grade elevations requested by the Applicant are consistent with the legislative
intent of Title 20 of the NBMC.
2. The resulting design and size of the proposed residence is compatible with the allowed
residential development in the vicinity.
3. The existing artificial fill at the front yard of the subject property a unique circumstance,
resulting in the necessity to utilize higher grade elevations for purposes of determining
height. Granting of the Applicant's request does not provide special privileges to the
subject property as provided by the Zoning Code in similar circumstances for
residential development.
4. The subject property cannot be designed with a useable single-family residence that
complies with the grade elevations as identified by the Community Development
Director. The proposed residence as designed would not be detrimental to the
harmonious and orderly growth of the City.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Applicant's
appeal and overturns the Community Development Director's establishment of grade for
purposes of determining height (PA2015-120), subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The Applicant shall
utilize the average grade elevation of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) for purposes of
determining height at 1608 West Ocean Front.
2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in
accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
03-03-2015
20
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 3 of 5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Kory Kramer, Chair
BY:
Peter Koetting, Secretary
03-03-2015
21
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 4of5
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING
1 . The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
2. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use
Permit.
3. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be
incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the
building permits.
4. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division
and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City-
adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all
applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County
Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, approval from the California Coastal Commission
shall be required.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment
permit and an encroachment agreement from the Public Works Department. All
encroachments shall comply with Council Policy L-6, L-8, and L-12 for the existing
block wall within the West Ocean Front right-of-way. If the wall location is not permitted
by the California Coastal Commission, the block wall shall be relocated to private
property.
7. The proposed driveway profile shall comply with City Standard STD-160-L-C. Parking
shall be prohibited on slopes greater than 5 percent. The maximum driveway slope is
15 percent. The maximum grade change is 11 percent with a minimum interval of 5
feet.
8. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the
current property owner or the real estate agent.
9. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the
actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved
in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
03-03-2015
22
Planning Commission Resolution No. fit#
Page 5 of 5
10. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees,
and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages,
actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and
expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of
every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly
or indirectly) to City's approval of the Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal
(PA2015-120). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded
against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in
connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred
by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant
shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City
incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant
shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the
indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
03-03-2015
23
V�
QP
�P
Attachment No. PC 3
Site photos dated January 30, 2015
25
V�
QP
�P
iillullL�,� ,� �IIIIII�_rr�r_-
iiii�i.
JIM
M
View from West Ocean Front facing the raised front yard area. Close-up view from West Ocean Front facing the raised front yard area.
I
o � i
b-
View from 1610 West Ocean Front facing the front yard area. View from West Ocean Front facing the raised front yard areQ7
t_L•
Y
s � "� z � � i
r as,. � -� sir. �, r
�:..
.2
Y..,. �
` Y �__ ... __ -
N
.AFI 'e"^ ,`ii
r F' ��, `"�/i
r 1
�,� . i o-
_ � s �� � AM' ILC:
`.�
� � .._���
"\ � _,�
��
A ��I y` �- b `:,baa • � �+�'1
ti.
'r ^'���D� ,, � ,
, r
Attachment No. PC 4
LiDar Data from 2006 and March of 2014
29
V�
QP
�P
30
11952 •stun •J1.Ubb - •M.ov --- �_ j 089 28.%1
.348 • 30.907 6 •
15.
� 1j.906 28.51 29.145 2 8.89
.70 1.002 9 30.%6 • 30.6 • 0.403 1 . 4311. 27.572
1 :1.102 " ••• 27.774
t�.941 273
30.815 •34626 i 0.351 30 4 ? .. 1 27.37!
Idb
.
34.57 • l 7 } t
'34.77 31.174 19.142
• 0 24.744
• 31.074 tj.%] �- 35.4 8 f � '
• • • .u+ tr *1 9.
1 �, 0.393
12.262 • 4
• 1.037 • { �
31.096` 1.043 7 e 66.389 .93
• p7o a 3. /{ J 11 1
34.864 12.28 30.845 . T �' .91� •!• �7. N.O • •
• • 0.844 • 0 - m 5.8 26.666 1.36}-r1 as •1t a 5;
30.93 1 - ,126.044
7 4 - •
49 30.997 0 U.305 7.186 u 1965 �a 29d
M '
• S o
3.3 30.%6 1.47 30.893 1 &16 1 •
11A
• • 12.48 1 11 `��•
� •31.226 +• �
• •12.57 /nf
F 1
11 :0.859 30.872 }. 11�y1 • • • 17.152
•12.6 1 • • 1639 Al2.N35 12,W3 �h
/ 11.047 1 ;1 • 4 • ti vd 16
_ • 2
iL715
• 11'909 i
K' • 1 •
383
19.096 ` 0 3.096 30325 7 . 12.664 l _ ♦ ,_
• 2 • ' Y 11.706 *11.159
7 .119, _�•
691
16.095 72.166 12.382 '�� � �.• ®
• • m _� 2.78 �� 81 13.234 18 ^ / 11914
*1 2.072 12.337 • • l• o '' L434 • 11-99 .
e 1 r 2.691
J • 12.
11.74 12.065 • _ II' '
• •
11.923 12.224
e 1
•
11.794 12 074 • 12253 12AB9 , i 8•
• m
11.858 11A86 17.837 11.646 •2J.[43 12.311 ` •
• • 1993 • 12.389 12' 6 r.�18_A8�
11931 11.71 , 12.44
11972 • 11.781 � 12.111 • • 12.393
• • •
11.682 12.248
12.237 • •
• 12.133 12.145 11.783 11954
• 12.251 • • • 11.734 *1 1939 11971 12.104
12.309 • :2.328 *1 2.122 11.878 • • :1988 11.89 12.074
12.736
12.446 12.325 • 12.17712.167
• • • • 12.077 11.906 11947
LiDar data-�g06
tt Ola 13 3i3 0 ,WS V's
3921, -- -->„N 304.0 • t - -
DOL 1(15-3j1� 30:13M.1 ♦ �. 0
1 1* • T •02 �0!•! N 102
31037
30ba • t
31.99 3++N • �
• • 3D On 3004D
• E•
of
• 21 -30
31700 • 303a3 H403"M 301"
N tq •30 •
• 1 ),•!a • 3090! 13M 30!.• �n, `
• • a� 3. 731 • 21 �•
• •x•063 •:00• ��•]Nl 3=3 1• _ . :.YS • . • .3.F •l'fay ••-•)♦']'
wftftftft*
31264 lr 39102 :)•t t -i aKT
. ata
N 107 • 13911 �_ IF '• `
• N 1430 M. • ,] Q
21201 • • :
13.11 • tI •9 ,E,.
N tae 13 Ste 0
31 f0 )1•:30 OA 1141 QOtl „a 0
• '3039 f • 4tll 032n
39107 •DN • "1•0• 3.
• �31i 3,]01 • 013 b1 MLyNH •.
• a • • �y Q.Qa 031 Qe31 ♦meq li .3 LOS .y
31 13419 12 T� • •� •,-� y .
Vi X31 tf. 30ot :33�M 1T7
lQ
30 to! 1 ' 1 : • •!a3
11 13!N 004 • 30 303 130,(,40 12•ON pp:Q: •n
�• a 10♦ en i'•♦n>• •,B u•":7
V a t000t
Div 1w 13 w'"rx • �. • v =
• 13
an ♦ 222 ♦ R 4 •:l_t
30 r 'q-%
11012 ♦ f1
♦303711360 12"1 • •t]3!! I •Q e0 • &2NC ^
•e,122 1:•3 12 Q0 G•"1 M!NMM4 • a ♦ 1
NeM • 1061! • • i:e • TTN
♦ asa 13646 • 17!:' •` y, 033331 ' • r
170 a01,13 aa0 12000 • M: •n • t 3. :2•+•
• 30aMD?n • vi.2240 0''- • t ar3 ]50.a
• • "21139•» ., » - C =046N'Q OIe • CON: f3 E•• .7 ♦1.1Y i' •moi:
tu
• >s + 133 • a 717.0 f
13 � O� 2 "0: c OOjII OL ••. .ip ,]o�)On •S♦ • ..A• IN
"Aft14 ,.f 731 t
• 13M 13.123 tome 115,• - 1•S, 979210.
•a a±! :.3M • 13010 • • -
• v101 u! '�
• t.a»t.304 • • ••nl
• )
y V . •
3-0
• •CON ,♦•922 . . N IF
Qe33 r:11•
• • • �.
12 e36 123M 363 • 123MQM•si �1 •3a
t2 9A
12'°'1:664 } ' pr+207 • • •Ce31 922 • �f
330 �OM i.,1..• • 120% 1:1336:_. • Y3
12,001' / KT "• • . .. , CEO• tre' '* Apes
LiDar data Ma- cW2014
Attachment No. PC 5
AIC Corrections
33
V�
QP
�P
31{
WP()
Residential Zoning Corrections Plan Check No.: AIC2015005
O 6
Community Development Department Address: 1608 WEST OCEAN
n Planning Division aoNT
v 100 Civic Center Drive ; P.O Box 1768 overtime PC: ❑
c9irxoaN�A Newport Beach, CA 92658 Date: 02/10/2015
(949)644-3200 Telephone - (949)644-3229 Facsimile
www.newportbeachca.gov Approval Date:
Corrections Required Plan Checker Information
"1" (First Review): 02/10/15 If you have questions regarding your plan check, please contact:
"2" (Second Review): Plan Checker: Makana Nova Email: mnova@newportbeachca.gov
"3" (Third Review): Phone: 949-644-3249 Fax No.: 949.644.3203
General Information
1. Zone: x-2 Setback Map No: S-2C PC Text:
2. Proposal: Z New ❑Addition ❑Alteration ❑ Other SFR
3. No. of Units Allowed: 2 No. of Units Proposed:1
4. Demo Proposed Z Yes ❑ No If Yes, number of units to be demolished 1
Coastal Commission Review
5. Coastal Zone: Z Yes ❑ Exclusion Zone ❑ No
6. Exempt because:
7. Categorical Exclusion No.: Effective Date:
8. Waiver No: Effective Date:
9• 1 AIC No:AIC2015003 Coastal Development Permit No: Effective Date:
10. 1 Coastal Approval Letter(all pages)to be bluelined/blacklined into plans.
11. Comments:
Discretionary Action
12. Application required: Reason:
Previous Discretionary Approvals:
1. Application Type No. For:
13. 2. Application Type No. For:
3. Application Type No. For:
4. Application Type No. For:
5. Application Type No. For:
14. ❑ Please make an apptwith: Phone: Email:
15. Blueline resolution and conditions into the drawings. ❑ Copy attached
16. Blueline approval letter into the drawings.❑ Copy attached
17. HOLD ON FINAL. The following items must be completed before the building permits are finaled:
18. Comments:
3.�
Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd)
Required Fees
19. Fairshare Fee Contribution: 20, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee:
21. Other:
Lot or Parcel Status
22. Legal Description: Lot: 1 Block: 16 Section: B Tract:NEWPORT BEACH
23• Easement(s)on-site: ❑ Yes ® No ❑Verify with Public Works
No person shall develop any structure including, but not limited to, a principal or accessory structure across a lot
P4, line per Section 19.04.035(Development Across Property Lines)of the Subdivision Code. Please apply for a
Parcel Map, Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustment, or Certificate of Compliance to address underlying legal lot
lines.
25. Covenant required. Please have the property owner's signature notarized on the attached document and return
with the filing fee payable to the County Recorder.
Comments:ADD NOTE: "THERE SHALL BE NO FACILITIES USED FOR FOOD PREPARATION WIHTIN
THE BASEMENT AREA NOR SHALL THE BASEMENT BE UTLIZED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES
26• 1 SEPERATELY OR INDEPENDENTLY FROM OCCUPANTS OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.." IN ORDER
TO CONVERT THE DEVELOPMENT INTO A DUPLEX, FAIRSHARE FEES FOR ONE NEW DWELLING
UNIT ARE REQUIRED.
Setbacks
Setback Regulations (20.30.110)
27. 'Setbacks are measured from property line to finished surface, unless otherwise specified.
Front: 9' Left Side: 3' Right Side: 3' Rear: O' Other:
Third Floor Step-backs (20.48.180A.3.b.) (Applicable to all R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, except:R-81;R-1-6000;
28. R-1-7,200;R-1-10,000, lots 25 feet wide or less in R-2;and Planned Community district)
Front: 15' LeftSide: O ' RightSide: O ' Rear: 15' N/A:
29. Comments:
Floor Area/Site Area Limitations
30. Lot Size: 3, 075 square feet Lot Dimensions: 30 ' X 102.5'
31. Buildable Area: lot area minus required setback areas = 2,244 SQ FT
Floor Area Limitation: 2 x buildable area + (200 Square Feet for R-BI only) = 4, 488 maximum square footage
32. 0 Calculation includes exterior walls, stairway(s) on one level, enclosed parking (including subterranean)
• Calculation does not include subterranean basements
• Comments:
33. 1 Proposed Floor Area: 4, 925 squarefeet
Site (Lot)Coverage Limitation: N/A percent of total lot area
34. Calculation includes the percentage of a site covered by structures, including eaves and overhangs, and
accessory structures and by decks more than 30 inches in height.
35. Proposed Lot Coverage: square feet or percent of total lot area
36. 1 Provide tissue overlay of calculations verifying proposed square footage (show dimensions&calculations on
tissue).
Updated 09/16/14
I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD)
Page 2 of 8
so
Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd)
Comments: DIMENSIONS DO NOT REFLECT FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ON THE COVER SHEET.
37. 1 AREAS AT THE THIRD FLOOR MUST BE COUNTED AS SQUARE FOOTAGE. REFER TO REDLINES.
PROVIDE A TISSUE OVERLAY TO VERIFY FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS.
Updated 09/16/14
I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD)
Page 3 of 8
37
Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd)
For 39-42, applicable to all R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, except.R-81;R-1-6000;R-1-7,200;R-1-10,000, lots 25 feet wide or
less in R-2;and Planned Community district
Third Floor Limitation (20.48.180 3.)
❑ 15% of the total buildable area for lots wider than 30 feet:
Maximum: .15 x buildable area= Proposed:
38, ® 20% of the total buildable area for lots 30 feet wide or less:
Maximum: .20x buildable area = 449 Proposed: 126
• Enclosed square footage located on the third floor shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the front and
rear setback lines
• For lots greater than 30 feet in width a minimum of 2 feet from each side setback line, including bay windows.
39. Comments:
Open Volume Area Required (20.48.180 4.)
® 15% of the buildable area of the lot in addition to the required setback areas
Required: .15 x buildable area: 336 square feet
40' Proposed: 624 square feet
• Open volume must be located within the buildable envelope(within the setback; under 24 FEET)
• Open Volume must have a minimum dimension of 5 feet in depth from the setback line on which it is located
• Open volume must be open on a minimum of one side and have minimum clear vertical dimension of 7.5 feet
41. Comments:
Plot Plan/Site Plan/Floor Plans
42• Provide Site Plan/Plot Plan, Floor Plans, fully dimensioned.
43. Show the location of all buildings on-site and dimension distance to property lines.
44• Dimension the distance from face of curb to front property line(verify with Public Works).
45. Indicate the second and third floor footprints(if applicable).
Dimension all projections(e.g., fireplaces, bay windows, eaves), label distance(s)to property lines. DIMENSION
46. 1 FIREPLACE AND BALCONY RAIL PROJECTIONS (ONLY 6 INCH PROJECTION PERMITTED FOR
BALCONY RAIL)
47. Dimension the distance between buildings.
48. 1 Provide floor plan(s)fully dimensioned showing all room uses for all buildings on-site. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
FLOOR PLAN DIMENSIONS PER REDLINES.
49• Provide existing and proposed floor plans fully dimensioned showing all room uses for all buildings on-site.
50. Plot property lines on site plan and all floor plans with setbacks called out.
51. Indicate the location of easement(s)plotted on site plan.
52. Comments:
Updated 09/16/14
I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD)
Page 4 of 8
32
Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd)
Off-Street Parking (20.40)
Accessory Dwelling Units 1 per unit, a minimum of 2 covered per site
Single-Unit Dwellings—Attached 2 per unit in a garage
Single-Unit Dwellings—Detached and less than 4,000 sq. ft. 2 per unit in a garage
of gross floor area*
Single-Unit Dwellings—Detached and 4,000 sq. ft. or 3 per unit in a garage
greater of gross floor area*
Single-Unit Dwellings—Balboa Island 2 per unit in a garage
Multi-Unit Dwellings—3 units 2 per unit covered, plus guest parking
1-2 units, no guest parking required
3 units, 1 guest parking space
Multi-Unit Dwellings—4 units or more 2 per unit covered, plus 0.5 space per unit for guest parking
Two-Unit Dwellings 2 per unit; 1 in a garage and 1 covered in a garage
LiveiWork units 2 per unit in a garage, plus 2 forguest/customer parking
Senior Housing—market value 1.2 per unit
Senior Housing - affordable 1 per unit
*Gross Floor Area in this case shall include the square footage of basements but shall not include the square footage of garages.
Minimum Interior Dimensions
The minimum interior dimensions for parking spaces in residential zoning districts shall be as provided, below. The Director
may approve a reduced width for duplex units when two separate single car garages are proposed side by side and the
applicant has proposed the maximum width possible.
Lot Width Single CarlTandem* Two Car Three Car
30 feet or less 9'-3" x 19' (35')* 17'-6" x 19' Two car garage
minimum width plus 8'3"
30.1 - 39.99 feet 10'x 19' (35')* 18'-6"x 19' for each additional
space x Two car garage
40 feet or more 10'x 20' 20'x-20' depth
*The minimum depth for a 2-car tandem space is 35 feet
53. Gross Floor Area for purposes of calculating the number of parking spaces:
Gross Floor Area (don't include garage) + Basement=
54. Number of Parking Spaces Required: 2 Minimum interior clear dimensions required: 17' 6" x 19'
55. Label interior clear dimensions of the garage free of all obstructions such as cabinetry, appliances, steps, posts,
etc. (one riser is allowed, maximum 6 inches high, encroaching no more than 18 inches into garage).
Indicate on the plans that the garage doors are automatic roll-up doors. Garages with doors that face the street
56. that are located within twenty(20)feet of the front property line are required to be equipped with automatic roll-up
doors.
57. 1 Comments: REVISE STAIR AREA NOTE PER REDLINE ON THE PLANS.
HEIGHT LIMITATION (20.30.060)
• Measured from average grade if slope is 5% or less
• 20.30.050 Grade Establishment
• Roofs over the Flat Roof Limit must have a minimum 3:12 pitch
• Sloped roofs with a pitch less than 3:12 and parapets, railings, etc are considered flat roof for the purpose of height limits
• Heights are measured to the top of all finished materials.
• Height certification will be required in some cases
58. 1 Flat Roof Limit: 24 feet Sloped Roof Allowable Ridge Height: 29 feet
Updated 09/16/14
I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD)
Page 5 of 8
39
Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd)
Height certification inspection required? ® Yes ❑ No (Stamp Plans if Required)
59. 1 If an inspection is required,the planner shall place a notice in permit plus so the inspector knows a height
certification inspection is required.
60. Provide topographic survey to establish slope and average grade or, use subdivision grading plan, if applicable.
61. Provide a sheet showing the outline of the proposed structure over a topo survey to verify determination of slope
and height to be used for measuring elevation
62. Plot roof plan over topographic survey to assist with determination of grade points located directly below ridge
peaks, roof areas and/or parapets.
63. Label grade below and at top of any critical ridge, parapet, etc.
64. 1 Dimension heights from established grade to: ® top of flat roof ® ridge peak ® any flat elements
65. The height will be measured from 9.0 (88 NAVD datum). Land uses shall have a finished floor elevation below the
elevation per Section 20.65.030.13 of the Zoning Code.
66. Provide a roof plan.
67. Label and dimension roof pitches on roof plan and elevations.
68. Label and dimension eave overhang to property line on all exterior elevations.
69. 1 Label and dimension highest point of: ® all roof top equipment ® deck rails ® other: SPA
Rooftop equipment or screening structures may not exceed the height limit
70. 20.30.060 D. Exceptions to Height Limits
Comments: THIS PROJECT SHALL UTILIZE THE GRADE ELEVATIONS ON THE 2 ADJACENT
PROPERTIES TO DETERMINE GRADE FOR THIS PROPERTY. THE EXISTING GRADE WAS RAISED 2-3
FEET IN OCTOBER OF 2014 WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PERMITS. THIS GRADE IS NOT
REFLECTIVE OF THE EXISTING NATURAL GRADE OF THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
2. UTILIZING GRADE ELEVATIONS ON THE TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, SLOPE IS <5%. THUS
71. 1 TAKE AN AVERAGE OF THE FOUR POINTS. POINTS ARE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SURVEY.
SUGGESTED AVERAGE GRADE CALCULATIONS: 12.95 + 12.8 + 9. 67 + 9.65 = 45.07/4 =
11.27' .
3. PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE AT RIDGE AND TOP OF RAIL EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT
LIMIT FROM THE PROPOSED AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION IDENTIFIED IN COMMENT #2. REFER TO
REDLINES ON THE SECTION, SHEET A5.
LANDSCAPING 20.36
LANDSCAPING—TITLE 14
Chapter 14.16 of the Municipal Code (Water Conservation and Supple Level Regulations)applies to landscape
installation projects requiring a ministerial or discretionary permit and/or design review and are:
1. Homeowner-provided >5,000 sq ft of landscaped area, developer-provided > 2,500 sq ft
Rehabilitation landscape installation projects which meet the applicability criteria (above), are 50% of the total
landscaped area on the property, and the modifications are planned to occur within one year.
72• New Landscapes:
total sq ft of existing landscaped area
total sq ft of new landscaped area
Rehabilitated Landscapes:
total sq ft of existing landscaped area
total sq ft of rehabilitated landscaped area % of total landscaped area on site to be rehabilitated
Updated 09/16/14
I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD)
Page 6 of 8
Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd)
73• Comments:
LANDSCAPING—TITLE 20(20.36.050A)
Impervious surfaces in R-1 and R-2 zones.
1. Impervious surface areas, excluding driveways, shall not exceed 50 percent of the front yard area with
the remaining area landscaped with plant material. The use of pervious materials for walkways,
porches, and outdoor living areas is allowed.
74• 2. Where the typical neighborhood pattern of front yards has been developed with hardscaped outdoor
living areas that exceed the 50 percent maximum for impervious surfaces the Director may waive this
requirement.
Project complies with: No.1 ❑ Yes ❑ No
No.2 ❑ Yes ❑ No
75. Comments:
Design Criteria (20.48.180 B.)
For 76-81 below, applicable to all single-unit and two-unit residential building citywide
Walls: Long unarticulated exterior walls are discouraged on all structures.The visual massing of a building should
76, be reduced by incorporating appropriate design elements; including variation in the wall plane, building modulation,
opening, recesses, vertical element, varied textures, and design accents(e.g. moldings, pilasters, etc.). Front
facades shall include windows.
Upper floors: Portions of upper floors should be set back in order to scale down facades that face the street,
n• common open space, and adjacent residential structures. Upper story setbacks are recommended either as full
length "ste backs"or partial indentations for upper story balconies, decks, and/or aesthetic setbacks.
78, Architectural treatment: Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places, including alleys, is
encouraged.Treatments may include window treatments, cornices, siding, eaves, and other architectural features.
Front fagade: Where the neighborhood pattern is for the primary entrance to face the street, the primary entry and
79, windows should be the dominate elements of the front fagade. Primary entrances should face the street with a
clear, connecting path to the public sidewalk or street.Alternatively, entry elements may be visible from the street
without the door necessary facing the street.
80. Main entrance: The main dwelling entrance should be clearly articulated through the use of architectural detailing.
81. Comments:
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
TWO-TO FOUR-UNIT DWELLING PROJECTS A notice shall be signed by property owners and copied into the
plan set prior to the issuance of a building permit for development of two-to four-unit dwellings.The notice serves
82. as a record of acknowledgement that property owners understand should they choose to pursue the approval of a
Parcel Map for condominium purposes during the construction, they fully understand that the Parcel Map
application is a discretionary process and is not guaranteed.
CONDOS- (Existing Structures) Before a condominium unit may be sold, a condominium conversion building
83, permit must be signed off by the Planning Department. The Parcel Map must be signed off by the Public Works
Department, approved by the County and RECORDED at the County. Proof of recordation will be required before
Planning can sign off on the building permit final. Provide a copy of the first page of the recorded document.
CONDOS- (New Structures) Before a condominium unit may be sold, a building permit is required for a
description change from "duplex"to"condominiums." Before building permits can be finaled,the Parcel Map must
84. be signed off by the Public Works Department, approved by the County and RECORDED at the County. Proof of
recordation will be required before Planning can sign off on the description change. Provide a copy of the first page
of the recorded document.
89, 1 20.30.040 (Fences. Hedges.Walls. and Retaining Walls) Label the height, length, and location of all fences,
hedges, walls, retaining walls, and self-closing/self-latching gates on the subject property.
Updated 09/16/14
I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD)
Page 7 of 8
41
Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd)
20.30.130 Traffic Safety Visibility Area:
86. Design includes improvements within traffic safety visibility triangle: ❑ Yes ❑ No
• If Yes, label and illustrate traffic safety visibility triangle as follows:
• Label proposed improvements within triangle as follows:
INTERIOR FIREPLACES The overall chimney height for an interior fireplace is permitted to exceed the height
limit by two feet above the roof plane plus an additional two foot maximum for the cap/spark arrestor. The
S7• 1 additional two foot section is not only limited in height but also to 2 feet by 4 feet in width and depth. In addition,
the chimney must be located a minimum distance of 10 feet from the nearest roof plane. Label dimensions of
the chimney plus any portion of the cap/arrestor.
88. 1 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures are typically limited to 6 feet in side and rear setbacks and 42
inches in front setbacks. Please label height from natural grade below to highest point of structure.
89, 1 ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE ONTO SHEET NO. "Pools, spas,walls,fences, patio covers and other
freestanding structures require separate reviews and permits"
ASSOCIATION APPROVAL (ADVISORY) Issuance of a Building Permit by the City does not relieve applicant of
90, legal requirement to observe covenants, conditions and restrictions which may be recorded against the property
or to obtain community association approval of plans.
91. 1 TRASH AREA Indicate the location of the screened trash area on the site plan or floor plan. TRASH AREA
SHOULD BE COUNTED AS GROSS FLOOR AREA
92. 1 Comments: PLEASE PROVIDE A DRAINAGE/PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR THIS APPROVAL IN
CONCEPT.
Updated 09/16/14
I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD)
Page 8 of 8
42
Attachment No. PC 6
Planning Division Correspondence dated
April 1, 2015
4S
V�
QP
�P
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CEOpo 100 Civic Center Drive
O(� Newport Beach,California 92660
949 644-3200
F}" f newportheachca.gov/communirydevelopment
CqG/ROIX
April 1, 2015
Mr. Jeff Miller
Post Office Box 1096
Yorba Linda CA 92885-1096
Re: 1608 W. Ocean Front, Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Miller,
Thank you for submitting the requested information on how you intend to correct the building
violations that occurred in October 2014 and identified in a Notice Letter dated February 9,
2015. Improvements included raising the finish grade of the yard, adding steps, and backfilling
against adjacent freestanding walls. Eric Skarin, Senior Civil Engineer, and I have reviewed the
proposed plans submitted and determined that the proposed modifications would resolve the
Building Code violations; however, you will need to apply for a building permit for the installation
of the new handrail illustrated in Section B of your proposed plans. Please contact Joe Slouka,
Building Inspector, to schedule an inspection to verify all proposed modifications have been
completed. Upon confirmation, the case will be closed.
Please be advised that the resulting finish grade is no longer representative of the property's
original topography and is not consistent with the prevailing grades on the two adjacent
properties. Unless you are able to submit documentation that illustrates what the existing grade
was prior to the artificial fill, grade for the purposes of measuring future structure height will be
calculated utilizing the grade of the two neighboring properties.
Thank you for your cooperation. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns
at (949) 644-3209 or imurilloCdnewportbeachca.aov.
Sincerely,
��
Jaifne Murillo
Senior Planner
Community Development
ae 6AP AL law
At4 -12 a xaa�s
March 12,2015
Mr. Jaime Murillo
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Reference: 1608 W. Ocean Front,Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Murillo
Upon receipt of a Notice Letter dated February 9, 2015, regarding the above referenced
property, we had a meeting last Friday, March 6, 2015 to address this letter that was a result
of a neighbor's complaint. As such, please find attached three (3) copies of an 11 x 17
drawing which addresses the required modifications as requested at the meeting with yourself
and Mr. Eric Skarin.
During our meeting, it was determined that no permit would be necessary to complete the
scope of work requited and illustrated on the attached drawing. This work includes the
following:
® Addition of one handrail at the back stairs.
® Removal of a portion of the wood chips from planters.
® Removal of step and replacement with a concrete landing at the ocean front.
® Extension:of a red wood landing onto the yard lawn area at existing stairs.
The work required on the above scope of work is anticipated to be completed within the next
thirty (3 0) days—by April 12,2015 —and this should conclude the matter.
Please feel free to contact me at (714) 920-7470 should you require additional information or
have any further questions. Thank you again for•your assistance and time in helping to bring
closure to this issue.
Best regards,
Jeff Miller
4�
%It
V7
Tf,? 'Z �ti I `t i��D• P44LWD
2x'l� 99 X41 ED
0
r _
w � `p • C�j�fA-�I�h �'F `�.i
TAP t�,Y s�-.�+•pSt W/ f`1 - r - r'•"�j' i �.
M
t4Y. u...
/ ter, c•NN r _ �l '
NTS
z
14 00
r 1
�.-- SI NCC > so rtmA
I
-�7 f y qZo• 2-
Tt-70
�'�(z'�R �•�-kR I�A-h�(�A-I L-_lm'�-��- iz�� `�. ��' J� R.AN� ��'j �� - ._ � d ,u.�+da, �1
fIUa;1> W/ lµ+'..p C44. pS
rttor) of wry, cy I
v �12f�,ta�a�j� %4'tUr411-
T� C�� V�z�:�t4�, �,N,�,,.�G�r C�X�(�-I nf�J � • : �`'. ---- [6��. � �` _ � � �- y -
C��'
QP
��
��,P
��
P�.
O�
��
����
44
Attachment No. PC 7
Appellants Appeal letter
49
V�
QP
�P
�o
J� a7�ndra �eS4� 928&t7O96'
May 28, 2015
City of Newport Beach
Community Planning Department
Planning Division
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Subject: Plan Check No. AIC2015005 dated 2/10/15, First Review
Plan Checker: Makana Nova @ 949-644-3249
Property Address: 1608 West Oceanfront
Dear Makana,
I would like to thank you for taking the time to meet with me and our Project Architect, Mr. Walt
Bushman last Friday, May 22, 2015 to discuss all our adjustments and changes made as a result of
comments we received in your first review and plan check. As you could see, we had addressed most
all the items and are able to maintain our desired design and use of the home with the goal of this
property eventually becoming our primary residence.
The one main item which still remains open is the determination of the grade for our project. This open
item has a big impact on the direction that my wife and I, along with our architect, are taking—whether
we are to continue and proceed using our current design or look into scraping our current design and
start over.
1. As you are aware, our "Existing Property Grades" at the four corners of the buildable
area are 15.00', 14.90', 9,67' and 9.65' which total 49.22' and produce an average grade
of 12.31'. We respectfully request that these grades be maintained to proceed forward
with our current design.
2. In the City's review, we received comments to utilize "Grades of Adjacent Neighbors"
in lieu of our property's existing grades at the four corners of the buildable area which
would then become 12.95', 12.80', 9.67' and 9.65' totaling 45.07' and produce an
average grade of 11.27'. We are respectfully requesting that these be reconsidered.
As you can see above, our average grade as indicated above of 12.31' is below the adjacent neighbor
grades of 12.80' and 12.95'. As you will also find in our attached drawings, the current design
indicates a finish floor of 12.67' which is slightly below the grade of both existing adjacent neighbors,
an elevation which will flow quite nicely.
Letter to City of Newport Beach
May 28, 2014
Page 2
With the City granting the average grade of 12.31' and allowing the project as currently designed to go
forward as planned, that would make the maximum roof height of a sloped roof 41.31' at its high point
and 38.31' at its low point assuming the required 3/12 slope. Our current project's design attached
presented only 164.50 sf of roof area, approximately 7%, of the 2,244 buildable area as a sloped roof
within these height limits. The other 93% of roof heights fall well below the maximum height of
41.31' to heights ranging from 32.58' to 36.081
.
With that said we appreciate the City reviewing our request and would appreciate the City granting this
project approval to move forward allowing the completion of design for final submittal, approval and
construction of our future primary residence.
Should you have questions or require further clarification of our proposed design, please feel free to
contact me at(714) 920-7470.
Best regards,
Jeff Miller
Home Owner
Cell: 714-920-7470
Attachments:
1. Completed Appeal Application
2. Check#1022 for$4,575.00—Appeal Fee
3. 12 sets of 11 x 17 Drawing
52
Attachment No. PC 8
Public Correspondence
153
V�
QP
�P
Subject: FW: PLANNING PROJECT PA2015-120- FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
From: Denys Oberman rmailto:dho@obermanassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:23 AM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: FW: PLANNING PROJECT PA2015-120- FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Please submit this Correction to the typographical error in my testimony as submitted yesterday.
And attach to the distribution and record copy to prevent any potential misunderstanding.
The word, "necessary" was intended to be "Unnecessary".
Please confirm receipt of this and letter of testimony
Thank you,
Denys Oberman
..................................................................................................
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
NOBERMAN
Shology and Flirx ncld A&Awm
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949)476-0790
Cell (949) 230-5868
Fax (949) 752-8935
Email: dho((Dobermanassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is
legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient,you
are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us Immediately at 9491476-0790 or the electronic address above,to
arrange for the return of the document(s)to us.
From: Denys Oberman rmailto:dho@obermanassociates.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 5:43 PM
To: I brown@ newoortbeachca.aov
Cc: 'Peter Anderson'; Grace Dove; Scott Robinson; 'Fredric Mark Levine'; dho@obermanassociates.com
Subject: PLANNING PROJECT PA2015-120- FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
i
1515
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND ENTER INTO
THE PUBLIC RECORD IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON AUGUST 6, 2015
Re. PA 2015-120
Residential project at 1608 W. Oceanfront
Newport Beach
Members of the Planning Commission:
am out of town on business and unable to attend the Hearing on August 6`h concerning this project.
I am writing to object to the Project Applicant's request that he be allowed to construct a Residential building
of height over 4 feet greater than that allowed under the City's zoning code.
To grant such an appeal would cause a number of adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbors, and also
create a precedent for perpetuation of necessary, extraordinary heights that would over-shade, destroy
views , and impair privacy and aesthetics for surrounding neighbors,as well as visitors enjoying the
boardwalk along the coast.
We believe that the Community Development and Planning Department rightfully denied the Applicant's
request for a variance, and respectfully request that the Planning Commission do the same.
Thank you,
Denys Oberman
Resident
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
NOBERMAN
Vwtogy and Flnor`c d Advisers
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949)476-0790
Cell (949) 230-5868
Fax(949) 752-8935
Email: dhoaobermanassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is
legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient,you
are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above,to
arrange for the return of the document(s)to us.
2
50
Attachment No. PC 9
Topographic Survey and Project Plans
V�
QP
�P
�g
PA2015-120
NORTH
�6
SCALE, 1'=8`
( LDA I �ys� I NOTES RECORD EASEMENTS ARE NOT PLOTTED IF ANY,
LONC.
SURVEYOk OR ENGINEER SHALL PERMANENTLY
�y... I MONUMENT PROPERTY CORNERS OR OFFSETS
0 BEFORE STARTING GRADING.
2NP CONC. p154
0 CUTTER ` 3` STORY
RESIDENCE
41 �41 CONE.
# # �$ $ 6� S9°41'17"W/'102.5 of o.b3TN 1
Z �4 lvj Y�O lll'' VALL IS �I CONE.
—�
o 'A - �' w q 0['ON OUR vil -
86F) N J # 6 pa PROPERTY
Ny � °' o ^ `�a' 5y�j M �
a�e 4 ..
V1 Us RESIDENCE �,�, W,B `tigq #. _`a. .. `rya. Uxc .. �
�� I#,
Lo ba s m Z
S a� o CONE. yy
T 2 c O
yS.
# S#q.�' 'b' ui CONIC. F cONc. cont Vl Sa
b` n°' '� a WALL IS ore• �q
F ON OUR PROPERTY F LL.
LUNG. CDNc. W_QUR PROPF T - t,out. /r$941'17"1W 102,5'0' ;p Z -.
LD1' a WALL IS 0.15' � ` �bI q S
Y ,y ON OUR PROPERi n� r 2 OWALL IS 5lN OUR PROPERTY 3 Jq 1
CONE. d' 3 'v '^ #- CONE. ui
U - .
las RESIDENCE
# $� O
` I CONI. _`aA�(' - Lyt'(RS
CONE.
.a�
LEGEND
DESCRIPTION -
(L23R5) MEAS. RG. DIST.
O REC, BkG. 8 DIST.
# BRICK
WALL
--- — BWILDING
_ L13T LINE SURo
WN WATER METIER �Ieoe 6t
F.F. FINISH FLOOR m"9o� P P4 op
'G.F. GARAGE FLOOR s X53
CONC. CONCRETE
F.S. FINISH SURFACE
N.H. MAN-HOLE
A.C. ASPHALT -ZB
7.G. TOP-GRATE
OWNER- (LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BENCH MARK, ADDRESS OF PROJECT,
RdM SURVEYING INC. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY JEFF MILLER (LOT 4, MH. 4/27 BENCH MARK #T-1415 1608 W. OCEANFRONT
RON MIEDEMA L.S. 4553 1608 W. OCEANFRONT ELEVATION '= 7.73 NAVD 88 DATUM NEWPORT BEACH, CA
23DI6 LAKE FOREST DR. #409 - NEWPORT BEACH, CA-
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
(949) 858-2924 OFFICE JOB, 54-15 DATE- 1/28/15 - -
(949) 858-3438 FAX
RDMSURVEYING@COX.NET -
59
PA2015-120 Attachment PC 8 - Project Plans
PROJECT DATA:
GENERAL NOTES: LOT:4
1. ALLOONSTRUMON 3HAW.COMPLY WTTHTHE tern CRC,CBC,MCI CM,CPICANDALL LOLALLtlDB9AND ORDMANCP& TRACE:234
2. ASPAMPEDSEr OFAPPRDVIIDPLANSSH BEKEFr KrT BJOBEITEATALLTM6S. APE:047-202-19
S: THB1Y)MRACIORSHAW,V ETHBJOBSITE.0iDVERLR'ALLE%ISCINGMNDI'ttONSANDDIMENBIONSPOORTOTHEnARTOPOJNSTRUC190N. WFIL R-2 dU
4 ANYDMREPANCBLSBBfWBBNTHEDRAWINGSANDACNALSInMMNDMONS8HALLRRBROUGHTTDTHEATrCM190NOFT)IC01mm LOTSIZE:MoSS.F, q Q
ANDDFSIGNERPRIORTOPROCBEDLVGWITHCONMUCPION. k ,o
5
6. TDHBCONTRMDRASMREG9RPoWNS]BTLE FORNRONTSEIOCNTSINTGAEEYP ONgDf NMIOVMS OMDAIM1AGNR91D0UNR9M. CTHECOUP3C OF WNSIRllCP10N. DESCRBTIONOM'SWG
LEFMYRESWENCR
7. M1HWWRALURSHLYROVDBWN&ERYPERHSANDMSMMONS,OMERHPLCHC( NDBUDINGPBIM1t2E9OCCUPANCYGROUP:R-3/U
qq
PROVIDHD BYTHS OWNER CODE:2013 ONION C, a
R. AIL(CONTR CTO SHALL iR I8 LI ARHALLCOKkINCETH ARUMC1' IMSELFAND HOW
RDESIGERAN G [:UUL:2013 ED19'ION CRC,CLC,CPC,CTSCAND 2013 CALIP.ENERGY CODE
9. ME FROM(CONTRACTOR HALL MiR DAILIABdFT[BWURY RFROP RWDAMAGE DUMFIOLD COURSE
OFF AND04VNERHAAML85$ @2013 CALIA.RFSIDEMr1AL C011C. F' Oo :k^It N
FROMNSURAN ALLCWMS PORDAMACESFOR 01EOWRYORPROPERnY OAMACCDURMGTHBCOUR9II OPTFIECONTRACC.
FIRE MRURA DOMRCE AlY)WAIVER,
WOR SY'r[01LET ER FIRESPRINK1,ERS: lbn buUdhn AaUbee WpNdwithafuespt MmW systw � � � �O o
W. TEMPORARY POWBRAND}yATBRWORRFISHEILEPPACILITIRSANDMATUUAUSMOMDNALCBE EDU VIDBDbMU CONTRACTOR.
it.'n1EWNTRACDJRSNN.I.PRknFATI.LFMINDE DRK aRD UACCNT9 FWOR3FROM DAMAGRDURBJGTHECYlUR3B OP CONSTRUCl10N inortouRegtohNFPA mfshenth Ogi NeH spriNdu'pecmit �+
ANDSHALT,REPIACBAND/DRkEPA1RANYANECOW MAC8GUTAU'fINRWORRERA priorto caEingfor roof sheal6tng lrtspecBOn. A Oa �i1 n ti
]2. AL1,CON319lUCBROOMSFE&DNDR LUBTBBCON RERIZGDATALROMU3.UP(1N COMPLETION OFTHE WORBALLAREA9 d tY1 Q,
SHAENSION SHORN ON MOR ALL DEBRIBSHAN BBRBMO AFRO) ACEOF fB � � BD b a
M. DIMENSION98HOWNONFLOORPS,DOMERMAE.SAND 0EPpIL9 ARE'RI FACE OF6NDs,CRNTBRLBie OPCOLI1IvIN,FACCONMA�NRY, - OWNER: Mn&MTS.Jeff Mlllt
FACBOFCONCRRfE VNLP9SNOTBOOTHERW19E. ADORES3.1606 W.Ocean Front p,
IA DOORIDCATIONSNOTBSfARLL9 BYDIMENSIONSSHALLBEC&� MDWWALLORBRIA nD41/2"FROMADAJACCNTWALL Nexpwt Beady CA 92663 w Ch 99
TOA11141FORDOORCASMG. TEL. (714)920-7470 Lk: t r5
IS NMWNOPORDIAPHNA
16. NAM9PRONMRFQUI DD PORAALLI3DRMDW31'WBEBNiSPBACTfEDPPRI0RRNnY1ACOYAETRIONNG,RCOHTAMGNO MIBHMG. ❑❑ c� <a
SCOPE OF WORK: N
CORNRRREAUSTUD ANDTODRYWAIL ISOARDSPACMG3U BC3/8°MA%LNUM.DRYWALLANDLkTH BHALLBE
NRMWEHOUSE UD6ANDDOTOPANDROTNMPLATPB. SINGLE FAMILY RRSIQENCE(THREE SIOAl)
17. PROk'RAIHOUSBS1RBBf NUMRERVI9WLE7R LCTANDFRDht318BEr.
IR. THISRB8IDENCeLLS,FE CS,PAnD O8MAND TANOARD6TITLE N,PART 6.19. BASEMENT:465.75 S.F.
20. RPFMMCETOCAMPLYWMHx(1f3CBCRCC3.ARDMC.RLRO'I8(-TIONOFDPF.D31R9nUANSDUMGCONnRUUIRE �NSS WSANOPeRpfl'13. GARAGE:594AI S.F. aes,991ON3 BY
FIRST FIAOR LIVING:1602.84 S.P.
SECOND FLOORLIVING:1864.19 S.F.
THIRD FWOR LIVING:60.2 S.F.
SECOND FLOORDECK IN OCEAN FRONT:168 S.F.
SECOND FLOORDECK @ SIDEYARD:169.678.F.
SHEET INDEX: ROOF DECK: 1586 S.F.
AI-PROJECT INFORMATION,SITE PLAN,ROOF PLAN NOTE: 'TOTALUVINGAREa:3995.96S.R.(indudingbmekn ,wdudinggarage)
A2-BASEMENT FLP,PLAN,Ist FLA.PLAN HEIGHT Ch=FICA1`l0N REQUIRED. 'TOTALBn INGA v4121.54S.F.(iodumug garage,«dudingbasement) -
A3-2nd FLR PLAN,3rd FLR./ROOF PLAN n'.1^
A4-EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
TS-TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY -
H MAX,ALLOWABLE BLDG,AREA:
mil 1 - 1
it 93.5x24=2244x'2=4488
n6[uN .d. 1.. 3 •NQ15.
4LNghbwmM=ofi.aROypJ 1.06' q RGOPBDGB lI 59 9R`hphbwmN•36.¢6'(BP)p (J ri
OPEN SPACE REOUIRED: �a
^Dam¢:1>�Idagasa-Ds7(DVImID,moIslAw7 +^_., w.9• ++ C4
h 93.5x24=2284x15%=396.6 N
§ em.bazn, uROOF DECK P.S. 32FS' 17 Ifi.y. s y'.tl" 4 O
x a aBah�:aw,x. - I� 1 � a -- - OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:
9 � ytl +rm'e,vof k.(3RAa'6c)
791SF
Dw.elBwebl"IN•:tabl') 1 hlrh t-I
soOORBnaIAW ❑ Me V/l D� H••:
y Q.RFDr1YV.1 RV IE: ON• dak p rJ
CF 9R'1' wf=36AB'(1 .) 9x` R�aaa=3h¢Rtl .)' INax {Yh'ehlorcrtofv 6oK PROJEECr CONSULTANTS: C)
N ORCI(MPR WALT BUSHMAN-CUSTOM IIOMCDTiSIGN '�
.- "- (D sien�sienal
in rescan ble rL"mek 24805AN1'AANAAVR. 00
1t'i" Sx'->• W',4" xo'3' Yi COSTA MESA,CS 92627 0
(949)274.0624
NCuslom Bllt Metals`Standing Seam Metal Roof SPRUCPU_e_er.ENGMUM QWNGXWO-AQXENGINBEKNG,INC. z
(Class A)CB15024GA.(ESR-2048) &(:M1.RNGINP_F.,B_, hGRBROQFfR0UOWDRt45 [_f
over'Rolystick"undedaymenL(F312-1697) 9ANFAANA,CA9Y705 Phi-=-yll
InsmB pm manufac[wa''s repedfica8osw. (714)662-0910
(bgicW @ mdareas))
GECIM-CIINIOAr.; MING-TARNGCHEN-COAST GE(YI'ECHNICAL,INC.
ROOF PLAN SCALE:lIS"=1'-0" 1200W.COMMONWEALTHAVE
PULLERIC)N,CA.92833
(714)870-1211
SDRVEI( RONMHDRMA-RDMSURVEYINGINC.
230161 FORESFDR.,St1MW)
1AGUNA HH.L9,CA.92653
(949)1156-2921
'high CMDfewe
MLiidedgeorafaabmdwaW �-��l
9b" L1. 35'-96 1, x6'-D' DEFERREDSUBMITTAL LIST.
WRh W]Ufence 8Yf»ra8 "Dde¢sol fifiol !Brw tobemNewedphoId karepp.otet m nginby
erafrecrsd
r and cerR6edpriwto reubmittal(w plandreck nr aDPmval DY theelty"
102. D N.G.12.31'T.F:38.31' / Lin.
� mm.xallnray(ryp.7 DN. Y'Idat� 4 2.PUC SpHlilderdeaign celeWatlone and plana.BWld6rg designer to review
-- fireaprinklerplaw and cer5fyth®faP confarmancewltb arddteetwalpinnre
------ensMmaa3'c- rove.Dri reway(bPJ y ortowWttaltoO dN Beach BWld' DlvW=formview.
Fri b export mg
(tench gaud oexleA N elECrmcmL"U'_ 6' P SBlessaPa Joe ? S.Sound AttenlmEon Design fwkiVAC UN[.
(rypJ awmwma BP Izcoanre.)3'cOy" DN xl g-
Awe Me h lowo{t61 sti. 9EPARA'IBPERMIT6:
) IEl' yw 4•-0" a 1. Mesomyor Coneretefencesover 35'Mgh p
O 2.AceeseoryreWetwere,DetachM PaBOCwers and TmSises. ',p
-� - tlo O S 3.Reta%WeUsowrq B.high ft=tbebott. fthefoundafoo to the topofthe oel.
4 (oF)a Finish Floor 12.6T NDTR: 9
_ _ ,3 I conn od.eweyouDine O S UI 4.Roo S]Rhtkkg
__". . I ftYP ) I�am¢nHmwl(aau:ed cy, N
1sl Floor 1cM11 j ronGDrirewar OrF] m.. v � bTrE PLAN NOTB.4
L "APoblk Wolks D¢WQl ntenc dmentpermitimpa onis N9uimdbefom F-I q 0
the BWlding0epastmeot Permit Final on be houed.Attheem¢ofPublie WorFs
�w� 7' 4•.0•
"`` { q aenBloVemddsk walkway Imv@ pian /aNm T:.ro Mfa.mlm 0e1sdsmsRlen6,1NvA1iomn,o,tss1AoB,, hrg PublkimProv¢mn:w sortonndiog Me p�
4
OMllbe dadlpaidbyanP.M ilnand nLof
thmpkwoBbemdeaNedodonoftkPblieWorImpso,'I
L men.50 krel( .)' w;nm,mnlvMkagui Dway.
102.50 \ -
Pent ne xs9. 2 ARL)•en6�vaahmentagttmentiaregairedtorall nonsmndaN privere lmProvemenw Data:B-1"F]019
-.. -
3 A.,proses]¢^rmarl'mentpertnRiarcquimd farn11 wo11c ecD.itiowithin the Scale:AS Np'(ED
fN.G.12.31'T.F.=18.31'7pibiedgM-af-way.
DrawnW Bushmon
® 0. 'Iriedisrbalse doollotenwtoam•stormsiteeo lomnvnispNM fl
No w1himos,petmleoln byprotlum,soB paHlnWao,mwiti (enwaate materiels, Jek2U15-
�`�•_ NY@e\I'a4f Ren¢RF�an MOSW13i0n 6Wd aPby Wn&NtlIM a61VIhC4s11d1I he
11QTE. Plead,mnNyeA mdischa:ged inloiheshvAl;gottuorenoPmdmw system•
5heM
_ _VICINITY MAP nO stale SITE PLAN_ 5. "All work Nlakdmws5mweterinthepoLlic li6btaGweyshsllbe pedormell hya AO
C421isnv¢d 9anitmbn Sewerlbntnc[ororenAtirensed0¢oeml Engineering
__ GOatmIXor.
PA2015-120 Attachment PC 8 - Project Plans
_ Pm rt Line � � •
4 � cont.walkwgv(rypJ D . 4 � �
P
x mb(a m. Cone Driveway(typJ I' N
60"x 2" Gni.[Parki�n
closet _ J
6"MSE 2pk9•-6•• lam u
BATA.4 DN. g A Y p V
I BEDROOMS em&el° c I v a��i N6
xu' muaaa^n ll
linen-.,_Leen I '.p hweud«xpsmlala 42'high Gvardrell(b)P.)—i']column
IWz�s916' aroN closet
IIN.RLR =1267'
t5'z3'-fi I ❑❑ g
GAME ROOM 8'-9"ceBing h4
`0 22k22'-6' ((Y0.) qpDp.
• W
PID
6•x5' aEV191aN9
Cana Drive LY(IYP•)
t v
�S sate
v� 8-2 x6
BD OOM2
x -6 x11a II
i, II i..&SY I
10
landing
❑ O
ID'� wmileve<ed deck cont.walkwaybelow@basement level(ppJ ( 4
PropmM1y ne
67-6" 26'-0°
Irzi i~ IT
w
EiRST FLOOR PLAN Z U
V
9Q
00 t
9Q2¢I
9'-0" 1Y-u' 36'-6" 18'-i" 9'-0" ]2'A" 5'-0" y
ProcernLine '�" z
I M
GARAGES•IVRAGN TraBh Can Area
-
3'-6" S'-2' I trash trash hash
I I�lY 14'-5' I Planter ce° can Ica° I •
HALL `n FIN.FI.R.-a.fiT�� 20'-0"iriaide deer I I&
Bb"eei6�ht n I I
(t P.)
� 2%slave I
__ aI
2 CAR GARAGE Cnnc Ddvew;v(irvpJ I
sloe
-I t
; lGUEST ROO tGUEFff 'fHa •-ti --i � I P�I
a
3'-ss" q ca�agcalumaea dereveirlandN6. ° g
h at
4'-of Mn.rka� 'kt(mm m c rr--n�
I� flnlSLflmrt°i xMdedlu�'itli� �W
y I^
:;cdmrm
4 I I I I I lsttlaar outline above@ dashed(typ.) W w
I I I I I I I I IJPi Lmdnvho-1 dO�eBoax —UP ronc welkway(typ.) � Date:6-1]_p15
I — I I I I I I I I I v1 mro i plenror
Pmper[v Lvre —�uldmr5l�oxersluilluroeGain— -- -- -- — -- Stole:AS NOTED
wim corer end.vewrr mnnee8w niN
WALL LEGEND: r-o-unYe<an°tR`"m"°eac° DrwVu:w Suehma"
9'-0" 49W 18'4" 26W
„ r— CDNF WALLPPRSI'RUCf. '^` Jok 2CT.4
2x66TUD9@16"o.c.wiib R-19INSUL. SM1e�
2%4MVDS @ 1V*.c.niih R-M WSUL �l
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN Gcaf E•r/a'=t-n" Qv1
PA2015-120 Attachment PC --Project Plans
OW
A
,ji
Wgh1owm9=36.0S'(typ.) 8
0
IJ 4Z' �ks
1-p- L
10W_
NOM �HTFF- p I 00 pCP
Mt�DeAinSESR-IW(t�icalthmgbout) Mud 36.0 1�1 —
d.k fZ
M., *S'skylight —C
@2nc
AC 4 SQ.ST. AZ
'A�al!W'M-2415 ROOF DECK F.S.=32�8 (typ.) xOkio,
7-7" 3'-S' Y
NOTE:
ak)qi9httkC111b12' y
abowtvofde&(16.O9ht.) A I 4VHIGHNV�L
solid
(.aaa.bleht.=36,3f) OPENABOVBON hlh
—NVALLL[NEBUOW_
@ DhSHED(m) 2'Mh glass uat&a11-36.08'(typ.)
NOTE,
US - —r— 2'highlowwof
42�itfghl�36.08'(typ.) W.
4�' 4W
j t �.Py
----i �Tj 14
F-11 4 Fw-, I
M'-4' 2W-9-
THIRD FLOOR/ROOF PLAN &ALL I
C)
O
00 0
z
mafbelaw ,I
B4" x42' sea 8
HAI �J?a wb at
8
PIN F1,R 22.2S'
,
9W W. ht. V-2-
Aw e
island
REEK UNWM D50x46" -
ro I
MFi 8-6H 11 ,
CU
M,1BEDRO
8WxIT Gi
low Profile l2" DN. low Profile 54" washwash0
gaafirepl...ith W lands gaaf�l.�ffi Id W�
Wm6aaboaa d
Wui�aabava �uip. B'-2"x4'
vers ro-Haas
13W W-W 12'-O' 26W D..w Bushman
WALL LFGBND;
2x6!MDS@Wo.e.MffiR-19INSM BheeC
SECOND FLOOR PLANy4 I=V A,
PA2015-120a-tf-cCimenf-Pe-8--ProjeLtPlans
s
m a0
Q I
r m
fly
h
wnsu
Lnv
' v
Ell
- 1Tr Ilr`x c axsn — G`- 4
ke rz f 1..
ng 9 xr-eb� f" e'LY Pea `''�va��' � t~' � a➢�y
TG-' 4. a - ml -4 D' a.r2 rP^te line M
bcacfi sand boartlwalk wmzj
¢ f �•...._ fid5CIDe0l W388a drWewaY °�cot do svY �8c b� b ��qq' 1-1
m I m LJ l0
-------
w"
SIDE ELEVATION MAST) U
ALLEY ELEVATION(NORTH)
18 =I IJP" U U
rqO �
CKC FOR MABii EW AYERAGE Nf r `
15.00 00 O
1A90
967
9.65 y
49.22(4=12.31'IM.AVERAGB N.G. z
d
ao ry
1(R Nih RmA —T -ABDV8123I
x ewNren �},-
Vee
—
9
0 a .D ' " �. rm `4 Irywcxp �p F�1 At,�ri 1 8yss�_ a'mAlc ln_
r
__ _ DGIF av 8,-0" m �BINc�iz3�
$ ,r •. } M NME
'3
'P NOPE: --IurimnW wnl I 3`A9L" XSy ' } i $"�T a y
oaN coat stucco Ndsh NNx6(ya@fo..ne, I rn 1 f4 j'��$ t •I
(typal) raltry9c6vmgs] 0 ',_ 6'-0" ,
I �Y1 4 v f i�N
ecnt cline 4-D"
7/ !:
FIN.ELIl=12.6T `4T' Petlo boardwalk `5' F "v } '?` e`iH
I . + O
drlwmy(beyond) Po
@dashed F[N. baae
I ea�Es
__.-....._----— m
___—gyp Dotc 6-17-0015
Scale:PS NOTED
DrowrtV/Bus6man
ENTRY ELEVATION()UST) OCEAN FRONT ELEVATION(SOUTH) roe❑05-
1
56e
Ada
Planning Commission - August 6, 2015
Item No. 4a: Additional Materials Received
PORr Miller Residence Grade �, ��, �(1�b1 �Pl (PA2015-120)
y0 e� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
F f n 100 Civic Center Drive
V )iEFj Z Newport Beach,California 92660
Gq
`p. 949 644-3200<UFolk newportheachca.gov/communitydevelopment
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Makana Nova, Associate Planner
Date: July 30, 2015
Re: Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal-Revised Side Elevation
You have received a conceptual set of plans for a new single-family residence at
1608 West Ocean Front, which is Item No. 4 in your August 8, 2015, meeting
agenda. The applicant has responded to the Public Works comment in the staff
report and revised the East Elevation to reflect a 15 percent sloping driveway into
the basement level garage. The elevation points for the basement level and first
floor levels have been raised accordingly. However, the second and third floor
finished floor elevation points as well as the structure height remains the same.
Attachments: Revised East Elevation for 1608 West Ocean Front
Community Development
� ' _ ___ .._ _
- --— — --
___ Planning Commission August 0, 2015
Item No. 4a: Additional Materials Received
" ,' " , Miller Residence d Et A2 12
i er esi ence Gra e Establishment Appe I (P 015 0)
�i N
C� N
O Q,
'�'11
` '7 U
0 to
_ /' \ /
�l �t J�
,_� p +
�: ,
j, � , _ OD �
- - -
�O � �
\ � a �
/ 2y\\ OF - LL. .�p`ti�1 ,,\ `YI O .t'.J'. - O .o�'ti - N
,r,
I -' ,' I 11 ,jrr_ _,_r— _._ - - I, — - - - - — — ��
i �?Q; _ ,— — — - — r�raJb'y i - \ 6. T Gnjb
—!tI —RI
I 6 oar _ _ ma n aro shmver REVISIONS BY
- " p '.l•
•.f 8,.._01 - , evat � h�y � ce
O_ c 5 11 iIu ht
s
n 5._1; aiws�
- — -
rrr
,a`r. ..e;:..: ,. „:,, e.,. ,... r,,.r: oro j xr z-h 1 v o f t 4 r, .....,r. ,5 x, L.. ,n f - ':,
+s l r , i p.rx r x
: 11 I 11zfi. rx r f.it. i W YA r ?3 TL ,� ''i t j sial ln$se ID tat f
�11 .j , + c *5�a�, .. :fit 5 .�zi> t ' ,yt{ `:4rr yrz.z 66Ft % _
__
_ — _ —_ — _ r _ _ ,
— , -
^—
v /
` , ,, �e. , 01,
.
Z I 'k L �+` f F f
I ��':, , .i �� r 11, I r I I� , `,> 1,_ , ' r " ,, . I f - j
,. ',:,is y -^�+ '��'' fdY .4A x rain. ce I
=Sr",r. 1 zi e1`,L_:n frepa
w.� -'%;w A` ,t:,. r, ssse:- s rs f k.'1,9.
6 Q. r 1., / "Y �' 9 .,: ;, , chase be nd
„ :,, 5'f „ i, ,i „
r -- -- - - - - - -
- ,�
rn'
2 2 m.
g •
=0' jrT r',,7, ally \\ 1�
\ - kx r� �q " r m �r c ` 7ems Lng ,q� `; .., 3 4--0 en lne Ts'" k,.s ti - :.
N col titi i „~
�J
c to
raCo .. w ll.: ,� r 7° 1k = V k GO,1 ges r r Ir meter ri r-7 T? , :i -
a t ,w -' �;f 37 dr a a,•��f � '.: elm.meter C� U J r 16-� 9 - 'I
�+ x 4, fin. flr ! „ 0, �.
0,
enclosure'
do „: 135 — ` — — —
-- - —
beachsand - - - - - = =' -- - - ' = = - - - - - - - - g� "' . k — � -
-t., , ,
1 ," _m. '
� '
�� _, ' „ 1 r �110 o �3 dnveway
�. t d3t oo drivewa co 15/o max slo
f
4
-
�`pa' / ��
r 5:0''�fin..flr. ,.
- -- - —I
O
t c " OR �'ABLISHED Aja •N.G. r]-�0-2011 I1rj 'reV,1S1011.$fJ C1riV8WaY Slope �Wa $ BUS 1111x11) j/ 0 4A ,!�
, I ler ReS,IC�ence , ; � O U
M11
SIDE ELEVATION (EAST . , 9.6� I608 W. Ocean FronI'lt ALLEY ELEVATION ELEVATION (NORTH)
.,
yr ► - 'r. + 9.65 pq. U V
c $"-1'- n
Newport Beach, CA 1 —
1, 1 ='1 -O�- 49:22/4 12.31'EST.,AVERAGE N.G. _
_ _.____ _. 94
°�'
\ J i - CALr FOR ESTABLISHED AVERAGE N.G.
( '
15.00 =� 0 O
14.90 �
9.67 �
+ 92 y
F-�
/ \
49 / 12 31' EST AVERAGE N G
� / 'Ir 2 4
yam„
j, . �4 1
,), 3 ;
f h krj
- '�, r
i
; '
3 -
P,
r� - ff i f
N - - b � A -
a "'
a'9�� ,O^,II,��' 3 i q # ,s f< = a .pC`ti�1 a9�R,I �:7. ��I pb1'
sz� "I 3 ryq �1• tiq
O
— - - — — 1231. — - - - - - - - - - - -
11 I
"1 mP r,�° eva d - - -
6 a'' glass guardrail I ti� s a elevator
mach.ffitla o ry� 3
b.
,l. , , < :, 3 s'-u"clang he
i ,
. . ;„ ,, , _ . ':. oP� open, t0 iCal , L. 24'-o"MAX.HT. ROOF GUARD IL=36.08'
- �
94=4" 'G 0 _ =�- - - - =,''- - - ' — �.L - - ,,—n AB�VEi2.31'- - - "O
,. ., ,, , - " , _, pp [� r r "— :at M s m tai f
O 1
I O 0
.n:
:
_— - ;, , „ ._ _ • „ Ha". '� ' PS,+us r1'i4�r+'c.x2uY��:,ys?r,rrz"ezfi�si , ,
- „ . ,ii - r �.a i�'2^':" +I;.,y,'r` T4 a&r. 1 r' aA -�
.> :-3 =� j�S,•r u <y nom^ 4 7t§�i"C'43, -
y
� `
(g^: �. . {r., R h i S',e —' '"� ,.'..r - .. - `YA`.,v"j5-VR N��Y#S."3.hi 'f5"Cy. rFk•2 '. ,+ £ted2'T'{, -
0
.`PSI: - 1, �,.•L I':,i �y`CyH; =#..Fi'+h5,° .:. r --1 3tAz."�aSy!'ter ' -aL,- ' i;
, . ''..NOTE' 'I _ ,y,v?. S✓,� r '.trya: C *.,Yn/t "vS x.?5""'r nl ii"r�/1� rk; �" �D
x ' x11" •<tinr'ri �i.c gSz m"4'y FT #: ,..,:
® "NOTE: "o horizontal wood , I
e0.' I "fjlltSh. .I faSCla''': 'z �:. 'k c i -q z`.. .. eq -mow„ 59;' "u' -
p� 5 Sn100th Coat 3tUCC0 flnlsh: ?^ ' �+:.� ,T p+ / 1 0 " 1 q ' , '
(typical) , ' � en &chimne s r - , a
g , I ry I f i�
y ) ' 6 0
I , ; - FIN FLR 22.21 ;, � t4", _ cn _
r a ° ^ F.F. 22.2
"r. , ,:. I„ , , 3 .., ,' , Af l ,;. t rrM1. "i1`.'ri "„ :w k ta; ,�yy
�•
9 0. $I
r r. -
ally , " , „ , , : , , t , T11 N �
_0„: ,K 3:3 3, , �, CX1St311 fT 'r.? S .'s", .. '; a ., p/ $,f'�•n:3c-x7. *,✓r
;: ,,, '_ ' B ., c • , tom,..,, ti
cent line G5 �E $ s a , W „ 00 a)
,.,. t 211 1 W 1' .^> . ,:.,a% s'4"�'i.°¢ �{v . . s� sl',�,s.'..,, ,r r'�
� 4rv �' W
O "Open „r ' 7 I• . s S�,xus E �U5' a^°.z.xC:,c,�^`a� tSu'`"Ys r
v
• ,=1 < ' , ' ' ,.., :; ;." ' ' -„ w'�.: �, yry• c, v S r,,: 7P;r r a`t' {:' rs,., V ._12.6, '.
=, _ " FIN. FLR = 12.67- patio walk - F:F
boardeachsand O
'" 'i
;I o)
4 � i basement �� o bo
I
E "a a>?e
_ I00
_ — — — _.-- -- — — — — — = Date: 7-29-2015
1
L°� L ' dnvewayjbeyond)
`,
dashed' — — —. ' — — — — — — — — — FIN ,FLR 3 67 _
— _
%
1 I
—£^s
Scale: A.5 NOTED
Drawn:W Bushman
ENTRY"ELEVATION° (WESTr,rr. OCEAN FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH Jab: �o1s-
Sheet
A4
,
_ „ .
Planning Commission - August 6, 2015
Item No. 4b: Additional Materials Received
'llResi ence Grade Establish t peal (PA2015-120)
n:.
Vii. Iq,�'.-~�s( t�. ;•
Central Newport Beach Community Association
PO Box 884•Newport Beach, CA•92661-0884
www.CentralNewporLOrg
Date: July 31, 2015
To: Members of the Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach
From: Central Newport Beach Community Association (CNBCA)
Subject: Agenda of August 6, 2015, PA 2015-120, Miller
The Central Newport Beach Community Association is opposed to the subject
application.
CNBCA's membership includes residents and property owners on Balboa Peninsula
between Newport and Balboa Piers — Pier to Pier. We are of the opinion that being able
to use an artificial, previously altered grade for the purpose of raising the height of a
proposed new dwelling would be detrimental to the community and a very unfortunate
precedent.
We support the Director of Community Development's determination pursuant to Zoning
Code 20.20.050 Grade Establishment, to deny subject request inasmuch as the altered
grade would not be representative of the prevailing grade on adjoining lots and the
general area.
Thank you for consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Central Newport Beach Community Association
Scott Robinson, President
cc: Makana Nova
Planning Commission - August 6, 2015
Item No. 4c: Additional Materials Received
Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal (PA2015-120)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APPLICANT'S INFORMATION
(for consideration along with Planning's 63 pages Staff Report)
August 6, 2015 Meeting
Agenda Item No. 4
SUBJECT: Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal - (PA2015-120)
1608 West Ocean Front
Appeal to Planning Commission
APPLICANT/OWNER: Jeff and Holly Miller
PLANNER: Makana Nova, Associate Planner
(949) 644-3249, mnova@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARER: Jeff Miller, Owner
OF THIS REPORT: (714) 920-7470, millerja@sbcglobal.net
On behalf of my wife Holly, our daughters and myself — I would like to thank the
Planning Commission for your time and consideration regarding our property and
potential future residence. Also, I would like to thank the Community Development
Director and the entire Planning Department for their assistance, knowledge, guidance
and input regarding this property.
Please find below information allowing a complete picture regarding this property's past
as well as an understanding on how the recommendation below creates the best result
for our adjoining neighbors, the surrounding neighborhood, and our family.
PROJECT SUMMARY
It has been established that the permanent existing average grade of the above
referenced property is 12.31 feet (NAVD 88 datum) of which the Community
Development Director has elected to modify to 11.27 feet (NAVD 88 datum). This
appeal has been filed to ask for reconsideration in using the existing average grade as
indicated above in conjunction with the current proposed and submitted design. The
proposed design of this property provides benefits to the neighbors/neighborhood and in
no way is detrimental or injurious to the property of adjoining lots and our neighbors.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission adopts Resolution No. approving the applicant's Appeal
(Attachment No. PC2) to utilize existing grade elevations as submitted with the
applicant's proposed design (Attachment No. PC9). Planning Department may
commence utilizing the resolution number to proceed with Plan Check No. AIC2015005.
Planning Commission - August 6, 2015
Item No. 4c: Additional Materials Received
Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal (PA2015-120)
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 2
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND - HISTORY
1. Our family purchased the residence at the end of June 2014 after sitting
empty for nearly one year with the initial intent of the property being fixed up
as our weekend getaway.
2. The property purchase closed on August 4, 2015 and we immediately jumped
into home improvements. The home's exterior and garage were repaired and
repainted including resurfacing all decks, purchasing new screens for all
windows throughout the home and installed new weather stripping. At the
homes interior we installed a new kitchen, counters, backsplash, sink and
fixtures — we also repaired walls, repainted all rooms, installed new wood
flooring at the lower level and installed new carpet upstairs. In addition, we
installed new baseboards throughout the entire home. We purchased all new
furniture for all rooms throughout the home including four bedrooms, the
dining room and living room and outdoor deck area, installed air conditioning
and moved in Labor Day Weekend.
3. In addition, during this time we embarked on yard improvements which
included the removal of two excessively large ficus trees due to health and
sanitary concerns we had for our family. Upon doing so, we soon found out it
was not a popular choice in the eyes of some as the previous homeowner
planted these trees when they first moved into the property many years ago
and they were somewhat of an icon and caused some initial upset feelings.
4. While we made the unpopular decision, it was the right one for our family's
health as well as the surrounding neighbors. The root structure was causing
issue above and below ground with landscaping, sidewalks, patios, and the
property line walls. In addition, we learned the previous home owner had
paid to clear tree roots out of sewer lines for the adjacent neighbors and for
themselves. The trees needed to be cut down to stop the roots system from
continuing to cause problems in the future so we chose to do so.
5. With all that said, our interior home improvements were complete and we
were living in the home on weekends and many times through the entire week
during the months that followed and truly enjoyed our time in Newport living
life at the beach.
6. As mentioned in the staff report - September 25, we had brought in dirt to
cover the tree root system and provide a grass area to play games with the
kids and their friends at which time we were instructed to clean up the dirt and
remove it from the alley way which we did that same day.
Planning Commission - August 6, 2015
Item No. 4c: Additional Materials Received
Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal (PA2015-120)
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 3
7. The future complaint in October was for tree bark brought in to be laid around
our new plants, flowers and trees to help hold moisture from the new water
drip system installed to water the new potted plants, trees and flowers. In
addition, we brought some gypsum and black topsoil to till in before new
grass sod was put down.
8. The yard turned out great, it includes many new palm trees, shrubs, bushes,
flowers, grass, irrigation, lighting, etc. When sitting in the yard watching
waves or playing games on the lawn with our kids and friends, people always
stop to comment on how beautiful the yard looks.
9. We really began to enjoy our newly remodeled beach home and started
spending more and more time there through the holidays in lieu of our current
primary residence. During the holidays, we began discussing the potential
sale of our primary residence and moving to Newport Beach as full time
residents.
10. At that point, we decided to take the next step in determining if we could
create a property that would fit our family needs— as such, we began creating
drawings which addressed our requirements and dreams and passed that
information onto our now Architect, Mr. Walt Bushman to prepare drawings
for submittal to Planning. In addition, I needed drawings to determine and
prepare a cost budget to understand the additional financial impact.
11. As such, a survey was complete in late January to accompany the
architectural drawings. We submitted our initial plan check for review in early
February for which we received AIC corrections back; reviewed, corrected
and addressed in a letter mid-April with a meeting which followed. Following
our meeting, planning requested we submit an Appeal to you, the Planning
Commission, for approval to grant the use of the Existing Average Property
Grade to build our future primary residence and desired beach home.
DISCUSSION
As mentioned in the staff report, the current proposed design of our residence,
(Attachment No. PC 9) was not directly taken into consideration when determining the
use of Existing Property Grades to determine the average property grade.
Upon doing so, it becomes clear - the current proposed property design in conjunction
with the utilization of our average property grade of 12.31 feet — "will not be detrimental
or injurious to property and improvements of adjoining lots."
Planning Commission - August 6, 2015
Item No. 4c: Additional Materials Received
Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal (PA2015-120)
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 4
To the contrary, this proposed design provides the following benefits and additional
amenities to the surrounding area and adjoining neighbors beyond those required by
the City's building code:
1. The current proposed design provides additional open space of 235% beyond
what the planning code requires.
2. The current proposed design at the Oceanfront Elevations Second Floor
provides an additional 4'-0" setback from the required 9'-0" setback creating a
total combined setback of 13'-0" allowing a greater panoramic open view for
the adjacent neighbor's at their second floor levels.
3. The current proposed design at the east elevation second floor where our
adjoining neighbors deck sets, we have incorporated into the design an
additional 12'-0" setback beyond the codes requirement of 3'-0" creating an
overall setback of 15'-0" and deck allowing our neighbor a greater sense of
open space when enjoying time on their second floor outdoor deck area.
4. The current proposed design will allow for eight (8) parking spaces within its
own residence and driveway alleviating parking burden placed on the City's
public streets and parking lots.
5. The current proposed design does not come close to maximizing the City's
highest allowable building code height for new construction as suggested in
the one received public correspondence (Attachment No. PC 8). Not only are
we not 4'-0" greater than the maximum code height, we are 4'-0" lower than
the maximum code height on over 93% of the roof area which falls within the
buildable envelope. With that said, we would not be creating adverse effects
to surrounding neighbors as implied, quite the opposite, we would be
dramatically improving the possible effects - eliminating additional
overshadowing, improving views which would be present using the proposed
designed and grade. Should the project be redesigned, a redesigned
structure maximizing the allowable building code height limits combined with
the CCD modified average grade assigned of 11.27 would in fact create that
exact adverse effect as the referenced correspondence indicates.
6. Utilizing the average existing grade of 12.31 feet to build our current proposed
design will create a new grade upon completed construction which would be
in concert with and consistent with our adjoining neighbors.
Planning Commission - August 6, 2015
Item No. 4c: Additional Materials Received
Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal (PA2015-120)
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 5
Having recently spoken to both adjoining neighbors to show them the current proposed
design and discuss the purpose of my application request, they are both pleased with
the proposed design and how it abuts their properties, creates the above mentioned
amenities and benefits and assimilates nicely into the neighborhood.
In addition to the benefits described above, we would like to specifically identify the
items/areas of our current proposed design which are affected as a result of the differing
average grades described herein and are requesting a variance or relief be granted.
These items/areas are as follows:
1. The Roof Areas to remain at the current sloped elevations between grades of
41.25' to 40.53' in lieu of the proposed grade of 40.27' to 39.42' for the
remaining 7 percent of the roof not referenced in item 4 above. It should also
be noted these 3 roof areas below set back off the boardwalk approximately
45' or more and set back off the alley approximately 30' or more.
a. Open Outdoor Kitchen Shade Roof: 63.00 SF
b. Bathroom Shower Roof: 60.20 SF
c. Enclosed Mechanical Area: 41.00 SF
2. The top of a 42" glass handrail to remain at elevation 36.81' in lieu of 35.27' at
the east elevation. It should also be noted this glass rail is located and
setback approximately 40' or more off the boardwalk and setback
approximately 40' or more off the alley.
a. East Roof Elevation: 24.00 LF
The two items above conclude what remains in question with our current proposed
design and are at the heart of this request for an approved adopted resolution and
accepted variance resulting from the differing average grade described herein.
Upon the recommendation above being enacted, we will continue working with Planning
to ensure the design of this residence conforms to City development standards.
In closing, during my reading of the prepared report, it struck me to see artificially filled
grade used throughout the document when referencing the permanent existing property
grades. During this past week as I walked and rode my bike up and down the
boardwalk enjoying all the peninsula has to offer, I started to pay attention to all the
homes. In doing so, I became more aware of the patios, yards and grade elevation
variations and changes as it relates from property to property. There are many
properties with much higher grade elevations and a few with lower elevations then their
neighbors up and down the boardwalk which left me thinking which are which pertaining
to grade. In any case, my hope is it will not matter as our current proposed design
would have a new grade compatible with our adjoining neighbors. In addition, there are
Planning Commission - August 6, 2015
Item No. 4c: Additional Materials Received
Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal (PA2015-120)
Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal
Planning Commission, August 6, 2015
Page 6
the other amenities and benefits noted above which would be recognized should the
average grade of 12.31 feet as shown in our proposed plans be granted allowing this
proposed project designed to move forward.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Prepared and Submitted by 2Jeff Miller
Future Resident
Referenced attachments are part of the Planning Commission Staff Report
Planning
t-,om issiV 6.�-204-5-_
Y
a jl
Add tiona MatE rials Received
,
&, < . lishment Appeal (PA2015-120)
, yt:
II
1
i
i.
Y
it
I
t
A ) 1 {
4;
1 4 r! t
a
, aaS..fNC. ,b.
.. ..
,....,... :... .7 ,. ., �"-.
2 <u4 I,,. ,,.- w }. T ,. ..,. ... ".r'.. `s+. . .�.�� i ii � I�1{p(( . 1.19 y.{ ,::��• I I I I I. " 4- a S ., .F t! C.S�,., , Et -0rv`.r.�''
4t�.....,..4, ,., � , d � g;. _• ,:.. .... I �. I i ,ti,.,f _ ::a.:F :; ;P ' ° , I I�� � � r,W,...r,. -;� '' :, ek, `4 fxw.
+ 112,*',y`.,... I , a 4,- _ .F 7 , � ,,IWI 1..,:v.}„ s�xr2, � � I �II � �i �1 e, � ai�.e.:? ar y� `� , .r,-• r z
g i k 561. -{ r v r Ed s` aw'& riX za a7 , N
s i
O V
I f
S
Nt
j U10) CTI,
° N
,
K
c
m O m
v 'U
+ti
j
v
.7
.,. r• #i ?v 'S; .,�,va Fir zx'm , ".a_ .(, . ..>t«.z � ,ty i "Y tl tt'--� ,.,r.. y , ;, .,v`- 55Ma°s�. 'C"' �. 1 � i {�•�ti,ksr;�iai}xWF�,4f;�fiy.: .cr�� � �1-:c:Q
t, u:', � ra.: ..,.. � - S ,. ;.y, •.n � .' :w' �:,.:, .. l�''.:+� K'3.,.. , r i..y�;.,� ,ts a ,t ✓S `u.ui< 4
MR.
m
1610 W
w, .Ocean 4'
,. Front
., :>:,�.--..-.-....,m
1606 W.Ocean Fi ont " •', 604 W.'Ocean Front 4�! 1600W Ocean Front _
� 0 U)
aaCD
z� 0 .� zl00
� N
- -- -- -- -- --- --'-- - -- --- --- - -- --- -- -- -- - - -- -- - — --. _.._... - --� -....- ---- --- ---29'-g_MAX.HT. _ -- ----- - --- ----.... - -- --- I --- ---- ---- ----- ---- --- I - - -- ..__- ) 29'ABOVEBOARDWALK
W W x
O ---- w ABOVE 12.31' - _ - ti W W - - - -- ---- - W
0 elevator
Ue and REVISIONS BY
- --- - - -- - - - --- -- --- --- --- --- ---- - - --- ---_. __....-- " -- - -- --- - ._ -_....- ---
?.,Lot' HT.__ - aoo�cuA¢o _iL.=�v:zs' --- --=- -- - ---a - w 2 AB
w
12.31, ;:.., - ___.. -.- - --- --- - --' - --- - - - -- -- - -- -- -- - 4-_.. OVE BOARDWALK-
_... -- --
- -- - - - --- - - - - -
._._._... '
— _ = s din se m tai of
M
I
O
f C i ' O ,
t 011 r � + Ii, 7 1 f
, r ,
W
16th STREET
t;.r•. i o=
i (E.) Cone. Boardwalk(typical)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
1616 W. Ocean Front 1612 W. Ocean Front 1610 W. Ocean Front 608 W. Ocean Front (SUBJECT PROPER 1606 W. Ocean Front 1604 W. Ocean Front 1600 W. Ocean Front
Established Average N.G. = 12.31'
N
O �
OCEAN FRONT ELEVATION PLANA
established average N.G. = 12 . 1'
0
z
z z� z� zl
-- ..�.j__...
99-Lo 3:12 roof s10 e(T4j — W W OVE BOARA..W.ALK - !�
a w ABOVE 11.27'
--
73
�
,111. 2t
� r O
> > tY
} i O
9 r '
16th STREET o ,
i
o
Cone. oar w typic - w 'd
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
1616 W. Ocean Front 1612 W. Ocean Front
1610 W. Ocean Front 1608 W. Ocean Front (SUBJECT PROPER 1606 W. Ocean Front 1604 W. Ocean Front 1600 W. Ocean Front
Established Average N.G. = 11.27' f?a
i O
i o
V � Ali
O ?
OCEAN FRONT ELEVATION PLAN B 1 S " = 1'-O " Date: 6-18-2015
Scale: AS NOTED
established average N. G. = 11. 27' Drawn:W Bushman l
i Job: 2015-
] Sheet
OF.. Sheets
Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - AUGUST 6, 2015
PLANNING COMMISSION —AUGUST 6, 2015
ITEM NO. 4d: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED
MILLER RESIDENCE GRADE ESTABLISHMENT APPEAL (PA2015-120)
From: BudNUCom(cbaol.com rmallto:Bud NuComlaaol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:20 AM
To: Nova, Makana
Subject: Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal @ 1608 West Ocean Front
RE: Project File No: PA2015-120
Activity No. AIC2015005 Location: 1608 West Ocean Front
Good morning Makana,
This is our response to this appeal.
We are the owners of 1604 West Ocean Front. This property has been in our family for 53 years.
We are opposed to the Miller request. Lots; 1604, 1606, 1608 have equal size lots and equal grade. Changing 1608 will
cause potential future hardships for 1604 & 1606 as well as other contiguous properties.
Each property owner in this neighborhood has made a major investment. In our opinion, raising a grade of one lot has
the potential of adversely affecting the entire area and causing future complications for many of these property
owners. Granting this appeal would be good for one but no one else.
Thank you for taking the above into account as you do your professional evaluation with the Miller Request.
Richard & Barbara Farquhar
17 Baker Avenue
Westport CT 06880
203-226-6066
budnucom(cDaol.com
1