Packets/Minutes, Ordinances, Resolutions & Council Videos
Boards & Commissions
Agendas & Minutes
3/15/2013 10:40:27 PM
2/26/2013 8:46:33 AM
BCC Meeting Type
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
• <br />�J <br />City of Newport Beach <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />October 21, 1999 <br />Commissioner Kranzley prepared a rough calculation and stated there is an <br />approximate 84 square foot difference; therefore. he would be more in favor of <br />using the 6 foot setback for the calculation providing for a slightly smaller <br />structure. His only concern is the project would not be consistent with the other <br />houses on the block. Ms. Temple clarified the City would continue to allow the <br />garages to be built using the 2.5 foot setback, as indicated by the note on the <br />districting map, and the permitted size of the house would be calculated <br />based on a 6 foot setback. <br />Commissioner Gifford asked Mr. Harrison what he believed was the amount of <br />square footage he could build and how the information was obtained. Mr. <br />Harrison replied he obtained the setback information of 2.5 feet at the garage <br />side from staff at the public counter and that the project was designed based <br />on a 2.5 foot setback to determine floor area. <br />Chairman Selich asked how many homes have been approved calculated the <br />way the applicant has proposed. While the staff report indicated most projects <br />have been approved based on a 6 foot setback, Ms. Temple stated she <br />believes the most recently approved project was based on a 2.5 foot setback, <br />which was approved approximately l year ago. Chairman Selich stated he <br />would be in favor of using the 6 foot setback since that is the one <br />predominantly used in this area. <br />Commissioner Gifford stated she believes the most equable solution, given <br />there is a lot of confusion, is the compromise offer the applicant has put forth of <br />a 6 foot setback with a 3.5 foot differential of 1 to 1. She noted the applicant <br />has relied up to this point on the setback being 2.5 feet and has told Planning <br />Commission that is the setback he was told by staff. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve the subject project <br />using a 6 foot setback for the main structure with 2 times buildable area, and 1 <br />times buildable area for the 3.5 foot differential. In addition, staff is directed to <br />return with an amendment to Districting Maps 11 and 12 to resolve the setback <br />issue. <br />Ayes: Fuller, Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: Hoglund <br />Abstain: None <br />SUBJECT: Newport Dunes Resort <br />Planning Commission discussion of the proposed Newport Dunes Resort <br />• development, including preliminary review of the draft environmental impact <br />INDEX <br />Item No. 3 <br />Newport Dunes Resort <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.