Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/2017 - Planning CommissionNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/7/2017 6 of 9 John Ramirez, applicant, presented revisions to the applicant's proposal since the November meeting. The construction management plan now prohibits construction parking on any street in China Cove at any time. During the off-peak season, construction workers will be allowed to park in the Big Corona lot. The request for a height variance has been eliminated through removal of the elevator stop on the roof deck. The proposed project now complies with height requirements. Story poles have been installed as suggested. In reply to Commissioner Kramer's inquiry, Mr. Ramirez advised that the privacy screen cannot be completely eliminated because a portion of it serves as a pool barrier required by the Building Code. In answer to Commissioner Dunlap's query, Mark Teale, architect, stated the screen is 6 1/2 feet in height from the main part of the deck. At a secondary location, the privacy screen is 3-feet-10-inches, in height, and serves as a guard rail. Commissioner Dunlap noted the screen wall inhibits the views to the shoreline of China Cove and suggested the applicant could lower the height and still comply with the Code. Commissioner Kramer remarked that lowering the height could facilitate approval even though the area is not designated as a public view corridor. In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. Ramirez advised that the gate across the walkway will be relocated below the curb line of Ocean Boulevard to secure private entry to the home. The applicant installed the gate in response to a letter from Code Enforcement staff. The public sidewalk does not run along the subject property on the water side of Ocean Boulevard. Mr. Teale indicated the screen is made of metal and has an open design. Commissioner Kramer preferred glass over metal for the screen. Mr. Ramirez reviewed changes made to each floor of the proposed residence. On the first floor, the mechanical bay was moved from the roof into the garage. The inset at the stairwell/elevator was reduced by 1 foot, and support columns were beefed up. On the second floor, the large space was converted into an outdoor patio. The deck was removed; the back corner was straightened; and the deck was widened to include a second bay. On the third floor, the deck size was increased; one support column was removed; and the central section was pulled back. On the roof deck, one screen was removed; another screen was reduced in size; the overhead cover was removed; the hipped roof was added; and the elevator shaft removed. In addition, the applicant removed 57% of the screen's length and decreased the height by 18 inches. The applicant mailed notices regarding story poles to neighbors and held a meeting for neighbors on November 30. The applicant is requesting 65 percent of the floor area that would be allowed on a similarly sized, flat lot. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's request, Mr. Ramirez advised that a home constructed without variances and to comply with Codes would have a greater height and visibility impact, would have fewer architectural details, and would have a higher construction cost in a smaller footprint. Commissioner Kleiman added that if the project complied with the Building Code, the Commission could not suggest changes. Mr. Ramirez reiterated the decreased square footage of the home. Neighbors are focusing on bulk and mass. A rectangle house that complies with Code requirements would contain 74,400 cubic feet of space. On the subject site, a home that complies with Code requirements would contain 66,000 cubic feet. The proposed project has less impact on height than if it complies with the Code. Darrin Ginsberg, property owner, remarked that the request is reasonable. Complying with the Code would result in a house he did not want to own or live in. The proposed home will not block views of the ocean. In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Mr. Ramirez indicated approximately 13 people attended the November 30 meeting. In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's question, Director Jurjis explained that the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Implementation Plan does not contain a variance process. As Director, he can interpret the LCP and has the right to enforce the Implementation Plan. To allow due process, the City's Zoning Code provides a variance process. The City has submitted an amendment containing language for a variance process to the Coastal Commission. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. John Cummings, Ocean Boulevard, opposed the rooftop swimming pool because use of it would disturb the neighborhood.