No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA2001-002 & MD2001-060 EWP„Rr CITY OF NEWPOR1 BEACH Application: ❑ Permit No. a4 arm COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ❑ Planning Director's ri ,p PLANNING DEPARTMENT u' x Use Permit No. 4vry�;r 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD ❑ G.P.A./Amendment No. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 Variance No. (949)644-3200; FAX(949)644-3250 ,DA r PART I: Cover Page Project Common None(if applicable): �p�y FEES: ...-f�0!2�4 APPLICANT(Print): CONTACT PERSON(if different): Mr. & Mr= . Ji_mn Glabn.?r'i Vioriars Burcler Mai ling Address: 1363 Gala=ri` ')r • Mailing Address: 20331 Irvine kvc. , Ll'i{ 7 Phone: )0'-z- Fax(9��-'Z Phone: -07W Fax V/J j gW- 0 7Z, Property Owner(if different from above): Mailing Address: Phone: { Fax PROJECT ADDRESS: 15- �'flGrlG • Project Description(If applying for a variance, also complete attached form for required findings.): ,pfTIGvV 00Af-�7,- 70 7,5771ye5' c3 Z-6�- 10, PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT F (I) (We) depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owner(s)of the pro pert},(ics) involved in this application. (I) (We) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all res ect true and correct to the best of(iny) (our)knowledge and belief. -_ Signature(s) CIA NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the application. PLEASE PROCEED TO PART 11 OF THE APPLICATION ,� DO NOT COMPLETE THE BOXED AREA BELOW FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY. Indicate Previous Modifications,Use Permits, Specialty Food Service Permits, etc. J �� Zoning District: 1 t' Coastal Zone: DESr NO General Plan Designation. � MAR 19 2W Date Fi�1TM led: Fee Pd: Q .o� 00 ReceiptNoSLIS(A(::::� r OF NEWFUFIT MAC' Date Deemed Complete: Hearing Date: Posting Date: Mailing Date: Planning Director Action Pp Date Appeal NOT— P.C. Hearin= P.C. ActionzAAWA- mb2m)!:� Dtite�- o0 C.C_ Hearing _ C.C. Action RUSERSTLMSHAREDII FORMSIUSE-APP.DOC r t PART II: Project Data Sheet Project Common Name: /�aame: Application Number(s): Project Address/Location: Assessors Parcel Number(s): 23 rS 1130o At . 052 -4o/I-o5 Legal Description(Attach on separate sheet,if necessary): Existing Land Use: [� � Proposed Land Use: ,p Zoning District: Land Use Designation: Existing Proposed Development Zoning Code Development Requirement Lot Area(sf) — 2 Lot Width(ft) � � ` Lot Depth(ft) Setback Yards I Front(ft) for f L Side(ft) Side(ft) Q r' e- hear(ft) � f ice/�� i ,y oa � r Oross Floor Area(sf) Floor Area Ratio /+ � r Building Coverage(%) 49� Building Height(ft) � S - 1 T Landscaping(%) c 0 p Paving(%) 0 �Q O N/A Parking .. 2. Number of Employees Number of seats Dwelling Units HOLlrS ofOpzratiolt / & 4-- FAUSERSTLANISHAREUII FORMS%[PRODATA.DOC 3 f 4 f Y PART III: Plans Each application shall be accompanied by 20 sets of plot plans, floor plans, and elevations; 8 sets shall be drawn to scale on 24 inch by 36 inch sheets with margins not less than 1/2 inch and 12 sets shall reduced to 11 inches by 17 inches. The required number of plans to be submitted for a Planning Director's Use Permit application is 12 sets; 4 sets drawn to scale and 8 sets reduced. All plans shall be collated, stapled and folded to a size of 8%" by 14", maximum. The Planning Director mqy modify or waive submission requirements if deemed unnecessa to sukport the gpplication. A. Plot Plan Plot plans shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information on the subject property and to a minimum of 20 feet on contiguous properties: Vicinity Map. • North arrow. * Scale of the plan. • Existing and proposed property lines 0 Required and proposed yard setback lines. Locations, names, dimensions, and descriptions of all existing and proposed right of way lines, dedications and easements. a Locations of existing and proposed structures, auditions, utilities, driveways, walks, and open spaces. • Any structures to be relocated, removed or demolished. Locations, heights, and materials of existing and proposed walls and fences. • Locations, dimensions and descriptions of parking areas. • Location, heights, size and materials of signs. Existing and proposed grade elevations and any significant natural features. * An Information block containing the name and telephone number of the contact person and calculations in tabular form showing compliance with applicable property development regulations (i.e., density, floor area limits, height,parking, etc.) FAUSERSTI AMSHARED'dFORMSVPRODATA.DOC 4 R 1 B. Floor Plans Floor plans shall following information: a s s a l be full dimensioned and show the follo n P Y g • Overall building and individual room dimensions, including square footage calculations. • All proposed interior walls and partitions. • Room identification. • Window and door locations. C. Elevations Elevations shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information: • Exterior wall openings. • Exterior materials and finishes. • Roof pitches. • All roof mounted equipment and screening. • Heights above grade of all floors, eaves, and ridges. D. Optional Materials • Materials board (specifications and samples of type, color and texture of proposed construction materials). • Colorphotographs of the subject and adjacent properties. 1 � p p Part IV: Other Information and Materials Each application shall be accompanied by the following: A. Property Owners' List and Assessor's Parcel Maps l. One set of gurmned address labels (Avery 5160 or equivalent) containing the names and addresses of owners of the subject and properties within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the property exterior boundaries of the subject property excluding roads and waterways for commercial properties only) shall be submitted. The list shall also contain the addresses of occupants of p vl residentially-zoned property within the required prescribed radius only if the Planning Department makes the determination that the project is of significant public interest. Additional sets of gummed labels shall be required if the proposed development is appealed or called up for review. 2. An assessor's parcel ma s indicating the 300-foot radius line and the subject property shall also p p{ ) g J p p Y be submitted. F:\USERSTLANISHAREDU FORMS\]PRODATA.DOC 5 0 This information shall be prepared b a title company or an ownership ItIngservice doin business in p P Y P Y P g Orange County, utilizing names and addresses from the last equalized assessment roll and utilizing the most recent assessor's maps, or alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent names, addresses or maps. The information shall be verified by the title company or ownership listing service and be accompanied by a written affidavit. B. Project Description and Justification �C � A statement describing the proposed project in detail. This will serve as the formal statement to the approving authority on what the project is and why it should be approved. Please include any relevant information which supports the application. Particular attention should be given relating this information to any findings that must be made in order to approve the application (see table below). Required Findings Application Section Transportation Demand Management Ordinance 20.64.040 Establishment of grade by the Planning Commission 20.65.030(B-3) Sign Exception Permits 20.67.045 (B) Accessory Outdoor Dining 20.82.050(B) Waiver of location restrictions for massage 20.87.025 (B) establishments Modification Permits(General) 20.93.040 For condominium conversions 20.83.025,20.83.035(B) Use Permits(General) 20.91.035 (A) To exceed base development allocations 20.63.040(B or C) To allow mixed use developments with less 20.63.040(E) than 0.25 FAR for commercial development To restore of damage or Destroyed 20.62.070 nonconforming structures Conversion of a Maximum FAR use to a Base 20.63.050(B) FAR use or to a Reduced FAR use,or conver- sion of a Base FAR use to a Reduced FAR use To transfer development intensity 20.63.080(I) To modify or waive of off-street parking and 20.66.100(A) loading requirements For bars and cocktail lounges 20.82.020(B) For take-out service,limited 20.82.020(C) Variances(See page 8 of application) 20.91.035 (B) F:\USERS\PLAN\SHARED\I FORMS\I PRODATA.DOC 6 Variances: Required Findings: I. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. To aid staff in determining that the finding can be made in this particular case please answer the following questions with regard to your request. (Please attach on separate sheet, if necessary.) 1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? 2. Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? 3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? r:%USERSIPLAN%SHARED1l EORMSU PRODATA.DOC Environmental Information Form: The Environmental Information Form is intended to provide the basis information necessary for the evaluation of your project to determine its potential environmental effects. This review provides the basis for determining whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, as required by state law. After this information has been evaluated by the Planning Department, a determination will be made regarding the appropriate environmental documentation for your project. FaUSERSTLAN SHARED1lFORMS1lPRODATA.DOC 7 ti �W PO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t} P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 e.• FORNOV� PLANNING DEPARTMENT (949)644-3210 NOTICE OF FINAL APPROVAL FILE COPY DATE: December 7, 2001 TO: Mr.Thomas Berger FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: PA2001-063 for VA2001-002 Please be advised that PA2001-063 for VA2001-002 review of final plans was found to be in substantial conformance with plans approved July 19, 2001 and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 8, 2001, and became effective on November 22, 2001. Any deviation from them or the application and plans on file in the Planning Department may require an amendment to the applications) mentioned above for the project. Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Jim Glabman Location: 215 Camation Ave. Description Determine that the revised elevations and roof plans are in substantial conformance with the plans approved on July 19, 2001. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. i Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Patricia L.Temple, Director By Ging arin Executive Secretary Planning Commission Enclosure: Id Approved Planning Commission Minutes El Approved Council minutes with Final Findings and Conditions of Approval cc: Property Owner (if not applicant) 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach City of Newport Beach P Planning Commission Minutes November$, 2001 INDEX UBJ La Salsa;Milestone Management(PA2001-086 for item No. 1 UP 2001-018) PA2001-086 for UP 4341 MacArthur Boulevard,Suite F 2001-018 ° •. (Continued from 10-18-01) `- A Use Permit regb ted for an eating and drinking establishment and a waiver of Continued to parking to expand the seating from 21 seats to 36 seats without an increase in net 01/17/2002 public area. Ms.Temple noted that the ap iigant is requesting to continue this item to January 3, 2002. At Commission inquiry, she added that this application is in regards to a restaurant expansion on a property a`aj cent to the Radisson Hotel site. Staff felt it would be important to fully document he parking demands on the Radisson, as was heard at the previous Planning Comrn&gn meeting,in as much detail as we have. The applicant is now completing that w6k but we are getting close to the end of our term on permit streamlining so the acti6n.1has to occur one way or the other by the meeting of January 17th. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel to continue,-this item to January 17, 2002. � Ayes: McDaniel,Kiser,Agajanian,Gifford, Kranzley,Selich Noes: None Abstain: Tucker t IUBJECT: Glabman Variance(PA2001-063) Item No.2 2315 Pacific Drive PA2001-086 i Review of final plans for substantial conformance with plans approved July 19, Found In 2001. Compliance Commissioner Kranzley recused himself from this matter, as he was not present at the prior meeting when this matter was heard. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant's architect has redesigned the roof of the building that had been considered by the Planning Commission in association with approval of a variance. The roof has been modified to a point where it is higher. While still conforming in most cases, it is higher than what had been' reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 191h. This is a request by staff to determine if this is substantially in compliance with the standards used to approve the variance or whether the Commission believes an amended variance is be required and bring it back for a public hearing. Chairperson Tucker asked if the area where the roof pitch increases the height of the building is the area in which the variance was needed? 2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes November 8,2001 INDEX Staff answered, the area that got increased was below the height limit towards the front of the property;it has raised the roof peak by approximately 10 inches. Tom Berger, 20331 Irvine Avenue, architect for the project noted the slight differences were made to the roof in conjunction to the change of architectural style. The objective for the design change was that the homeowners learned that two houses within their immediate vicinity were going to be the some style that they had originally chosen. It was felt that having a New England style house would blend in with the others and so the homeowners felt they wanted to have another more distinctive architectural style. Chairperson Tucker asked if any Commissioners had an issue with the ten inches not within the variance area,he was answered no. Public comment was opened/closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to find that the final plans are in substantial conformance with plans approved July 19, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian,Tucker,Gifford,Selich Noes: None Absent: Kranziey E Jeffrey J. Brown Residence(PA2001-173) Item No.3 405 Dahlia Avenue PA2001.173 V2001-004 • M2001.098 Confinued to 01/03/2002 Request for a vans Na"to permit a duplex to exceed the 1.5 floor area limit applicable within Cor del Mar. The request includes reduction of the front yard setback from 15-fee 7'-6" and the reduction of the rear yard setback from 10-feet to 3'-6". Mr. James Campbell distributed pets that had been delivered to the Planning Department by the applicant tF1is,,day for the Commissioners' review. He noted that the packet contains severd arc el map pages as well as comment letters that the Commission previously eived, a color photograph, etc. He reiterated the recommendation of staf deny the variance to ' increase the allowable floor area of the proposed dup He then presented slides depicting the existing residence, driveway, rear yard perty, alleyway, view from across Dahlia looking out towards the harbor an views of the property taken from various vantage points, Commissioner Gifford clarified that the property line that abuts the drive that leads to the house set in the back is the northerly direction. She stated sh 3 �4 4 AK NSW`"DRr CITY OF NEWRT.BEACH 7Agenda ng ate: November 8, 2001 ` PLANNING DEPARTMENT Item: 2 r r 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Person: James Campbell °� l�nRfi� NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 (949) 644-3210 (949)644-3200;FAX(949)644-3229 1 Appeal Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Glabman Residence (PA20QI-063)2315 Pacific Drive FILE �0PY SUMMARY: Review of final plans for substantial conformance with plans approved July 19, 2001. RECOMMENDED AMON: Determine that the revised elevations and roof plans are in substantial conformance with the plans approved on July 19,2001. APPLICANT: Mr. &Mrs. Jim Glabman,Newport Beach Introduction On July 19, 2001, the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 2001-002 and Modification No. 2001--060 to allow portions of a proposed residence remodel to exceed the 24-foot height limit and a portion of the residence to be located within the front and side yard setback. The applicant has continued the design process and has made several changes to the roof and elevations that has increased the overall height of the roof. The purpose for the change is a desire by the owner to create a more attractive street elevation while maximizing the interior ceiling height. In keeping with past department practice, the changes are being presented to the Planning Commission for a determination of substantial conformance. Discussion It is staff s policy when a variance to building height is approved, the threshold of what is in found to be in substantial conformance with the original drawings is very low. The applicant's architect has prepared a set of drawings that show the approved elevations side by side with the revised elevations. The primary difference is in the pitch of the roof which has been increased from 6:12 to 8:12 which covers roughly the half of the residence closer to the street. This portion of the residence was not the portion of the residence permitted to exceed the 24-foot height limit. Additional dormers, hips, ridges and valleys have been added. The impact of the changes is that the ultimate height of the ridges has increased from 102.37' to 103.20' (10 inch increase). The increased height in the roof is in conformance with the 24-foot height limit as the midpoint of the roof is below 24 feet and the ridge is below 29 feet as measured from natural grade. Staff believes that the increased height of the roof has negligible impact to public views as the roof would only block a portion of the sky from the vantage point of the public right of way. When the vantage point is taken from the second level of the homes across the street, the impingement of view is more noticeable. Conclusion ` Staff wanted the Commission to review the proposed changes in the roof as the proposed increase height has an effect upon the circumstances considered by the Commission that led to project approval on July 19, 2001. If the lower height of the portion of the roof closer to the street was a significant factor in the approval of the variance and the 10 inch increase in height as requested and depivted in the drawings negatively impacts public views, staff recommends that the revised plans not be found in substatitiil conformance. On the contrary, if the height of the portion of roof in question was not a significant factor that led to the approval of Variance No. 2001-002, staff recommends that the revised plans be approved. Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L.TEMPLE JAMES W. CAMPBELL Planning Director Se 'or Planner AA —p4a 1 /// Exhibits 1. Excerpt of minutes from June 21,2001. 2. Excerpt of minutes from July 19,2001. 3. Site/roof plan and elevation comparison plans stamped received by the Planning Department on October 30,2001. i Glabman Residence (PA2001-063)) November 8,2001 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit No . 1 3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX ir• town that could be subsidized to provide the affordable housing. It seems like we,.ore forcing a square peg in a round hole. Ms. Wbod answered that we could come back with some analysis on this, and take a Ik at what the rent limits should be for the lower income categories that we should','a serving and the average rents for the various size units and therefore hove far we could get with our in-lieu fund of 2.5 million. We can also talk to the HC 13 staff about this as we work with them on the review of the draft. Albert Armijo state that what we could do is compare the fair average market rent for various sizes off�apartments to what the affordability or what an area-wide affordability index would be. We could see what the difference would be for the subsidization of those unit°s: '4 Chairperson Selich added 1 to give us an idea if we endowed 2.5 million dollars, how many units could I R subsidize with that? He then asked staff when this would be coming back for re�l\w. Ms. Wood answered that it would be izt, least 45 days because that is the period of time HCD has to review the draft. It d'epends on what their comments are and how many revisions we need to make. , Commissioner Gifford asked to also look at if'�ve flex the range for in-lieu fees to be collected on new development. How muc�, based on what kind of new development you think is coming through could bl"added to that fund over the next five years? Commissioner McDaniel noted that the.City is charge th having affordable housing, not to subsidize housing so that it now beco �s affordable. I am concerned and I am worried that we may be using funds t t may or may not dry up at some point. Have we made the mark? Subsidized husing is a 30-year project. Commissioner Gifford then asked about the annexation of NewpACoast and how that would relate to this issue. Ms. Wood answered that these numbers are above and beyond what occ\onthe Coast. _. SUBJECT: Glabman Residence (PA2001-063) Item No. 2 2315 Pocif€c Drive Use permit No '4104 • Variance No.2001-002 • Modification Permit No. 2001-060 Request for a variance to permit an addition to an existing single family residence Continued to of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24-foot height limit, 07/19/2001 ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX modification request to permit encroachments of a garage into the front and side yard setbacks (5 feet into the required 17.5-toot front yard setback and 4 feet into the required 4-foot side yard setback along the northerly property line). Senior Planner Jim Campbell presented three pieces of correspondence received that day. He then gave an overview of the staff report noting the following during a slide presentation: • Addition is approximately 1,385 square feet. • Existing project is and will remain three levels_ • Addition is comprised of a garage reconfiguration, a front porch addition, a laundry room addition to the upper level and a master bedroom addition to the rear of the home with an open deck. • The addition at the back of the home would exceed the 24-foot height limitation. • Main level deck is to be expanded._ • Basement excavation will increase the floor area of the lower level. • The entire roof will be reconstructed. • Upper level deck extension exceeds the height limit. • Encroachments into the height limit are not particularly visible from Pacific Drive because the existing house blocks these areas. • There is a 5-foot encroachment of the corner of the garage as well as a 5-foot encroachment of a portion of the front yard setback. • Side yard setback area is at zero. • Angled garage with two doors to be reconfigured into a two-door garage opening facing off Pacific Drive. • Locations of caissons to be used for support. Commissioner McDaniel clarified that if the lot next door at 2319 was built out to where it could be, the side view would be eliminated. Staff concurred. Commissioner Kiser asked it any of the increased portions of the roof would be visible from Pacific Drive; will they be higher with the multiple design changes in the roof? Mr. Campbell answered that basically the entire roof of the structure will need to be removed and the new roof will run perpendicular to the street. The peaks of the roof will be approximately 2 feet higher than existing but would comply with the 24-foot height limitation. The new master bedroom addition roof ridge will run parallel to the bluff, but the reconstructed roof over the front portion of the house will run perpendicular to the street. The posted exhibit on the wall shows the renderings. Chairperson Selich noted that the project is not going any lower down the bluffs other than the caissons for support. Mr. Campbell answered that two of the caissons are within the existing developed area and three of the caissons will be down the slope of the existing ll City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX footing that is there now. The house is not substantially going further down the hill than it is now. Staff believes that it is consistent with the General Plan policy to minimize alterations of coastal bluffs. Continuing, Chairperson Selich asked about the history of the existing two garages adjacent to each other with zero setbacks, when they were done and how it has been handled over the years. I assume that the zero setback was allowed a long time ago and that the recent remodel let it continue as such. Ms. Temple answered that we could go back to research this information, but unless the remodel was in the area of the non-conformity, the Code does not require it to be made conforming unless there is actual alterations in that area. My suspicion is that the subsequent remodel that probably happened, simply avoided that area in order to maintain the existing non-conformity. I do not know that for a fact. We can get the information if this item is continued. Chairperson Selich then asked how we ended up with 12 feet of right-of-way that was vacated and there is 10 feet in other areas, isn't the right-of-way line parallel to the sidewalk? Ms. Temple noted that when the abandonment and associated zone changes to Pacific Drive were done after the more precise surveying and engineering, the actual amount of right-of-way abandonment for each lot did vary a range of approximately 3 to 4 feet depending on which lot as the street is curved. Commissioner Gifford noted that she did not have a submission letter from the applicant justifying the required findings for the variance in her packet. I understand it has been submitted and I would like to have an opportunity to review that. Staff answered that it was inadvertently left off the attachment list and presented it for review. Public comment was opened. Tam Burger, Irvine Ave, Santa Ana Heights, architect for the project noted the following: • House was last remodeled in the '80's. • House has a small upper floor with small bedrooms,with no master suite. • Deck is set three feet below the main level and blocks the view out of the lower level. • Roof of the living room projects upwards and blocks the view out of the small upper floor bedrooms. • The applicant is aware of the concern of bluff development so the proposal preserves the bluffs. • A deck at each level is proposed that will provide the only outdoor space on this property, which is vertical cliff at the back of the house. • The living area of the house is actually 4,524 square feet. 12 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX • Applicants have met with neighbors to review the design and have received letters of support from some of there. • The lot has 6 feet of fall from the front to the center and then about 40 feet to Bayside Drive. • The combined topography and irregular shape clearly distinguishes this lot from others in the vicinity in the some zoning. We feel this creates a hardship. • The objective is to keep the remodel within the existing footprint to preserve the bluff and actually preserve as much of the house as we can. • Modifications in the front are due to the angular relationship of the property line relative to the street. • We are taking away the zero setback (approximately 10 feet) and replacing it with a corner that would touch at one point. The majority of the existing encroachment in the front would be moved back behind where the garage is now. • The encroachment will be reduced as well as the presence of the house on Pacific Drive. • A small covered porch in the front is to be added and will extend towards the garage, it will remain open and not enclose any floor area. • the height variances occur in the back half of the lot where the grade drops down steeply. • Some of the new addition will be positioned toward Pacific Drive and is within the setback and the height limit. • The decks will extend beyond the current footprint in the back of the house and will be supported by the new caissons. • The highest point of the variance is at the glass railing of the upper level deck. • The roof is sloped to lend a craftsman style architecture. • We feel this is a unique situation created by the combination of the trapezoidal shape of the lot, the shallow depth and the 45 feet drop off that occurs at on-angle to the building site. Commissioner Tucker noted a letter received stating that the new roof would block a large portion of the harbor view from his home and would detract from the property value. What kind of impact do you have on his view? Mr. Burger answered that he has not seen the view from his home. He noted that both the new home and existing home have horizontal ridges that are perpendicular to the view. Maybe that view is the small corridor between this home and the one next door. We could do a different roof design and make it higher, it would still be within the height limit. Commissioner Gifford asked if any exterior remodel had happened since 1984. She was answered that the applicants bought the home a year ago and to the best of knowledge, it does not appear to have been remodeled. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Burger noted: 13 8 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX • All of the neighbors had been invited to view the proposed plans by the applicants. • The garage will continue to sit on the property line. • No mitigation is proposed. Chairperson Selich, referring to the floor plan, noted that it seems you could slide the garage over 4 feet and adhere to the setbacks and do some reconfiguration of the entry, powder room, elevator shaft and storage room behind the dining room and still have functionally the some house. What is your reaction to that? Mr. Burger agreed that on paper it would be easy to do. In the context of trying to keep as many of the existing walls where they are to minimize the amount of demolition that is required to get into this construction project, that would become very difficult to shift the garage wall. What we plan on doing is removing the roof and the upper floor down to the floor level. Once that garage is moved, which is a load-bearing wall for the upper floor, you can't really keep those floor joists either. Once you get into that, it starts to escalate into a much larger reconstruction job. Chairperson Selich asked why a piece of steel could not be placed across to support the upper levels? The only major structural impediment is that load- bearing wall along the left side of the garage. The rest of it in terms of the entry becomes more a function of design as opposed to construction costs. Mr. Burger answered there are many ways, move the foundation, put a piece of steel in, etc. The applicants want an adequate house to enjoy with a spacious garage. Shifting the garage over is all within the realm of possibility. Barbara Corbett, 2316 Pacific Drive noted she is opposed to the height variance part of the application. She stated that the current house is extremely huge from the street_ Mr. Burger was invited to come to her home, which he did, to see what the impact of the height difference would be. Her neighbor, Betty at 2312 Pacific Drive gave a letter, which she then read. The letter noted that the house is high due to a remodel 15 years ago. By leaving one garage wall standing from the original small house, a wall shared by the garage at 2305, their remodel was approved and is the tall structure seen today. The remodel changed the appearance of the bluff and decreased property values on our side of Pacific Drive due to the loss of view. If the height of the house remains the same, I will not object to the variance. In closing,she noted that the letters of support have come from the homeowners on the bluff side of the street, those on the other side` all object. She asked that the applicant re-design the project. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Corbett stated she realizes that the house could be built higher on the street side and have more of an impact, without a variance. However, it would be "un-neighborly" and she would find it offensive. 14 f • ! City of Newport Beach ' Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX Steven dash, 2319 Pacific Drive noted his support of the application. He noted that he also intends to remodel his project in the future. Bill Edwards, at 3334 East Coast Highway, assistant architect for the project noted the following: • The applicants have an opportunity to build 5 five feet higher than is currently designed. • The potential shift in the garage; re-location would be an extremely dramatic change in the existing design and place the front entry going into the dining room. • The expansion of the living space includes no expansion down the slope. • No impacts to neighbors across the street. • This is a fine compliment to the trend of improving existing properties on Pacific Drive. Jim Globman, 2315 Pacific Drive stated that he has shown the plans to his neighbors. The topography and shape of the lot causes severe problems. To build in the upper level would require us to go beyond the height limits. If the garage were moved, it would eliminate the entryway into our home, as the house is narrow at that side. One thing impacts another and would ruin the front of the house. Our main purpose is to park two cars in the garage, which can't be done now. Several of the neighbors have expressed their support for ' our project, including neighbors on the other side of the street. The new house will be attractive and will have an elevator accessing on all three floors. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich noted his concern of the project is the continuation of the zero setback situations on the garage. It is something we would not permit today. Ms. Temple stated that modifications have been ap proved to allow re- construction of old garages that have encroached to the point of zero setbacks. Usually it had to do with the size or shape of the lot, or access difficulties. Oftentimes it occurs on the Balboa Peninsula on the "T" alleys where it is difficult to get in and out on a lg-foot alley. By leaving the garage in its existing position, it helped to solve some of those problems; we have approved modifications to retain old non-conformities. Chairperson Selich noted that the house next door is probably going to be torn down or at least substantially modified at some point in time as it is an older structure. At that time, there would be an opportunity to bring these two yard setbacks into conformity. I guess I disagree with the statements that were made by the architects on the effects of moving the garage. There is always a design solufion and ways to do angle entries and reconfigure the elevator shaft and storage area behind the dining room. 1 am not convinced it is a design 15 ° City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX impossibility so I guess it is a matter of whether we think enough is gained by moving the garage over and maintaining setbacks in the normal manner to have them do a redesign on that portion of the project. Other than that, I thought the project was reasonably designed. The one thing I have been concerned about is the bluff alteration aspect and this is one of those examples of looking at the profile of the lot, if they elected to tear the house down and start over, they could do a lot of bluff alteration and not have to come in for any kind of variance at all. They could do something substantially more massive and detrimental than what is being proposed. I think the project is positive from that standpoint. As far as the view blockage, I don't see where it will block any more than what is permitted under the existing height regulations, ons. It appears to b - 9 pp e 5 b feet below the maximum, the only oblique area is next to the neighbor next door and he stated he is planning on remodeling. p 9 Commissioner McDaniel, noting that he had visited the site, stated the proposed changes fix a lot of problems that exist on the property. The proposal enhances the abilit y for the applicant to use the property and the minimal changes saves the bluff and minimizes encroachment into the height. The applicant re-design.has pp been thoughtful in his re design. I can't see where the changes would impact the views. I am pleased with the design and the application at this point. Commissioner Kiser noted his agreement with the previous statements. He added that as pointed out in the staff report, there is as much encroachment being removed on existing structures as there is being created by the new proposal. Concerning bluff preservation, if we were to force the roof down another two feet and the applicant re-designed, they could choose to come considerably further down the bluff and create a home that would not be a benefit to anyone's view, public or private. The only problem I have is the zero setback on the one side. As difficult -cu t as it might be to re design, I am sure that thins could be done with some ome creative solutions. I would have a real problem approving a zero setback on a garage when recognizing it looks terrible. The redesign could potentially open up a small view corridor or sense of a view between the homes at least when the home next door is re-designed as well. I am in support of the application, but steps should be taken to recapture that side yard setback. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the application with the removal of the zero side yard setback. Commissioner Tucker noted he questions if there was going to be any view blockage. The applicant is not building completely to the max of what the Zoning Code allows. It merits a variance because the property falls off a cliff. As for as the garage setback, we don't usually get involved with the modification issues. I am not terribly troubled by this situation as it is replacing an existing situation and making a better design solution overall. I wonder how many feet of setback off the property line would we be talking about, is it 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX complete compliance? We need to give some guidance as to what we are looking for. I would support the variance based upon the plans that were drawn. Commissioner Gifford noted her support of the application as the analysis of the trade-offs is fair. I think however, that we have a property that has been non- conforming and that status is granted in the recognition that as a property ages, that non-conforming feature will eventually be eliminated. Given the nature of the neighborhood and the possibility of alternative design solutions, the side yard setback should be brought back into conformance for the whole length of the property. We do see a lot of modifications, but not necessarily in conjunction with additional modifications and variances. I am in favor of having the side yard setback conform. Chairperson Selich re-opened the public comment and asked the applicant if he would be willing to go for a continuance on this matter and study a re- design of the garage element. Mr. Berger asked if it is possible to approve the height variance separate from the modification: He was told that it is a total package. Continuing, he stated he could meet with the owners to discuss options and come back at a later date. Chairperson Selich noted he would like to see the 4-foot setback. We would like to see the best effort on it. It may be it can't be designed that way, I don't know. It is not our job to do the design work; it is your job to present us the designs. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to continue this item to July 19tn. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser,Agajanian,Selich,Gifford,Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley 4 t'U&JECT: Amendments to the Annexation and Development Item No.3 - ` a Agreement for The Newport Coast Approve the Newport tbbst.,6nnexation and Development Agreement as proposed to be amended and'-forward Annexation and Development Agreement to City Council. ° . Commissioner Kiser excused himself from the meeting. M.. Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager noted t'° o proposed modifications `"the., 17 Exhibit No . 2 , J City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX SUBJECT: Glabman Residence(PA2001-063) Item No. 1 2315 Pacific Drive V 2001-002 (Continued from 06-21-01) M 2001-060 • ' Variance No. 2001-002 • Modification Permit No. 2001-060 Request for a variance to permit an addition to an existing single family residence Approved of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24foot height limit, ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a modification request to permit encroachments of a garage into the front and side yard setbacks (5 feet into the required 17.5-foot front yard setback and 4 feet into the required 4-foot side yard setback along the northerly property line). Chairperson Tucker noted that this item had been heard at a previous meeting and that only o couple of issues need to be addressed during this evening's presentation. He stated that during the last hearing, the project was found to be acceptable with the exception of the modification portion where there was a zero setback on one of the elements in the garage. During the course of that hearing. Commissioner Selich agreed to field questions from the architect and applicant. We now have a revised plan that has been submitted to us. Commissioner Selich noted that he had met with the applicant and architect the week following the Planning Commission meeting. The solution they come up with , meets my expectations. They were able to pull the building back from the side yard and create a 2' 10" building separation and still maintain the integrity of the entryway and provide for two parking spaces. The did push the garage a little p 9 P Y P 9 g bit further out towards the street, which I felt was more o e than a fair tradeoff for getting the additional side yard area. I would note that the street angles at the front of the house so that not all of the garage actually encroaches into the front yard setback area. Commissioner Kiser asked what the term 'non-standard improvements' means in condition 4? Mr. Edmonston answered that non-standard improvements are typically pavers, or anything other than a normal concrete sidewalk. When those are done, the adjacent property owner agrees to maintain them at their expense should the need arise for maintenance in the future. Chairperson Tucker noted that the date in the first condition ought to be July 3rd instead of July 19th. Public comment was opened. Tom Berger, Irvine .Avenue, Santa Ana Heights as architect spoke for the applicants. They have met with Commissioner Selich and worked out a compromise that the Glabman's support and that bring the garage into substantial conformity with the desires of the City as for as the setbacks go. In the 2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX process of studying the setbacks, although the elevations show rock veneer, the plans did not. The rock veneer does have an impact of a couple of inches. The new garage sideyard setback does address the rock veneer; the existing setback on the opposite side of the house that is 4 feet does not allow for any rock veneer and we would Pike to add a rock veneer around the corner so that it does not stop at the front corner of the house. That would probably be in the range of between 2 and 4 inches more. If we wrap that comer 10 feet back so that it can look like a solid part of the structure, that would involve a 2 to 4 inch encroachment on the left side as well. Other than that,we appreciate your comments and support. Chairperson Tucker asked staff what should be done about the additional encroachment? Ms. Temple answered that we have not given the public hearing notice on the encroachment on the other side property line. While we know that the adjoining property owner did receive notice of the variance, we have no way of knowing whether an encroachment into the setback would be a concern. The proper procedure would be to continue for re-noticing. If the applicant wanted to go ahead and have the variance approved, as is, and pursue the modification separately that would be an alternative and would be a new and separate application. Chairperson Tucker asked the applicant what they would like to do. Mr. Berger answered that they prefer to have the variance approved now without any veneer and then they will process that piece of the side yard through the Modifications Committee with the associated costs that would be required. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Variance 2001-002 and Modification Permit No. 2001-060 with the findings and recommendations of staff attached. Commissioner Agajanian asked if there was any way that the front of the garage might be pulled back at all? He was answered that there is a possibility to move the garage back at the expense of the kitchen or the pantry. Commissioner Kiser suggested that on condition 1, in addition to the date changed to July 310 that it also refers to the partial main level plan. The maker of the motion agreed. Ms. Temple further clarified plans dated July 3, 2001 except for the easterly sideyard encroachment (for the veneer). The architect had mentioned that the plan showed the rock facing on the easterly side yard that was encroaching 2-4 ' inches into the sideyard setback that was not included in the public hearing notice. She clarified that this would be excluded from the partial main level plan approval. 3 i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian,Selich, Gifford,Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Findings and Conditions of Approval for Variance No. 2001-002 and Modification No. 2001-060 Findings: t. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single-Family Residential designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under Class I (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50%of the floor area). 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development since no other public easements exist on the site. 4. That the granting of the variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is warranted in that there are special circumstances applicable to the property;is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; is consistent with the purposes of this code;and will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: a) The unique topography of the site restricts the ability to comply with the height limitations, the applicant has designed an addition to the house that attempts to work within the constraints of the lot to the degree possible and the applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without exceeding the height limit. b) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. c) The shape and size of the lot constrains the ability to design a structure in that the lot is trapezoidal in shape resulting in a lot width at mid point of approximately 46 feet. d) The proposed addition is generally comparable to the size and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application 4 it l City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX of height requirements could,result in an addition that is either too small or confined to permit the additions to be of a size and to contain the amenities to be feasible or desirable for the owner. e) The proposed addition is generally in conformance with the surround neighborhood when viewed from Pacific Drive, and has a similar appearance of surrounding properties when viewed from Bayside Drive. f) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the City has granted other similar requests in the area to exceed the permitted height due to sloped conditions existing on lots with similar topography. g) were the project to use the full height available for pitched roofs, the elevation could be four feet higher at the front elevation as viewed from Pacific Drive. h) Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed additions, the existing views from surrounding properties will not be significantly restricted. i) The building design and materials are an upgrade of the existing property and will blend with the style and materials used in other remodels and new construction in the area. 5. That the modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District; will not be detrimental to persons, properly or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use; and is a reasonable design solution for the lot for the following reasons: a) The property is existing non-conforming and the proposed modification does not substantially increase the degree on non- conformity. b) The proposed modification results in a project that is consistent with the development within the vicinity. c) The modification results in a better design of the garage and adds an open porch to the front of the dwelling, which is consistent with the architectural style. ' d) The modification related to the front yard setback will not result in construction that will block views of the public or from , surrounding properties in that they are located at the front of the structure and to the side behind an existing side yard encroachment. e) The proposed modification will not affect the flow of air or light to i adjoining properties because it is located at the front of the structure and to the side behind an existing side yard encroachment. f) The proposed modification actually improves the non-conformity 5 1 � City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX in that the north side yard has been increased to permit a public view corridor where no views currently exist. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations dated March 16, 2001 incorporating the modified partial main level garage floor/site pion dated July -i- 1 2001, except for the easterly side yard encroachment for the veneer. 2. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 3. That all public improvements are constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That an encroachment permit be processed through the Public Works Department for all work within the public right-of-way and that an encroachment agreement be executed for all non-standard and decorative improvements to be constructed within the Pacific Drive right- of-way and any easements. S. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state r and local requirements. 6. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 7. That this variance and modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. iOAQT15ubdfvision Code Update (PA2001-087) yX Item No. 2 (Continued from 6-21-01) PA2001.0$7 Code Amendment No. 20 4-X2: City initiated amendment to revise Revised Recommended for Subdivision Code for the City. _A-�CiINatecl amendment to revise the City's Approval Subdivision Code (Title 19 of the Municipal 6e.1zd to make related changes to Title 20 (Zoning Code), Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks 67ld-9qbric Property), and other Titles, in order to overhaul and update provisions governing s bCl' isions throughout the City, including design, processing, improvements, condominiu ec Qverslons, lot mergers, and other matters ., a A Pp�� ° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 c9c►xoaN�� PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE COPY (947)644.3210 NOTICE OF FINAL APPROVAL DATE: August 24, 2001 TO: Mr. Thomas Burger FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: Variance 2001-002 and Modification No_ 2001-060 Please be advised that Variance 2001-002 and Modification No. 2001-060 were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 19, 2001, and became effective on August 2, 2001. The final findings and conditions of approvals are attached. Any deviation from them or the applications and plans on file in the Planning Department may require an amendment to the application(s) mentioned above for the project. Applicant: Mr. And Mrs. Jim Glabman Location: 2315 Pacific Drive Description Request for a variance to permit an addition to an existing single family residence of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24-foot height limit, ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a modification request to permit encroachments of a garage info the front and side yard setbacks (5 feet into the required 17.5-foot front yard setback and 4 feet into the required 4-foot side yard setback along the northerly property line). Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia L.Temple, Director By A.- -." 1) - ,""'GingeIIVarin Executive Secretary Planning Commission Enclosure: ❑ Approved Planning Commission minutes with Final Findings and Conditions of Approval ❑ Approved Council minutes with Final Findings and Conditions of Approval ❑ Approved minutes cc: Property Owner (if not applicant) 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX SUBJECT: Glalbman Residence(PA2001-063) Item No. 1 2315 Pacific Drive V 2001-002 (Continued from 06-21-01) M 2001-060 • Variance No.2001-002 • Modification Permit No. 2001-060 Request for a variance to permit an addition to an existing single family residence Approved of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24-foot height limit, ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a modification request to permit encroachments of a garage into the front and side yard setbacks (5 feet into the required 17.5-foot front yard setback and 4 feet into the required 4-foot side yard setback along the northerly property line). Chairperson Tucker noted that this item had been heard at a previous meeting and that only a couple of issues need to be addressed during this evening's presentation. He stated that during the last hearing, the project was found to be acceptable with the exception of the modification portion where there was a zero setback on one of the elements in the garage. During the course of that hearing, Commissioner Selich agreed to field questions from the architect and applicant. We now have a revised plan that has been submitted to us. Commissioner Selich noted that he had met with the applicant and architect the week following the Planning Commission meeting. The solution they come up with meets my expectations. They were able to pull the building back from the side yard and create a 2' 10" building separation and still maintain the integrity of the entryway and provide for two parking spaces. They did push the garage a little bit further out towards the street, which I felt was more than a fair tradeoff for getting the additional side yard area. I would note that the street angles at the front of the house so that not all of the garage actually encroaches into the front yard setback area. Commissioner Kiser asked what the term 'non-standard improvements' means in condition 4? Mr. Edmonston answered that non-standard improvements are typically pavers, or anything other than a normal concrete sidewalk. When those are done, the adjacent property owner agrees to maintain them at their expense should the need arise for maintenance in the future. Chairperson Tucker noted that the date in the first condition ought to be July 31d instead of July 19sh_ Public comment was opened. Tom Berger, Irvine Avenue, Santa Ana Heights as architect spoke for the applicants. They have met with Commissioner Selich and worked out a compromise that the Glabman's support and that bring the garage into substantial conformity with the desires of the City as far as the setbacks go. In the 2 f• • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX process of studying the setbacks, although the elevations show rock veneer, the plans did not. The rock veneer does have an impact of a couple of inches. The new garage sideyard setback does address the rock veneer, the existing setback on the opposite side of the house that is 4 feet does not allow for any rock veneer and we would like to add a rock veneer around the corner so that it does not stop at the front corner of the house. That would probably be in the range of between 2 and 4 inches more. If we wrap that corner 10 feet back so that it can look like a solid part of the structure, that would involve a 2 to 4 inch encroachment on the left side as well. Other than that,we appreciate your comments and support. Chairperson Tucker asked staff what should be done about the additional encroachment? Ms. Temple answered that we have not given the public hearing notice on the encroachment on the other side property line. While we know that the adjoining property owner did receive notice of the variance, we have no way of knowing whether an encroachment into the setback would be a concern. The proper procedure would be to continue for re-noticing. If the applicant wanted to go ahead and have the variance approved, as is, and pursue the modification separately that would be an alternative and would be a new and separate application. Chairperson Tucker asked the applicant what they would like to do. Mr. Berger answered that they prefer to have the variance approved now without any veneer and then they will process that piece of the side yard through the Modifications Committee with the associated costs that would be required. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Variance 2001-002 and Modification Permit No. 2001-060 with the findings and recommendations of staff attached. Commissioner Agajanian asked if there was any way that the front of the garage might be pulled back at all? He was answered that there is a possibility to move the garage back at the expense of the kitchen or the pantry. Commissioner Kiser suggested that on condition 1, in addition to the date changed to July 3,d that it also refers to the partial main level plan. The maker of the motion agreed. Ms. Temple further clarified plans dated July 3, 2001 except for the easterly sideyard encroachment (for the veneer). The architect had mentioned that the plan showed the rock facing on the easterly side yard that was encroaching 2-4 inches into the sideyard setback that was not included in the public hearing notice. She clarified that this would be excluded from the partial main level plan approval. 3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX } Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian,Selich, Gifford,Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Findings and Conditions of Approval for Variance No. 2001-002 and Modification No. 2001-060 Findings: t. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single-Family Residential designation. 2, That this project has been reviewed, and it qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under Class I (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50%of the floor area). 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development since no other public easements exist on the site. 4. That the granting of the variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is warranted in that there are special circumstances applicable to the property; is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; is consistent with the purposes of this code; and will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: a) The unique topography of the site restricts the ability to comply with the height limitations, the applicant has designed an addition to the house that attempts to work within the constraints of the lot to the degree possible and the applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without exceeding the height limit. b) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. c) The shape and size of the lot constrains the ability to design a structure in that the lot is trapezoidal in shape resulting in a lot width at mid point of approximately 46 feet. d) The proposed addition is generally comparable to the size and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application 4 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX of height requirements could result in an addition that is either too small or confined to permit the additions to be of a size and to contain the amenities to be feasible or desirable for the owner. e) The proposed addition is generally in conformance with the surround neighborhood when viewed from Pacific Drive, and has a similar appearance of surrounding properties when viewed from Bayside Drive. f) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the City has granted other similar requests in the area to exceed the permitted height due to sloped conditions existing on lots with similar topography. g) Were the project to use the full height available for pitched roofs, the elevation could be four feet nigher at the front elevation as viewed from Pacific Drive. h) Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed additions, the existing views from surrounding properties will not be significantly restricted. i) The building design and materials are an upgrade of the existing property and will blend with the style and materials used in other remodels and new construction in the area. 5. That the modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District; will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use; and is a reasonable design solution for the lot for the following reasons, a) The property is existing non-conforming and the proposed modification does not substantially increase the degree on non- conformity. b) The proposed modification results in a project that is consistent with the development within the vicinity. c) The modification results in a better design of the garage and adds an open porch to the front of the dwelling, which is consistent with the architectural style. d) The modification related to the front yard setback will not result in construction that will block views of the public or from surrounding properties in that they are located at the front of the structure and to the side behind an existing side yard encroachment. e) The proposed modification will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining properties because it is located at the front of the structure and to the side behind an existing side yard encroachment. f) The proposed modification actually improves the non-conformity 5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2001 INDEX in that the north side yard has been increased to permit a public view corridor where no views currently exist. Conditions: I. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations dated March 16, 2001 incorporating the modified partial maim level garage floor/site plan dated July 14 3. 2001, except for the easterly side yard encroachment for the veneer. 2. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 3. That all public improvements are constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. A. That an encroachment permit be processed through the Public Works Department for all work within the public right-of-way and that an encroachment agreement be executed for all non-standard and decorative improvements to be constructed within the Pacific Drive right- of-way and any easements. 5. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 6. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 7. That this variance and modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Sll� T: -'-�'��A WNi1µ^� Subdivision Cade a U dtew� ­ p e (PA2001-087)M ____ item No. 2 (Continued from 6-21-01) FA2001-087 Code Amendment No. 200- 2: Cit y initiated a ed amendment to revise Revised Recommended for Subdivision Code for the CityA Cat b itiated amendment to revise the City's Approval Subdivision Code (Title 19 of the Municipal eland to make related changes to Title 20 (Zoning Code), Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks FT i blic Property), and other Titles, in order to overhaul and update provisions governing s b isions throughout the City, including design, processing, improvements, condomin�eoQ,yersions, lot mergers, and other matters ., 6 `3w.y ,r �EnoRT CITY OF NEWY RT BEACH FAgenda ng Late: July 19, 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Item: l 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Person: William Cunningham NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 644-3200 (949) 644-3200; FAX (949)644-3250 Appeal Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FILE COPY PROJECT: Glabman Residence(PA2001-063) 2315 Pacific Drive PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: Request for a variance to permit an addition to an existing single family q residence of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24-foot height limit, ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a modification request to permit encroachments of a garage into the front and side yard setbacks (5 feet into the required 17.5-foot front yard setback and 4 feet into the required 4-foot side yard setback along the northerly property line). ACTION: Approve,modify or deny: • Variance No. 2001-002 • Modification Permit No. 2001-060 ZONE: R-1 (Single Family Residential) OWNER: Mr. &Mrs. Jim Glabman,Newport Beach Introduction On June 21, 2001, the Planning Commission considered a request by Mr. and Mrs. Glabman to permit an addition to an existing single family residence that exceeds the height limit and encroaches into the front and side yard setbacks. The existing residence is non-conforming in that a portion of the existing garage already encroaches within both setbacks. The Commission directed the applicant to reduce the side yard setback encroachment and continued the project to the meeting of July 19,2001. Discussion At the meeting of June 21, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject variance and modification request. In discussing the request, there was general consensus by the Planning Commission that the variance request was reasonable and that the mandatory findings for the variance could be made. In addition,the Planning Commission appeared to concur that the modification request with respect to encroachments into the front setback was reasonable and was a good design solution. However, there also appeared to be a consensus of the Planning Commission that the portion of the garage encroachment into the north side yard could be eliminated by redesigning the garage. Currently, the garage is built to the north property line, and the garage for the property to the north is also constructed to the property line. The Planning Commission noted an opportunity to open a view corridor between the Glabman property and the property to the north by requiring the Glabman garage to be set back. This setback, coupled with a potential increased setback when the neighbor redevelops or remodels, could realize this goal. The Planning Commission had questioned the existing setback non-conformities and how they came about. Staff has looked into the history of the property and found that the residence was remodeled in 1984, The garage non-conformities were allowed to continue as the rather extensive remodel of the structure avoided removing the non-conforming aspects of the garage walls. Staff believes that the original residence was constructed in the 1920's, and no plans or record of the setbacks are on file. Staff concludes that the existing setbacks are legal, non-conforming subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses). The proposed encroachments within the front and side .yard may be approved with a Modification Permit. The applicant has redesigned the garage, which has resulted in a 2-foot, 10-inch north side yard for the garage where the Zoning Code requires a 4-foot side yard for new construction. Therefore, this redesign would still require the approval of a Modification request. The interior dimensions of the garage on the previous plans were 22 feet, 4 inches wide and 19 feet, 6 inches deep. The revised plans have interior clear dimensions of 19' - 5" wide and 21' - 6" deep. This dimension was selected by the applicant to accommodate the vehicles they presently drive while providing space to open vehicle doors. Staff notes that the Zoning Code requires a minimum interior garage dimension of 17 feet, 6 inches in width and 18 feet in depth. 1f the revised plan for the garage were to be decreased in width by 1 ft. 2 in. (resulting in an interior garage width of 18 ft. 3 in. —nine inches wider than required by Code), the full 4-foot side yard could be attained. However, the applicant contends that further reduction in garage width would severely restrict maneuvering ability within the garage with two parked cars. In redesigning the garage, the applicant has chosen to extend the front wall an additional 2 feet closer to Pacific Drive, which results in a small portion (approximately 3-square feet) of the southerly corner of the proposed garage further encroaching into the front yard setback. The resultant setback for that corner of the garage is now proposed to be 10.5 feet from the front property line—previous plans had the setback at 12.5 feet. The applicant has stated that the reason for the extension is to compensate for the 2-foot 11-inch reduction in garage width, to permit storage space within the garage and to allow maneuvering area around parked cars. Written correspondence was received since the June 2151 public hearing. from Mr. and Mrs. Yingling, 2308 Pacific Drive. Mr. and Mrs. Yingling had previously submitted a letter expressing opposition to the request. The Yinglings' subsequent letter notes that they had mistaken the property for another location and they are actually in favor of the Glabman request. VA2001-0021MD2001-060 July 19,2001 Page 2 • i • Recommendation Staff believes that the garage redesign is an improvement over the previous design as it relates to providing a future public view between the properties. Staff also believes that the full 4-foot setback can be achieved by further reducing the interior width_of the garage while meeting minimum standards. Staff does not believe that the increased encroachment of the garage within the front yard setback is significant. Staff concludes this based upon the fact that the encroachment is single story, is small in area and that the greater setback area proposed for the side yard will offset the minor encroachment into the front yard. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2001- 002 and Modification No. 2001--060 by adopting the findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibit No. 1. The Planning Commission has the option to permit the variance and modification request, but with the condition that the garage be further modified to maintain a four-foot side yard and/or the 12.5-foot front yard. The Planning Commission also has the option to deny the project by making the findings attached as Exhibit No, 2. Submitted by: Prepared by: SHARON Z. WOOD WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM,AICP Assis t City Manager Contract Planner Exhibits 1. Revised floor plan for garage 2. Findings and conditions of approval 3. Finding for project denial 4. William &Barbara Yingling Letter dated.Tune 25,2001 5. Planning Commission Recycled Staff Report dated June 21, 2001 (Already in notebooks.) VA2001-0021MD2001-060 Iuly 19,2001 Page 3 e EXHIBIT NO. I i ¢ I w I r4 99_80 EXIST. RIDGE A' _ I� KITCHEN O I -6" r D1M1MG ROOM a _ \ , J I f Y ENTRY PROPOSED W� i w P Y BAY wINpOW o AID +1 NO ICONFORMINGI AACiM1[CIIIRE i I 20331 IRVINE AYE. raj SUITE 7 6 I CROSS SANTA ANAHEIOHTS� '• � 2 �°TdRiOr c'°� naVse y '-HATCH AREA ' I T CAIiORNIA 92707 INDICATES PROPOSED I'-2' SETBACK MODIFICATION PH:71a-M-07a0 ---------- FAY:714-650-0772 .`90 $ Mi iY I I i v..EwgavWomcxan 3 �OJ I Irv-YyuA .Y-w' LENT" I I mTAY i I w-r I G3 RA4E x { ! SJ 1 Avv2� t I- T--------,: + HATCHED AREA INDICATES I EXISTING NON-CONIFORMiNG Lu ' z IV I �r l ; I % SETBACK. i \ R, t tCNRpOSS-HAT Ep EA I 4 I fCATES F OPOSE \ \ D I COTBU If aTDaFiCA tFDNR :6' iLu o [FRONT "S-HATCH A:'? '�• f - � INC ATES PROPOSED I SE ACK MODIFICATION A i iG GEI 'oJ E LLI I I4 €�fww HATCHED AfiEA I I I ryii VACATION OF E E I •.�r Q f► SETBACK ENCRO hIME T o V I h w cQ ti rS1Jl SJ I I I �y Il i I1 Z J C 3 r /� 4 F.f' ♦aru r Fy a has & GLABMAN RESIDENCE PARTIAL MAIN LEVEL PLAN (PA2W 1-Ob3) s 2315 PACIFIC DF]VE n. ��j THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK G EXHIBIT NO. 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • 0 Exhibit No. 2 Findings and Conditions of Approval for Variance No.2001-002 and Modification No. 2001-060 Findin,s: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single-Family Residential designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50%of the floor area). I That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development since no other public easements exist on the site. 4. That the granting of the variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is warranted in that there are special circumstances applicable to the property; is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; is consistent with the purposes of this code; and will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: a} The unique topography of the site restricts the ability to comply with the height limitations, the applicant has designed an addition to the house that attempts to work within the constraints of the lot to the degree possible and the applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without exceeding the height limit. b) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. to design a structure in that the lot is c The shape and size of the lot constrains the ability gn } p trapezoidal in shape resulting in a lot width at mid point of approximately 46 feet. d) The proposed addition is generally comparable to the size and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of height requirements could result in an addition that is either too small or confined to permit the additions to be of a size and to contain the amenities to be feasible or desirable for the owner. e) The proposed addition is generally in conformance with the surround neighborhood when viewed from Pacific Drive, and has a similar appearance of surrounding properties when viewed from Bayside Drive. f) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the City has granted other similar requests in the area to exceed the permitted height due to sloped conditions existing on lots with similar topography. V A2 001-002/MD2001-060 July 19,2001 g) Were the project to use the full height available for pitched roofs,the elevation could be four feet higher at the front elevation as viewed from Pacific Drive. h) Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed additions, the existing views from surrounding properties will not be significantly restricted. i) The building design and materials are an upgrade of the existing property and will blend with the style and materials used in other remodels and new construction in the area. 5. That the modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District; will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use; and is a reasonable design solution for the lot for the following reasons: a) The property is existing non-conforming and the proposed modification does not substantially increase the degree on non-conformity. b) The proposed modification results in a project that is consistent with the development within the vicinity. c) The modification results in a better design of the garage and adds an open porch to the front of the dwelling,which is consistent with the architectural style. d) The modification related to the front yard setback will not result in construction that will black views of the public or from surrounding properties in that they are located at the front of the structure and to the side behind an existing side yard encroachment. e) The proposed modification will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining properties because it is located at the front of the structure and to the side behind an existing side yard encroachment. f) The proposed modification actually improves the non-conformity in that the north side yard has been increased to permit a public view corridor where no views currently exist. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations dated March 16, 2001 incorporating the modified garage floor/site plan dated July 19, 2001. 2. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 3. That all public improvements are constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That an encroachment permit be processed through the Public Works Department for all work within the public right-of-way and that an encroachment agreement be executed for all non- VA2001-002/MD2001-060 July 19,2001 standard and decorative improvements to be constructed within the Pacific Drive right-of-way and any easements. S. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 6. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 7. That this variance and modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. VA2001-002/MD2001-060 July 19,2001 1� THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK �z EXHIBIT NO. 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exhibit No. 3 Findings for Denial Variance No. 2001-002 and Modification No. 2001-060 1. That the granting of a variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant and would be considered a grant of special privilege because: a) The property owner could design an addition that does not extend above the maximum permitted building height. b) Other homes in the neighborhood with similar topography and lot configuration have been able to construct new dwellings or remodel existing dwellings within the allowable height limit. c) The proposed encroachment above the permitted height limits would present a significant impact to views by the general public from Pacific Drive and would be visible from surrounding properties. 2. That the granting of modifications to allow encroachments into the front and side yards is not warranted, could be detrimental to the health, safety, peach, comfort and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, and could detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and is not consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: a) The modifications result in an increase in an existing non-conforming development and continue the non-conformity. b Modificationsa r ed o nt of the dwelling unit and can be viewed b the re proposed for the fro g Y public and surrounding property p gp P Y owners. C) In abandoning a portion of the Pacific Drive right-of-way, it was the intent of the City to maintain a minimum five-foot setback from the new.property line along the west side of the street. d) Other properties in the neighborhood which have similar topographic and lot configurations have been able to design structures which maintain the minimum front yard setback and four-foot setback from the side property lines. vA2001-002/MD2001-060 July 19,2001 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK EXHIBIT NO, 4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK i June 25, 2001 City of Newport Beach PLANNING COMMISSION 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Variance for 2315 Pacific Drive To Whom It May Concern: Last week my husband and I wrote a letter to the planning commission opposing the possible increase variance to 2315 Pacific Drive. We would like to rescind that letter at this time. While vacationing in France, our daughter told us of the planning commission meeting, and we automatically assumed that it was for the property at 2231 Pacific Drive. It is a property diagonal to ours in the opposite direction from the Glabman's. Construction of the garage area was beginning when we left on vacation. We were greatly distressed to find in our mail when we returned home today that the public notice was for the Glabman's property. We have no objection whatsoever to the variance, and wish the Glabmans every happiness in their new home. We sincerely apologize to the Glabmans for the upset this must have caused them, and to the members of the Planning Commission for mistakenly infringing upon their valuable time. Sin rely, RECEIVED EY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AM I M William E. Yingling, 111 71819110111112,11 f31416i16 Barbara A. Yingling ` 2308 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ( y THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK �II EXHIBIT NO. 5 (Already in notebooks) 9 9.80 EXIS�T. RIDGE - 1II KITCHEN # � O 4e^nee D!WN-G-R_O_O_M_ - —__ z a i � J r ENTRY —PROPOSED Lu P Y I BAY WINDOW O D! NO (CONFORMING) \ r 20331 IRVINE AVE. I > I SUITE 7 �j SANTA ANA HEIGHTS sroRnr cnemET sroanr air€T CROSS—HATCH AREA INDICATES PROPOSED 1'-2' CALIFORNIA 92707 c, fj r i WDR. / r_ __ SETBACK MODIFICATION PH:714-850-0700 �U E �U FAx;7ia—sso—one�J I{WIR www,twegerandassa.eorn —� LSl[t18 LA470 2'-10" i BMW 740L 2' �GYIENT RE'NSfCN 4126/OI I I Fi g- I hLu R 201 ND ADD TOP4QRAPHY I I w=7a4- W-733' 1 I i ` aoaOTin of Gi4RA4E N I PWT ROCK WALL I h• I I I i NHS, }� !---- __a_-__----_ __I-- HATCHED AREAJNDICATES I 2 4�Y I I °\/>> f ins o WA iLr ales EXISTING NON-CONFORMING OVED HEME1f13TNiG WALLS TP �' i i �\ °• I i SETBACK, CROSS-HAT ED AlEA ICATES OPOSE SETBACK ODIFICA 71ON T I (COL ^ fRT F R - �6' cc(FRONT P R r'RDSS-HATCH U + I ATES PROPOSED � I SE ACK MODIFICATION , o crs U \ ` pI #G AGE) � Lu pFR E + EOF� K W�,L HATCHED AREA I I --- TYL� I I VACATION OF E I I A� I SETBACK ENCROA ME T 2 ! I I CL QZ O � EXi5iN°oN fl°Focr. CC � i N ( � ti✓ zJ c Na. 15902 FILE COPY & Expires— Do Not Remove o OF '^� `� . wrW..nn.rr«x Mr w u..rxe. ` agy0 N vs Ixm w ~ Ic}r,mar w reap iti Y !r laa J09 Na; 20034 ' D 'u \[�� `. DATE: AA 3, 2001 J' \ SCALE: 114'— 7'-0' EXHIBIT NO. 1 C _ DRAW SY: TM M GLABMAN RESIDENCE NEEi i (PA2001-063)2315 RACIFIC DRIVE PARTIAL MAIN LEVEL FLAN A 3 315 PFI a City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX 111 town that could be subsidized to provide the affordable housing. It seems like w are for a square peg in a round hole. Ms. W d answered that we could come back with some analysis on this, and take a I k at what the rent limits should be for the lower income categories that we shout be serving and the average rents for the various size units and therefore ho afar we could get with our in-lieu fund of 2.5 million. We can also talk to the HCD°1taff about this as we work with them on the review of the draft. Albert Armijo state that what we could do is compare the fair average market rent for various sizes o partments to what the affordability or what an area-wide affordability index wou be. We could see what the difference would be for the subsidization of those unit N' Chairperson Selich added j to give us an idea if we endowed 2.5 million dollars, how many units could subsidize with that? He then asked staff when this would be coming back for re w. Ms. Wood answered that it would be t least 45 days because that is the period of time HCD has to review the draft. It ends on what their comments are and how many revisions we need to make. Commissioner Gifford asked to also look at if flex the range for in-lieu fees to be collected on new development. How mu based on what kind of new development you think is coming through could b added to that fund over the next five years? Commissioner McDaniel noted that the City is charge ith having affordable housing, not to subsidize housing so that it now beco s affordable. I am concerned and I am worried that we may be using funds \ina ot dry up at some point. Have we made the mark? Subsidizeear project. Commissioner Gifford then asked about the annexation ofnd �� how that would relate to this issue. FILE Ms. Wood answered that these numbers are above and beon the Coast. SUBJECT: Glabman Residence (PA2001-063) them No. 2 2315 Pacific Drive • Variance No.2001-002 • Modification Permit No.2001-060 Request for a variance to permit an addition to an existing single family residence Continued to of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24-foot height limit, 07/19/2001 ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX modification request to permit encroachments of a garage into the front and side yard setbacks (5 feet into the required 17.5-foot front yard setback and 4 feet into the required 4-foot side yard setback along the northerly property line). Senior Planner Jim Campbell presented three pieces of correspondence received that day. He then gave an overview of the staff report noting the following during a slide presentation: • Addition is approximately 1,385 square feet. • Existing project is and will remain three levels. • Addition is comprised of a garage reconfiguration, a front porch addition, a laundry room addition to the upper level and a master bedroom addition to the rear of the home with an open deck. • The addition at the back of the home would exceed the 24-foot height limitation. • Main level deck is to be expanded._ • Basement excavation will increase the floor area of the lower level. • The entire roof will be reconstructed. • Upper level deck extension exceeds the height limit. • Encroachments into the height limit are not particularly visible from Pacific Drive because the existing house blocks these areas. • There is a 5-foot encroachment of the corner of the garage as well as a 5-foot encroachment of a portion of the front yard setback. • Side yard setback area is at zero. • Angled garage with two doors to be reconfigured into a two-door garage opening facing off Pacific Drive. • Locations of caissons to be used for support. Commissioner McDaniel clarified that if the lot next door at 2319 was built out to where it could be, the side view would be eliminated. Staff concurred. Commissioner Kiser asked if any of the increased portions of the roof would be visible from Pacific Drive; will they be higher with the multiple design changes in the roof? Mr. Campbell answered that basically the entire roof of the structure will need to be removed and the new roof will run perpendicular to the street. The peaks of the roof will be approximately 2 feet higher than existing but would comply with the 24-foot height limitation. The new master bedroom addition roof ridge will run parallel to the bluff, but the reconstructed roof over the front portion of the house will run perpendicular to the street. The posted exhibit on the wall shows the renderings. Chairperson Selich noted that the project is not going any lower down the bluffs other than the caissons for support. Mr. Campbell answered that two of the caissons are within the existing developed area and three of the caissons will be down the slope of the existing II i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX footing that is there now. The house is not substantially going further down the hill than it is now. Staff believes that it is consistent with the General Plan policy to minimize alterations of coastal bluffs. Continuing, Chairperson Selich asked about the history of the existing two garages adjacent to each other with zero setbacks, when they were done and how it has been handled over the years. I assume that the zero setback was allowed a long time ago and that the recent remodel let it continue as such. Ms. Temple answered that we could go back to research this information, but unless the remodel was in the area of the non-conformity, the Code does not require it to be made conforming unless there is actual alterations in that area. My suspicion is that the subsequent remodel that probably happened, simply avoided that area in order to maintain the existing non-conformity. I do not know that for a fact. We can get the information if this item is continued. Chairperson Selich then asked how we ended up with 12 feet of right-of-way that was vacated and there is 10 feet in other areas, isn't the right-of-way line parallel to the sidewalk? Ms. Temple noted that when the abandonment and associated zone changes to Pacific Drive were done after the more precise surveying and engineering, the actual amount of right-of-way abandonment for each lot did vary a range of approximately 3 to 4 feet depending on which lot as the street is curved. Commissioner Gifford noted that she did not have a submission letter from the applicant justifying the required findings for the variance in her packet. understand it has been submitted and I would like to have an opportunity to review that. Staff answered that it was inadvertently left off the attachment list and presented it for review. Public comment was opened. Tom Burger, Irvine Ave, Santa Ana Heights, architect for the project noted the following: • House was last remodeled in the '80's. • House has a small upper floor with small bedrooms, with no master suite. • Deck is set three feet below the main level and blocks the view out of the lower level. • Roof of the living room projects upwards and blocks the view out of the small upper floor bedrooms. • The applicant is aware of the concern of bluff development so the proposal preserves the bluffs. • A deck at each level is proposed that will provide the only outdoor space on this property,which is vertical cliff at the back of the house. • The living area of the house is actually 4,524 square feet. 12 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX • Applicants have met with neighbors to review the design and have received letters of support from some of them. • The lot has 5 feet of fall from the front to the center and then about 40 feet to Bayside Drive. • The combined topography and irregular shape clearly distinguishes this lot from others in the vicinity in the same zoning. We feel this creates a hardship. • The objective is to keep the remodel within the existing footprint to preserve the bluff and actually preserve as much of the house as we can. • Modifications in the front are due to the angular relationship of the property line relative to the street. • We are taking away the zero setback (approximately 10 feet) and replacing it with a corner that would touch at one point. The majority of the existing encroachment in the front would be moved back behind where the garage is now. • The encroachment will be reduced as well as the presence of the house on Pacific Drive. • A small covered porch in the front is to be added and will extend towards the garage, it will remain open and not enclose any floor area. • The height variances occur in the back half of the lot where the grade drops down steeply. • Some of the new addition will be positioned toward Pacific Drive and is within the setback and the height limit. • The decks will extend beyond the current footprint in the back of the house and will be supported by the new caissons. • The highest point of the variance is at the glass railing of the upper level deck. • The roof is sloped to lend a craftsman style architecture. • We feel this is a unique situation created by the combination of the trapezoidal shape of the lot, the shallow depth and the 45 feet drop off that occurs at an angle to the building site. Commissioner Tucker noted a letter received stating that the new roof would block a large portion of the harbor view from his home and would detract from the property value. What kind of impact do you have on his view? Mr. Burger answered that he has not seen the view from his home. He noted that both the new home and existing home have horizontal ridges that are perpendicular to the view. Maybe that view is the small corridor between this home and the one next door. We could do a different root design and make it higher, it would still be within the height limit. Commissioner Gifford asked if any exterior remodel had happened since 1984. She was answered that the applicants bought the home a year ago and to the best of knowledge, it does not appear to have been remodeled. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Burger noted: 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX • All of the neighbors had been invited to view the proposed plans by the applicants. • The garage will continue to sit on the property line. • No mitigation is proposed. Chairperson Selich, referring to the floor plan, noted that it seems you could slide the garage over 4 feet and adhere to the setbacks and do some reconfiguration of the entry, powder room, elevator shaft and storage room behind the dining room and still have functionally the some house. What is your reaction to that? Mr. Burger agreed that on paper it would be easy to do. In the context of trying to keep as many of the existing walls where they are to minimize the amount of demolition that is required to get into this construction project, that would become very difficult to shift the garage wall. What we plan on doing is .removing the roof and the upper floor down to the floor level. Once that garage is moved, which is a load-bearing wall for the upper floor, you can't really keep those floor joists either. Once you get into that, it starts to escalate into a much larger reconstruction job. Chairperson Selich asked why a piece of steel could not be placed across to support the upper levels? The only major structural impediment is that load- bearing wall along the left side of the garage. The rest of it in terms of the entry becomes more a function of design as opposed to construction costs. Mr. Burger answered there are many ways, move the foundation, put a piece Y f o steel in, etc. The applicants enjoy want an adequate house to en' with a PP g J Y spacious garage. Shifting the garage over is all within the realm of possibility. Barbara Corbett, 2316 Pacific Drive noted she is opposed to the height variance part of the application. She stated that the current house is extremely huge from the street. Mr. Burger was invited to come to her home, which he did, to see what the impact of the height difference would be. Her neighbor, Betty at 2312 Pacific Drive gave a letter, which she then read. The letter noted that the house is high due to a remodel 15 years ago. By leaving one garage wall standing from the original small house, a wall shared by the garage at 2305, their remodel was approved and is the tall structure seen today. The remodel changed the appearance of the bluff and decreased property values on our side of Pacific Drive due to the loss of view. If the height of the house remains the some, I will not object to the variance. In closing, she noted that the letters of support have come from the homeowners on the bluff side of the street, those on the other side all object. She asked that the applicant re-design the project. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Corbett stated she realizes that the house could be built higher on the street side and have more of an impact, without a variance. However, it would be "un-neighborly" and she would find it offensive. 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes ,tune 21, 2001 INDEX Steven Nash, 2319 Pacific Drive noted his support of the application. He noted that he also intends to remodel his project in the future. Bill Edwards, at 3334 East Coast Highway, assistant architect for the project noted the following: • The applicants have an opportunity to build 5 five feet higher than is currently designed. • The potential shift in the garage; re-location would be an extremely dramatic change in the existing design and place the front entry going into the dining room. • The expansion of the living space includes no expansion down the slope. • No impacts to neighbors across the street. • This is a fine compliment to the trend of improving existing properties on Pacific Drive. Jim Glabman, 2315 Pacific Drive stated that he has shown the plans to his neighbors. The topography and shape of the lot causes severe problems. To build in the upper level would require us to go beyond the height limits. If the garage were moved, it would eliminate the entryway into our home, as the house is narrow at that side. One thing impacts another and would ruin the front of the house. Our main purpose is to park two cars in the garage, which can't be done now. Several of the neighbors have expressed their support for our project, including neighbors on the other side of the street. The new house will be attractive and will have an elevator accessing on all three floors. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich noted his concern of the project is the continuation of the zero setback situations on the garage. It is something we would not permit today. Ms. Temple stated that modifications have been approved to allow re- construction of old garages that have encroached to the point of zero setbacks. Usually it had to do with the size or shape of the lot, or access difficulties. Oftentimes it occurs on the Balboa Peninsula on the "T" alleys where it is difficult to get in and out on a 10-foot alley. By leaving the garage in its existing position, it helped to solve some of those problems; we have approved modifications to retain old non-conformities. Chairperson Selich noted that the house next door is probably going to be torn down or at least substantially modified at some point in time as it is an older structure. At that time, there would be an opportunity to bring these two yard setbacks into conformity. I guess I disagree with the statements that were made by the architects on the effects of moving the garage. There is always a design solution and ways to do angle entries and reconfigure the elevator shaft and storage area behind the dining room. 1 am not convinced it is a design 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes .tune 21, 2001 INDEX impossibility so I guess it is a matter of whether we think enough is gained by moving the garage over and maintaining setbacks in the normal manner to have them do a redesign on that portion of the project. Other than that, I thought the project was reasonably designed. The one thing I have been concerned about is the bluff alteration aspect and this is one of those examples of looking at the profile of the lot, if they elected to tear the house down and start over, they could do a lot of bluff alteration and not have to come in for any kind of variance at all. They could do something substantially more massive and detrimental than what is being proposed. I think the project is positive from that standpoint. As for as the view blockage, I don't see where it will block any more than what is permitted under the existing height regulations. It appears to be 5-6 feet below the maximum, the only oblique area is next to the neighbor next door and he stated he is planning on remodeling. Commissioner McDaniel, noting that he had visited the site, stated the proposed changes fix a lot of problems that exist on the property. The proposal enhances the ability for the applicant to use the property and the minimal changes saves the bluff and minimizes encroachment into the height. The applicant has been thoughtful in his re-design. I can't see where the changes would impact the views. I am pleased with the design and the application at this paint. Commissioner Kiser noted his agreement with the previous statements. He added that as pointed out in the staff report, there is as much encroachment being removed on existing structures as there is being created by the new proposal. Concerning bluff preservation, if we were to force the roof down another two feet and the applicant re-designed, they could choose to come considerably further down the bluff and create a home that would not be a benefit to anyone's view, public or private. The only problem I have is the zero setback on the one side. As difficult as it might be to re-design, I am sure that things could be done with some creative solutions. I would have a real problem approving a zero setback on a garage when recognizing it looks terrible.The redesign could potentially open up a small view corridor or sense of a view between the homes at least when the home next door is re-designed as well. I am in support of the application, but steps should be taken to recapture that side yard setback. Commissioner Agajonian noted his support of the application with the removal of the zero side yard setback. Commissioner Tucker noted he questions if there was going to be any view blockage. The applicant is not building completely to the max of what the Zoning Code allows. It merits a variance because the property falls off a cliff. As far as the garage setback, we don't usually get involved with the modification issues. I am not terribly troubled by this situation as it is replacing an existing situation and making a better design solution overall. I wonder how many feet of setback off the property line would we be talking about; is it 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 INDEX complete compliance? We need to give some guidance as to what we are looking for. 1 would support the variance based upon the plans that were drawn. Commissioner Gifford noted her support of the application as the analysis of the trade-offs is fair. I think however, that we have a property that has been non- conforming and that status is granted in the recognition that as a property ages, that non-conforming feature will eventually be eliminated. Given the nature of the neighborhood and the possibility of alternative design solutions, the side yard setback should be brought back into conformance for the whole length of the property. We do see a lot of modifications, but not necessarily in conjunction with additional modifications and variances. I am in favor of having the side yard setback conform. Chairperson Selich re-opened the public comment and asked the applicant if he would be willing to go for a continuance on this matter and study a re- design of the garage element. Mr. Berger asked if it is possible to approve the height variance separate from the modification: He was told that it is a total package. Continuing, he stated he could meet with the owners to discuss options and come back at a later date. Chairperson Selich noted he would like to see the 4-foot setback. We would like to see the best effort on it. It may be it can't be designed that way, I don't know. It is not our job to do the design work; it is your job to present us the designs. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to continue this item to July 19th, Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich,Gifford,Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kranzley Amendments to the Annexation and Development Item No.3 Agreement for The Newport Coast Approve the Newport C"'�t,,,,Qnnexation and Development Agreement as proposed to be amended an ard Annexation and Development Agreement to City Council. Commissioner Kiser excused himself from the meeting. Dave Kiff, Deputy City Manager noted proposed modifications to mt, 17 CITY OF NEW,ORT BEACH 7AP-enda ne Date: June 21, 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Item• 2 U r 3300 NEWPORTBOULEv2.RD Person: William Cunningham NEWPORT BI�ACH,CAA 92658 (949) 644-3200 (949)644-3200;FAX (949)644-3250 A eal Period: 14 da s REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Glabman Residence (PA2001-063) FILE COPY 2315 Pacific Drive PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: Request for a variance to permit an addition to an existing single family residence of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24-foot height limit, ranging from approximately 2 feet to 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a modification request to permit encroachments of a garage into the front and side yard setbacks (5 feet into the required 17.5-foot front yard setback and 4 feet into the required 4-foot side yard setback along the northerly property line). ACTION: Approve, modify or deny: Pp Y • Variance No. 2001-002 • Modification Permit No. 2001-060 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Block D, Corona del Mar Tract ZONE: R-1 (Single Family Residential) OWNER: Mr. & Mrs. Jinn Glabman,Newport Beach Introduction The subject site is located on the bluff side of Pacific Drive and is zoned R-1. Applicant proposes a substantial remodel to an existing single family residence. The existing dwelling consists of 3,934 square feet (gross floor area) on three levels. Applicant proposes to extend the upper level, excavate the lower level, extend the main level deck, add decks on the lower and upper levels, and reconfigure the existing garage. The request results in a gross floor area increase to 5,292 square feet(4,829 living area and 463 garage). - s r / �} 4 T 1410 44Q/ f Subject Property z3z ii7 �+�1(S11�Sw QR ii5 143 3 '1aS `4 has , , H 0 100 20© Feet VICINITY P w E s PA2001-063 for VA2001 -002. Subject Propeqy and Surrounding Land Uses Current Development: The subject property is currently developed with a single family residence and attached garage. To the north: Existing single family residence. To the east: Across Pacific Drive are existing single family detached residences. To the south: Existing single family detached residence. VA 2001-002/MD 2001-060 June 21,2001 Page 2 Proiect Description ti The applicant proposes to expand the upper level by extending a portion of the front elevation towards Pacific Drive by up to 16.75 feet, extending the rear elevation toward Bayside Drive by 18.4 feet, and by adding a new deck that will extend beyond the rear of the upper level by an additional 8 feet. The main level will remain within the existing exterior walls (with the exception of revisions to the garage as discussed below), but the deck will be raised to floor level and extended 6.5 feet. The lower level will not be extended beyond the existing wall; the lower level floor area will be expanded by excavation into the subterranean level under the main floor. A new 8-foot deck will be added to the lower level. The new main level and lower level decks will be supported by five new caissons and columns, with the existing angled deck supports being removed. The request is complicated by a number of items: (1) The existing structure is existing non- conforming in that portions of the dwelling extend to the front and north property lines; (2) The lot is steeply sloping and has frontages on both Pacific Drive and Bayside Drive; (3) The westerly side of Pacific Drive was recently vacated, resulting in different front setbacks for properties along the that portion of the street. In addition, the proposed plans include several rooflines and configurations that vary in height,and a variety of wall plates along the rear portion of the structure. For the purposes of clarity,the variance and modification requests are discussed separately. Analysis General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single Family Detached" uses. A single-family residence is a permitted use within this designation. Coastal Bluff Development Policy D of the Land Use Element of the General Plan states: "The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and Cliffs. " Applicant proposes to construct the addition within the existing footprint on the bluff(west) side of the site, and to add five caissons to support the new main and lower level decks. Two of these new caissons are proposed within the existing developed area. Three of the caissons will be located approximately 2 to 3 feet down-slope from existing disturbed areas. The project will not To the west: Across Bayside Drive are existing single family detached residences. VA 2001-002/MD 2001-060 June 21,2001 Page 3 modify the existing landform and will not encroach significantly onto the bluff area. Therefore, the project is consistent with the foregoing General Plan Policy as it relates to alteration of coastal bluffs. The issue of preservation of public views is addressed below. Height Variance The site is a bluff top residential property that fronts Pacific Drive and is a through-lot to Bayside Drive. The lot slopes gradually for the front 85 feet, with the rear 34-foot portion of the lot steeply sloping towards Bayside Drive. Zoning Code permits building heights of up to 24 feet, and in the case of a sloped roof,the height is measured at a mid-point of the roof plane; however, no part of the roof may extend five feet above the building height limit. Therefore, the maximum permitted height of the roof structure is 29 feet above natural grade. The existing dwelling is within the height limitations of the R-1 Zone: the roof line, as exists, is approximately 23 above natural grade at the front of the house, 23 feet at the rear of the house, 27 feet at the maximum roof elevation, and is well within the 29-foot maximum roof height limit. In order to accommodate the new upper level expansion, a completely new roof will be constructed and will consist of a number of roof elements and ridges. The net result will be to increase the height of the roof to 25 feet above grade in the front,resulting in the roof being two feet higher than the current 23-foot roof height, but below the 29-foot maximum roof height and 24-foot average height limit The lot slopes from front to rear, and the expansion will result in the height limits being exceeded towards the rear of the property. As noted above, there are a number of roof and wall elements, resulting in the height of the new roof varying at different points. Staff measured the structure at a number of points at the top of wall plate,roof mid-point, top of roof and at the top of the railings on the new main level and upper level decks. In summary, heights of the walls and roof ranged from approximately 2 feet to 7 feet over the 24-foot height limit. In addition, the second level deck will extend above the maximum height limit by 5 feet on the south elevation, and by 11.4 feet on the north elevation. The decks are proposed to have glass railings with wood caps. The proposed addition, including increase in roof height, will not affect views from the properties on the east side of Pacific Drive. Even though the front elevation roof height is proposed to be raised by two feet, the majority of the upper floor addition and roof height increase occurs at the rear of the property. The residence directly across Pacific Drive from the subject property is single story and cannot view the bay through the existing residence. Photographs were taken from the roof of that dwelling, and it demonstrates that the views will not be impacted even if that structure were increased to two-story. Staff notes that the proposed increase in floor area, height and decks along the rear of the house could impact public views, particularly to any person standing on the sidewalk at the southeast property corner. However, staff also notes that the views at that point are enhanced due to the fact VA 2001-002/MD 2001-060 June 21,2001 Page 4 that the adjacent residence to the south of the subject property is constructed approximately 15 feet from properly line. The structure is of an age and condition that the possibility exists for that property to be remodeled or for a new structure to be built. if built to the four-foot setback line, any structure on the adjacent south parcel would likely restrict views from the street. The garage of the property to the north of the subject parcel is constructed to property line; therefore, the proposed addition in the rear of the property will not be visible and will not block views from that location. The residences to the north and south will be able to view the addition at a peripheral angle, but views from those properties will not be significantly obstructed due to the location of the upper level addition. The residence to the south is single story and the view of the harbor and ocean to the north and west would not be blocked, as the upper level addition would occur above typical view angles. The residence to the north is two story and setback further from the slope edge, and therefore the view obstruction is a greater issue. The portion of the private view toward the Carnation bluff from the upper level of the home may be obstructed. L ��� � Applicant's licant' justification is included as an attachment to this staff report. He notes constraints ` 1 relative to the steep slope along the rear 34 feet of the property; the trapezoidal shape of the lot, which results in a lot width of approximately 46 feet; and design of the existing structure, particularly the central stairwell and low ceilings on the lower level, which limit ability to design within the existing building envelope. Required Findings for Variance Approval Section 20.91.035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the following grounds for a variance: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the VA 2001-002IMD 2001-060 June 21,2001 Page 5 5 • • circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Granting the variance could be viewed as the granting of a special privilege to this property owner inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the same zoning district. A height variance(Variance No. 1133) was conditionally granted in 1986 for the property located two parcels to the north of the subject parcel(2301 Pacific Drive). However,the Planning Commission, in granting the variance, required substantial design modifications in order to bring the structure into closer conformity with the zoning code, and also required the applicant to consult with surrounding property owners in revising the plans. The applicant in that case originally requested a height variance to allow up to 16 feet over the maximum limit. By redesigning the structure, and by lowering the back portion of the structure so that it would step down the hillside, the final variance was to allow the residence to exceed the height limit by one foot at one comer. Staff does note, however, that the residence at 2301 Pacific Drive was a new structure, which presented less design constraints than does a remodel of an existing structure. Consideration of this project as compared to a Variance application involving the remodel of an existing residence could result in a different conclusion in regards to the granting of a special privilege. In the project at 2215 Pacific Drive (Variance 1228), the Planning Commission approved exceeding the height limit by almost 18 feet, allowing a similar extension main and top floor living areas. Therefore, in staff s opinion,the fact that the project involves a remodel can be used to weigh the issue of granting a special privilege. The subject property is located on a bluff and, therefore, is somewhat constrained relative to ability to design while staying within the building height envelope. The property drops-off dramatically at the rear of the existing structure. Also, as noted by the architect, there are constraints relative to the location of the interior stairwell, which make it difficult to design an enlarged master bedroom suite on the upper level without exceeding the 24-foot height limit. Allowing any extension of the upper level creates an issue with the 24-foot height limit as the present home was designed to take advantage of the entire height envelope. The roof of the main level presently impinges the view from the upper floor. A secondary goal of the applicant is to improve the view from this level through the proposed addition that is an amenity of other properties. Nevertheless, the property is similar to surrounding properties in size and topography, and the possibility remains to design a floor plan which results in many of the amenities requested by the applicant without exceeding the height standards to the extent requested, although it may require a more extensive remodel than I proposed. One alternative is to reconstruct the entire property, which could result in additional modification to the bluff. Project approval avoids this potential issue to the greatest extent. Setback Modification The residential structure is existing non-conforming with respect to front and side setbacks in that it is currently Iocated within the front 5-foot setback and a portion of the garage extends to the north property line. A related issue is the vacation of right-of-way along the west side of Pacific Drive. In June of 2000, the City Council took action to abandon a portion of the right-of-way along Pacific VA 2001-002/MU 2001-060 June 21,2001 Page 6 Drive. The area abandoned varied from property to property, but for the subject property, the abandoned portion was 12.5 feet in width. Recognizing the need to maintain a uniform setback, however, the Zoning Code was amended to require that the setbacks for those properties be maintained at five feet from the old property line. Therefore, the setback for the subject property is 17.5 feet from the new front property line along Pacific Drive. The existing garage is irregularly shaped and designed with two separate doors with the door walls staggered and at different angles (the garage door nearest Pacific Drive is angled, while the other door is parallel to the street). A portion of the north wall of the garage is constructed to the north property line. The garage on the adjacent parcel to the north is also constructed to the property line, resulting in the garages of both properties abutting each other. Applicant proposes to square off the two-car garage, which will result in removal of approximately 92 square feet of non-conforming area in the northerly front portion of the garage, but will increase the non-conforming portions along the southerly front portion and will extend the side yard encroachment a distance of 8.5 feet along the north property line. The new encroachment areas will total approximately 65 square feet. In addition, a covered front porch is proposed which will add 32 square feet of encroachment into the front setback. The net result is nearly equal amounts of non-conforming encroachment being removed and new encroachment areas proposed. The encroachment modification would result in a better designed garage and would not substantially increase the amount of non-conformity since nearly equal amounts of area are being removed as are being replaced within the setback areas. Also, the portion of the garage being extended into the side yard is located behind the existing building wall and the adjacent property garage is constructed to the property line, so that that portion of the new addition will not be visible from the street. That portion of the garage expansion will be viewed from the property to the north. However, a portion of the new garage area will be located behind the existing shed and garage of the northerly property which is constructed to the property line. The five feet of wall that will be exposed to view to the north property will not obstruct views from that property, and therefore, will not be a significant impact on that property. Environmental Review It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50%of floor area). Recommendations Based on the analysis contained in this report, staff believes the request for the height variance can be approved based upon the topography and physical constraints of the existing residence, although the amount of the request could be considered excessive. Alternative designs reducing the overall height variance might be considered. With respect to the setback modification, staff believes the encroachment is reasonable and results in a better design, which reduces building massing abutting VA 2001-002/MD 2001-060 June 21,2001 Page 7 the street. Staff has outlined potential options available to the Planning Commission for action on = this application: Option 1 — Approve the variance and modification, in which case the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit No. 1 are suggested; Option 2 — Direct the applicant to redesign, and if they are not willing to consider a redesign,take option 3; Option 3 —Deny both the variance and modification, in which case the findings set forth in Exhibit No. 2 are suggested. Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM,AICP Planning Director Contract Planner f I ?' - Exhibits 1. Findings and conditions of approval 2. Findings for denial 3. Letter from applicant 4. Site plan, floor plans and elevations i F:1UsersTLNIShued\PA's1PA2001-0631V A2001-002rpt.doe VA 2001-002/MD 2001-060 June 21,2001 Page 8 `t Exhibit No. I Findings and Conditions of Approval for Variance No, 2001-002 and Modification No.2001-060 Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan since a single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the Single-Family Residential designation. 2. That this project has been reviewed, and it qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act under Class I (Minor Alteration to Existing Structures less than 2,500 square feet or less than 50%of the floor area). 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development since no other public easements exist on the site. 4. That the granting of the variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is warranted in that there are special circumstances applicable to the property; is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; is consistent with the purposes of this code; and will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: a) The unique topography of the site restricts the ability to comply with the height limitations,the applicant has designed an addition to the house that attempts to work within the constraints of the lot to the degree possible and the applicant is unable to design an addition comparable to other homes in the neighborhood without exceeding the height limit. b) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. c) The shape and size of the lot constrains the ability to design a structure in that the lot is trapezoidal in shape resulting in a lot width at mid point of approximately 46 feet. d) The proposed addition is generally comparable to the size and bulk of other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of height requirements could result in an addition that is either too small or confined to permit the additions to be of a size and to contain the amenities to be feasible or desirable for the owner. e) The proposed addition is generally in conformance with the surround neighborhood when viewed from Pacific Drive, and has a similar appearance of surrounding properties when viewed from Bayside Drive. VA 2001-002/MD 2001-060 June 21,2001 Page 9 f) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development - regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the City has granted other similar requests in the area to exceed the permitted height due to sloped conditions existing on lots with similar topography. g) Were the project to use the full height available for pitched roofs, the elevation could be four feet higher at the front elevation as viewed from Pacific Drive. h) Although some view area will be impaired with the proposed additions, the existing views from surrounding properties will not be significantly restricted. i) The building design and materials are an upgrade of the existing property and will blend with the style and materials used in other remodels and new construction in the area. 5. That the modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District; will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use; and is a reasonable design solution for the lot for the following reasons: a) The property is existing non-conforming and the proposed modification does not substantially increase the degree on non-conformity. b) The proposed modification results in a project that is consistent with the development within the vicinity. c) The modification results in a better design of the garage and adds an open porch to the front of the dwelling, which is consistent with the architectural style. d) The modification will not result in construction that will block views of the public or from surrounding properties in that they are located at the front of the structure and to the side behind an existing side yard encroachment. e) The proposed modification will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining properties because it is located at the front of the structure and to the side behind an existing side yard encroachment. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations dated March 16, 2001 except as noted below. 2. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 3. That all public improvements are constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. VA 2001-O02/MD 2001-060 June 21,2001 Page 10 4. That an encroachment permit be processed through the Public Works Department for all ` work within the public right-of-way and that an encroachment agreement be executed for all non-standard and decorative improvements to be constructed within the Pacific Drive right- of-way and any easements. S. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 6. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 7. That this variance and modification shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. VA 2001-002/MQ 2001-060 June 21,2001 Page 11 11 Exhibit No. 2 Findings for Denial " Variance No.2001-002 and Modification No. 2001-060 1. That the granting of a variance to allow portions of the addition to exceed the permitted height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant and would be considered a grant of special privilege because: a) The property owner could design an addition that does not extend above the maximum permitted building height. b) Other homes in the neighborhood with similar topography and lot configuration have been able to construct new dwellings or remodel existing dwellings within the allowable height limit. c) The proposed encroachment above the permitted height limits would present a significant impact to views by the general public from Pacific Drive and would be visible from surrounding properties. 2. That the granting of modifications to allow encroachments into the front and side yards is not warranted, could be detrimental to the health, safety, peach, comfort and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, and could detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and is not consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: a) The modifications result in an increase in an existing non-conforming development and continue the non-conformity. b) Modifications are proposed for the front of the dwelling unit and can be viewed by the public and surrounding property owners. a) In abandoning a portion of the Pacific Drive right-of-way, it was the intent of the City to maintain a minimum five-foot setback from the new property line along the west side of the street. d) Other properties in the neighborhood which have similar topographic and lot configurations have been able to design structures which maintain the minimum front yard setback and four-foot setback from the side property lines VA zoo 1-002/MD 2001-060 June 21,2001 Page 12 FROM i ER & ASSOC. NO, : 714 8500772 �May. 23 2001 02:39PM P1 ss (tag ' r DRAi I .tune 13, 2000 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ° ITEM N o. y. TO, Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT. VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF-WAY ALONG THE SOUTH R OF UNUSED RIGHT- CORONA DEL MAR E LY SIDE OF PACIFIC DRIVE 1N LOCATION: Pacific Drive between Begonia Avenue and Avocado Avenue RECOMMENDATIONS: 1- Hold public gearing, close public hearing. t 2. Adopt Resolution No. ordering the vacation and abandonment of the street right-of way in excess of 60 feet in width along the southerly side of Pacific brive (varying from approximately 12A to ?9 feet subject to approval of Zoning Amendment No. 899 on June 27, 2000, to modify property setbacks. 3. Direct the City Clerk to have the resolution recorded by the Orange County Recorder subject to the appr©vaf of Zoning Amendment No. 899 on June 27, 2000. DISCUSSION: Pacific Drive has a right-of-way width of approximately 80 feet. Only the northedy 60 feet is improved with curbs and sidewalk. The southerly 12.4 to 19+ feet of the right-of-way is a combination of level areas and steep slopes. The owner-a _ 0 Pacific Drive requests the right-of-way in excess of 60 feet be abandoned sired it is not improved for public use and private entry improvements (such as driveways stairs, retaining walls, and landscaping) exist in this area. The right-of--way proposed for abandonment is not needed for an use except for designated utility easements. Y present or future public A 10-font public utility easement will be retained for Edison. Pacific Bell, and Southern Califomia Gas Company facilities located in the area proposed abandment of Pack Drive. On May 1, 2000. the City Clerk set the Public Hearing for June 13, 2 vacatidn of the excess right-of-way, 000, tconsider the t FROM BURGER & ASSOC. FAX NO. : 714 e5@0772 �May. 23 2001 02:39PH P2 nions of Unused Right-pf-way Along the Southerly Side of Pacific Orive Subject'. Vacation and Abandonment of po in Corona del Mar Date: June 13. 2000 Page 2 Zoning Amendment No. 899 will provide modification Q the d sxistin Cs s setback o rrMaintaintl�te n the vacation of Pacific Drive occurs. Thee intent o f the re is same distance #rorn the curb tine to the structufes #e aftee�l�e before vacat an than tthey were ion so no structures can be constructed any closer to Pacific Drive prior to the vacation. This will retain the existing streetthe land area The ��ionbutl�e At tmit+ i' the property owners to increase their buildable area by a ow s;ruc ores closer to a street. Council resolution will complete the statutory proceedings Adoption of the recommended to vacate and abandon the street easement. An exhibit is attached for reference_ Don Webb Public works Director by: Richard L. Hoffstadt, P.E. Development Engineer Attachment: Exhibit Resoiutian F..%usestpew%SharedtCQtJNCIL�Fyeo-oWune-i 3%V-Pad is Dr-doc Pacific Dr. I have seen the plans and I feel it will support the remodeling plan for 2315 p I pp � enhance the neighborhood, not encroach into the bluff and it will have no real impact on the surrounding homes. Name f`Q' Address%p-a -$O �,�cct c c Phone -66 7rO 4-3 3 t 3 ► %- ' 0 0 To: City of Newport Beach Plamling Department Dear Planning Commission: One of the items on your Agenda for June 21'is the request for a variance at 2315 Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar by the new owners,Mr.&Mrs.Jim Glabman. We live almost directly across the street at 2320 Pacific Drive. We have reviewed the proposed schematic plan,requiring the variance,and have no objection to the granting of this variance to the Glabmans and look forward to the upgrading of this property. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact us. Mr. &Mrs.John Davison 2320 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar,Ca.,92625 Phone:949-675-0633 ti Q f 0 0 Active & Pending Planning Commission Cases 0f l•1 Bluffs Shopping Center- Site Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Modification ��..// permit for a 52,000 square foot shopping center. Complete (hearing tentatively scheduled for August 9th but outside chance for July 19th ) 2. ewport Fish House (formerly the Buzz) -Use Permit for a restaurant, bar, banquet, and dancing facility. Incomplete (working with applicant - August 91h probable). C3)Lackson residence - Variance for height. Complete (ND under preparation - August 91h probable). 4. La Salsa-Use Permit to add seating to a SF and parking waiver. Incomplete (letter sent and waiting for applicant - August possible). ( 5.} Radison - Use Permit amendment for permanent canopy over the tennis court converting it to assembly use. Incomplete (waiting for applicant -hearing date unknown). 6. Smith residence - Variance for height. Incomplete (recently applied - anticipate 2"d August meeting). 7. O' Hill 440 s uare foot file room- General Plan Amendment. Comglete (holding at request of applicant). D� /, ,f June 21., 2001 July 05, 2001 Mr. Bill Cunningham ARCHITECTURE Planning Department, 3200 Newport Blvd., 2nd Floor 20331. IRVINE AVE. Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUITE 7. SANTA ANA"HEIGHTS CALIEDRNIA 92707' LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 714-850-0700 sent via US.Mall FAx: 714-850-0772 ttburger3@a6l.com re: 2315 Pacific Variance#VA2001-002 Modification #MA2001-060 Bill, Enclosed are 12 reduced copies and 3 full size prints of the adjusted garage plan. Other than a slight change to the front elevation, there are no other changes in the drawings. We appreciate.you allowing us mto add just this page to the application. Please let me know if you need additional information. Very truly yours, BURGER &ASSOC. ARCHITECTURE Thomas T. rger, III Architect . I� Y r 11 EMU ► ' I I OfV HER BURGER ASSOC, ,ciF"" III 1 + .'^# �� i a � YJ. '.. _ �, a •�' tom, �•L , h L- llk I p ' t I -A _ ML 111T 1 --- BURGER '�Y✓' J11111__ &assoc. CLOSE ' OF R•M ACROSS THE BAY. ARCHITECTURE SEXIST IRVINE AVE. SUITE 7 CALIFORNIA 92707 PA2001-0630 v r I 1 I S_ &nssoc. LOOKINGON D • t� 1 t�� g i eyzQsc � r ' � 5i'R-. BURGER '�Y✓' JiWL_ &ASSOC. GLABMAN RESIDENCE LOOKING WEST ON BAYSIDEI ' • • GLABMAN RESIDENCE - 2315 PACIFIC DR. ARCHITE•°aE VIEW DOWN THE MAIN CHANNEL. 203311RVINE AVE. SuITE) SANTA ANA HEIGHTS CAOFORNIA 92707 714450 0700 FAX:II4850-0772 Ilburg<r3$aol.cam y BURGER '1Y✓' GLABMAN :ESIDENCE - 23 15 PACIFIC D: IIIIII LOOKING •O- FROM D • xassoc. BURGER VIEW FROM ROOF OF •USE ACROSS PACIFIC D • IIIIII &ASSOC. o - GLABMAN RESIDENCE - 2315 PACIFIC DR. VIEW FROM ACROSS PACIFIC DR. 1 HOUSE WEST OF PROPERTY. ARCHITECTURE 203311RVINEAVE. GLABMAN RESIDENCE - 2315 PACIFIC DR, S SANTA MAAHEIGH 927C CAPFORNIA 9DC VIEW FROM ACROSS PACIFIC DR. 2 HOUSES WEST OF PROPERTY. 714.E30.07M FAX:74-8 0-077: ❑bur,, ®bblmf � I ,_ •4,. -, .� i- - a J�� �IIr�' ,may. . � � i� --yI�I� /—� BURGER 1Y✓' VIEW OF ENTIRE BLUFF FROM • • m ' _ _BURGER 11111E In All �assoc DR. ARCH11 CLOSE • • D , WEST OF PROPERTY. June 25, 2001 City of Newport Beach PLANNING COMMISSION 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Variance for 2315 Pacific Drive To Whom It May Concern: Last week my husband and I wrote a letter to the planning commission opposing the possible increase variance to 2315 Pacific Drive. We would like to rescind that letter at this time. While vacationing in France, our daughter told us of the planning commission meeting, and we automatically assumed that it was for the property at 2231 Pacific Drive. It is a property diagonal to ours in the opposite direction from the Glabman's. Construction of the garage area was beginning when we left on vacation. We were greatly distressed to find in our mail when we returned home today that the public notice was for the Glabman's property. We have no objection whatsoever to the variance, and wish the Glabmans every happiness in their new home. We sincerely apologize to the Glabmans for the upset this must have caused them, and to the members of the Planning Commission for mistakenly infringing upon their valuable time. Sin rely, � RECEIVED 8Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NFV!cncar PEACH AM JUL 0 2 2001 PM William E. Yingling, III 7181911011111£Ili2 314i8i8 Barbara A. Yingling ` 2308 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 • • y&r-. '2ZOO/- Doe too. a o0/-Olio PLANET DESIGN architecture planning interiors xaryue dauguaoliGnaia m.»uall�oox/d... Mr. Chairman&Members of the Planning Commission C/O City of Newport Beach RECEIVED BY 3300 Newport Boulevard PLANNING DEPARTMENT Newport Beach,CA CITY OF mrimonoT PEACH JUN 21 2001 PM RE: Tile Glaboran Residence AM 2315 Pacific Drive,Corona del Mar,CA 41819110111t 12111213141818 REF:Regular Meeting,June 21,2001 Dear W.Chairman&Commissioners: This letter is written in support of the proposed variance to property located at 2315 Pacific Drive. I have reviewed the design plans in much detail and I believe the Glabman's consulting architect, Mr. Tom Burger has done a superb job in addressing their program needs,and the existing deficiencies in the house,while keeping the massing changes to a relative minimum,devoting much of the new building area on the lower level not visible to the exterior,keeping the height within two(2)feet of the existing height at the front,and making this older home much more livable by current standards,and more comparable to the improvements in the neighborhood as a whole. The resultant change would have minimal impact to the overall look of the bluff above Bayside Drive, moreover would have less visual impact than many existing homes,which have built down the slope to varying degrees. I feel the application is very much in keeping with the currant move to je theCoastal bluffs.ou fo{fir y^/o/ur time and favorable determination to the Glabman's application. Sincerely yours, William R.Edwards principal architect PLANET DESIGN,Inc. �e a��vneaCiae t�+eaaz.{omes, 33M East Coast H%hway Ste.237 Comm del Mar,CA 92625 USA fad:949.723.0735 Aliso Kej0.CA 92656 USA 949.425.8938 Fad:949.360-4929 Email: a rctdUx(@bigpL%n&=n June 21, 2001 FILE COPY City of Newport Beach PLANNING COMMISSION 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Planning Commission Meeting to Increase Variance for 2315 Pacific Drive To Whom It May Concern: My wife and I are homeowners and currently reside at 2308 Pacific Drive. Our home stands diagonally across the street from 2315 Pacific Drive. We are vehementiv opposed to increasing the variance at 2315 Pacific Drive. The new roof on this home blocks a large portion of our harbor view and inevitably detracts from our property value. The property already has the benefit of being built on the bluffs with views from every floor without further need to increase the roof height. My wife and I are out of the country until Sunday, June 24 or we would have both been at tonight's meeting to express our dissatisfaction. Please accept this letter as proof of our disapproval of any variance that would allow the newly reconstructed roof on 2315 Pacific Drive to remain at its current, increased height. SinoErey, : Willia gli III 2308 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 (949) 67S-2993 Jun 21 01 04: 09p Rog*b Lori Peehuls 949-723-0418 p. l It, BY ---p A NG-0EPAP—'— NT CITE (1a nlr: �r.ra�aT ate AM JUN 21 2001 PM ?,Big110111112111c1`3141816 e3v�, Roger & Lori Pechuis 2216 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 To: Newport Beach Planning Commission Re: Glabman Residence 2315 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 We have reviewed the plans for Barbara and Jim Glabman's remodel of their residence at 2315 Pacific Drive. We are in full support of the proposed remodel. We feel this remodel will not obstruct our views and is architecturally in keeping with the area. We look forward to this protect and feel it can only increase the vakle in our community. Sincerely. _ -�7 r Roger and Lon PeChuls 'e``��`"� l FROM ' RECEIVED BY • PHONE NO. • Jun. 21 2001 03:40PM P1 CPLANNING DEPARMENT ITY OF NEWPOR T EACH FILE COPY JUN 21 2001 PM AMMidrael C. Mann 71819 110 11 111 2 11 12 13M18 2304 Pacific Dr. `'OPT Corona Del Mar,CA 72 92625 -8460 � (949) 720-8460 Fax(949)720-8104 June 21,2001 City of Newport Beach - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92658 Attn: Planning Commission City Council for 6-20-01 agenda meeting Ref: Pacific Drive Dear Planning Council, Since I have lived in Corona Del Mar for a number of years,I have had the opportunity to continue to try to keep Corona Del Mar a pleasant place to reside. However,The Planning Commission and The City Council have increased the traffic flow and increased the buildable square footage to change the atmosphere of the community. I am opposed to allowing this variance for the Crlubmans. While living in Corona Del Mar, we have showed almost unanimous support of the neighbors not allowing specific vanauces. Unfortunately,the neighbors' voices have not been heard by The City Council or The Plowing Commission. Because of these variances, my neighbors were able to overbuild their home on Pacific Drive. The other neighbors were almost unanimously opposed to those variances;however,The City Council and The Planning.Commission allowed the variances. Please stop the vartances and keep our open space- Sin ely, C. 2A�'I • —FPY-449— •Feb. 11 2996 P1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUN 21 2001 PM iynn or ayivia AM 7181911011111211121314t516 2115 Baysicse drive o Corona del )War, CA 92625 (949) 675-9890 F/C f cop r Newport Beach Planning Commission FAX (949) 644-3250 Re. Glabman Residence 2315 Pacific Drive Corona del Mar, C.A. 92625 We have reviewed the request of Barbara and Jim Glabman to remodel their residence at 2315 Pacific Drive. We are in full support of the proposed remodel and the extension of the top floor further towards the water. We find the remodel does not obstruct the neighbors view and is in keeping with the esthetics in the area. We look forward to this project and feel it can only increase the value in our community. Sincerely, Lynn via Burn rdCUl'I%"` • Fal WA Feb. tTF++-R2 DATE: June 21, 2001 ATTENTION: Newport Beach Planning Commission 949-644-3250 Jim Glabman 714-957-4291 FROM: Sylvia Burnett RE: June 21 Planning Commission PHONE NUMBER (949) 675-9890 FAX NUNIBER (949) 675-9892 Total number of pages sent including this page 2 CF&F PKG Fax : 714-731-4609 ONrtyllElAEII/ �, • ��F tVG I) tMENT EACH AM M 20 200, 718191,011111211,?.oj41g 8 June 20, 2001 L00- ATTN: Newport Beach Planning Commission Re: Variance No, VA2001-002, Modification No. M02001-60 Property 2315 Pacific Dr. CdM Dear Sirs and Madams. Having lived on Pacific Dr. since I was two (I'm now 44), 1 have to object to any height limit variances. The 2300 block of Pacific Dr. is the Only street in Newport Beach where there are no restricted height lmits on the bluff side of the street. So now there Is a consideration to go even higher and closer to the street! when is this going to stop? The City Council talcs about not setting precedence, well, what Is this? Corona del Mar is losing its charm rapidly, because of the the city letting houses go up and out and dawn for the benefit of One household. Please consider not approving this variance. Diane Orr Carson 2324 Pacific Dr. CdM. 949-673-6020 l RECEIVED BY 6"�� 0 "� PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE COPY . , ca cITY �= ��_ ,�aeri JUN 2 0 2001 PM AM k 7i819110 i1111211IE13141516 r � El..n., J. Burg 2301 Bdysi& give G.ro..qNI M.' , GeL6.ia 9262$ `z .rca ilie�ra s-«.aL �� .0 -2 l3z� `/h� 9- G 7S• �/h�G .. June 06, 2001 I Bill Cunningham - ARCHITECTURE .City of Newport Beach,Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd., 2nd floor 20331 Iavwe AV, Newport Beach, CA 92663 SILL, 7 SANTA ANA HEIGHIs LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CALIFORNIA 92707 7I4-850-0700. .. delivered by OCB messenger FAx: 714-850-077e ttbuNW,30ad.com re: Glabman Remodel 2315 Pacific Bill, Enclosed are two full size and 12 reduced sets of architectural drawings incorporating the revisions we discussed yesterday. Please let me know if you feel the reduced site plan is legible enough. I removed the roof hatch to make it easier to read and removed" the footprint line indicating the existing back of the garage for consistency. All other footprint lines indicate what is proposed. The hatching is accurate as shown: - Very truly yours, BURGER&AS OC. ARCHITECTURE Thomas T.B 111 Architect June 04, 2001 Rom Bill Cunningham ARCHITECTURE Planning Department, 3300 Newport Blvd., 2nd floor 20331 levwe A,E" Newport Beach,CA 92663 $0"E 7 Sn.r.Ana HEIGHTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Cn6l.nnIA 92707 714-850-0700 Delivered by OCB messenger FAv 714-850 one - tttiur9er3®aoLcom <re: Glabman remodel 2315 Pacific Dr., CDM Bill; Enclosed is one set of revised drawings for the variance applications. If you have any other revisions that.you would like to see or if you need any additional information,please let me know. Very truly yours; BURGER &ASSOC. ARCHITECTURE Thomas T. Bu III Architect May 22, 2001 Mr. William Cunningham ARCHITECTURE Planning Dept. City of Newport.Beach . . 20331 R,NI n�E. SUITE 9 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CALIFORNIA 92707 )I4-850 0700 delivered by our messenger FAA: 714-850-077e nbur F,SGOOI com Bill, Enclosed are the copy of the soils report and the survey that you requested. I appreciate you and Jim Campbell taking the time to visit the site this morning_ Please let me know if you need any additional information. Very truly yours, BURGER & OC. ARCHITECTURE Thomas T. B , III Architect May 02, 2001 ARCHITECTURE . Genia Garcia City of Newport Beach, Planning Dept 20331 IRVINE AvE.SuvE $AMA ANA H..,. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CALIFORNIA 92707 Sent via messenger 714-850-070QFqy: 714_830-0772 flburgerWool.com Re: 2315 Pacific Dr. Genia, Enclosed are the revised drawings with topographic information and the enlarged decks the clients requested. I understand that you will be reviewing them with whomever will be writing the staff report and I hope that you will share your point of view with them. I'm sorry I will no longer have the pleasure of working with you in Newport Beach, and wish you luck and success in your new position in Dana Point. Very truly yours, BURGERYNSOC. ARCHITECTURE Thomas T, urg 111 Architect PLANNEIVED BY TM CITY a IDpOEM p JR REACH MAR 1 6 2001 PM March 14,2001 AM 71819 i1 0 11 1 11 2 11121 314 16 16 on ARCHITECTURE Genia Garcia, Senior Planner - 20331 IkVINf Avf.. SUITE 7 City of Newport Beach Planning Dept. SANTA ANA HEIGHTS 3300 Newport Blvd. CALIFORNIA 92707. Newport Beach,CA 92663 714-850-0700 FAx 714-850-0772 Mur9er3®aoLcom Re: 2315 Pacific pending variance application Dear Genia; Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and Bill Edwards this morning. You are probably not used to working with two architects on one project. Bill had approached the Glabmans after I began working with them and offered to share his experience in - processing variances and has contributed some valuable suggestions. - Notwithstanding the considerable challenges, I appreciate your openness to considering some positive aspects of our request. I an _ enclosing business.card since Iforgot to give you one at our meeting. Please feel free to call to discuss any suggestion you may have or if you need additional information at any time during the process. Very truly yours, BURGER&ASSOC.ARCHITECTURE Thomas T:Burger,. - .Architect - � r 2315 PACIFIC DRIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION: ARCHITECTURE 20331 1RV rve Ave.. The existing home was originally built in the 9920's? and remodeled in SUITE 7 1984 and consists of 3,360 sq.ft. of living area on three levels. The SAe,A ArvA Heierv,e bedrooms are on the upper level, the living areas and garage are on GoeoRPUA 92707 the main level and the lower level is a bonus room with a low ceiling 714-360-0700 The owners would like to renovate the house to meet modern living FA, 71A-850-077e standards while retaining its charm and minimizing the impact of the 1rodea,3®U.L,,. construction on the adjacent homes and the bluff. There are two main aspects to this proposed remodel: A modification to the front setback to create a usable garage and covered porch and an expansion of the upper floor within the existing building footprint. The existing garage which is built to the front and side property lines was not used by the previous owner due to the narrow door openings and irregular shape. We would like to remove a large portion of the existing front yard encroachment and create a smaller encroachment in a different location to return the garage to a square shape. We would like ad an unenclosed porch to the front of the house which would require a modification for two columns and a portion of the roof. ' The existing upper floor contains two small bedrooms and two baths in 909 sq.ft. and lacks a master suite. The Glabmans would like to enlarge the upper floor to contain a master suite, a home office and a guest room for visiting grandchildren. A small portion of the proposed 945 sq. ft. expansion of the upper floor will occur toward Pacific Dr. entirely within the setbacks and considerably below the height limit. The rear portion would occur within the existing building footprint and setbacks, but due to the steep slope, would encroach into the height limit as it slopes down following the grade None of the addition would encroach into the bluff beyond the existing concrete wall at the base of the structure and all of it will be 4 ft. below the maximum height allowed at the street. 'The addition will add 1,164 sq.ft, of living space. The new total living area will be 4,524 sq.ft. Total gross area including the garage and 300 sq.ft. of new storage area reclaimed from the existing crawl-space would be 5,292 sq ft , 160 sq.ft. less than allowed. Glabman 3/12/2001 f.'What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape,. topography, location or surroundings? The property is a trapezoidal shape ona promontory overlooking the bay. The lot is one of the shortest lots on Pacific Drive. The • rear portion of the lot drops off at very steep slope and is not suitable for building. The angle of the front property line relative to the side property lines further reduces the useful depth of the property. ARCHITECTURE 2. Why is a variance necessary:to preserve property rights? Extreme conditions of the 20331 IRVINE AVE. . .southerly slope cause:a significant hardship in creating a livable solution to this existing $Eq 7 home within the current .guidelines. The subject property CCALIFORNIARNIq 9$707. has a unique topography BANW NP 2O] GHTS which is substantially different from the other lots on the entire upland side of Pacific Dr. The combined effect of the trapezoidal lot shape, . shallow lot depth, height and 714-850-0700 steepness of the bluff and the steep decent of the height limit as it follows the grade, rAE 714-850-0772 impose severe restrictions unique to this property. To be severely restricted by height ffeureer3@aoi.com on the upper level, would otherwise necessitate the expansion of the lower levels toward the rear setback line which could adversely impact the remainder of the undeveloped - lower slope areas as well as the peripheral views of adjacent bluffside neighbors. The proposed expansion of the upper level of the existing home minimizes the impact to. adjacent neighbors on the bluff as well as the opposite side of the street. Much new construction and significant remodels have occurred within the last 5 years and are still in progress on Pacific Dr. The current age and design of the existing home is somewhat sub-standard in relation-to the neighbors in the immediate area Significant improvements to the property.a in keeping with the overall.direction of the neighborhood.. s The outward expansion of the existing upper level is the most prudent solution to serious deficiencies in space planning (including being bisected by the stairwell, having no master suite as . well as a limited view which is eclipsed by the roof of the great room on the main level) allowingthe - preservation of themajority of the existing structure and occurring entirely within the footprint of existing construction on theblufffop. The improvements are of minimal impact to the site:and will be - consistent or of smaller scale than other homes on the bluff.The properties on the upland side of the street are typically between two and three times as deep on flat lots which easily allow full development in conformance with zoning requirements. The height of the existing residence of one of the nearby neighbors at 2227 Pacific Dr. is in excess of 50 ft. above the finished grade at the slope. Another residence at 2301 Pacific.was approved with a variance to - allow 32 ft. above grade at the steepest part of the slope, substantially similar to our proposal. . 3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? Although there are many bluff top homes with significantly greater height and visual mass than what we are asking for, we are not looking at these precedents as justification, rather as an example of the need to approach this project with greater sensitivity. The proposed remodel is an expansion tothe-upper floor of an already three level home which will not cause significant increase in building. height or mass as viewed from Pacific Dr. or the bay. The improvements to the home will be sensitive and harmonious to the neighborhood, architecturally correct, aesthetically pleasing, constructed of high quality natural materials, and will add significant value to the neighborhood. The majority of the new floor area will not be visible from the street. Most of the adjacent neighbors who have been made aware of the proposed changes and have visited the house to review the-plans have .expressed no objections based on view encroachment. By contrast, a new home designed entirely within the zoning requirements without discretionary approvals would be allowed higher roof line at street and couldposition the lower levels further toward the bay, creating a potentially more, significant impact to the streetscape and the bluff. Glabman 03/17/01 GEDTECHN'TcAL' A- GEOTECHNfCAL DISTRESS ASSESSMENT 2315 PACIFIC DRIVE CORONA DEL MAR, ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA Prepared for MR. SMITH BACON August 16, 2000 by HANNAN G EOTEC H N[CAL, INC. 30555 Tmh,"C..,,,n R.2d- me :03- TIANcl V&. A tlgtixt 16. 1!R)Q o..•tat': �• . r` - .-^'!i-' MR. SMITH BACON - 2315 Pacific Drive - Corona del Mar, CA 92660 - - - SUBJECT: Geotech nical Distress .vssessm en r. 23,1 ° ?actt Iic 1)r',:-.•. C ;i•i:na ,iai `.i;tr. Oranee Count Cali ilrnia. Dear Mr. Bacon: Based upon the verbal request of your real estate agent, Patricia Davenport of Prudential California Realty,the property at 2315 Pacific Drive, was visited by the undersigned on August 14.2000 .for the purposeof conducting a geotechnical related site inspection of the single family residence and site improvements. Following our inspection,the results were reviewed with your real estate agent at the property. Prior to our inspection, it was mentioned that there was a general concern for a foundation crack observed on the southeasterly side of the house and for the hillside nature of the property in general. No other concerns were mentioned prior to our inspection of the property that were geologic in nature. The age of the original house, before the 1984 remodel, was given as about 50 years. The house is shown in black and white photographs dated 1927 to 1930. The,plans for the remodel, dated 1987 and drawn by I Herbert Brownell, AIA.were available for our review. The soil report by Westland Associates was not available for our review and may be held at the City of Newport Beach. HGl was not authorized any additional time to research records at the City. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of our visit to the property was as follows: a) Observe existing conditions on the outside of the house. b) Observe existing conditions on the inside of the house. 0 Observe for patterns of drywall,stucco,masonry.foundation.or concrete cracking that might ' _ be indicative or ongoing distress due to adverse soil or geologic conditions. ' d) Observe drainage conditions that might relate to soil or geologic performance of the property.. + 5 Bay Front Oc ,a _ '.-.=etas Tt dry 7 S T � P' '—NerRdi Bey I Aa`NrOOr Or 4 S } 315 PACIFICID aFU IV Y E flay Ave as e 3, `^ a eala°e BW 5 Nst a Eo+H/ramaeor Btpaa♦.ity C.T.GOT 1000 if Local Map of the Site Location � L 1 8� Sr If 'Newport Beech '- 73 _._.. COgpr ..2 w $&4-d DJ ' 44;'_315 PRC!F!C PP.NE t� � a . I ter+ Pacific Ocean M« 43G GLif of Sande Catalina K P DIDI)6 Oe fty Cap.GOT Regional Map of the Site Location 2313 PACIFIC DRRB u���� CORONA DEL ULAR. ORANGE COI'YTS. CA _ HGI PROJECT NO. 1032-001-1 e) Observe surface ground conditions around and adjacent to the residence. f) Review the findings with .our real estate agent. g) Prepare a report of the findings and recommendations regarding observed conditions. Prior to beginning our inspection of the property, we indicated that the property inspection would seek to determine if there was any observable distress to the property that might be related to: o Differential settlement of soils. o Expansive soils. o Slope instabilitv. slope creep, or landslidhri. - o Adverse grotnd water conditions. o Soil erosion. You were also informed that our site inspection would.only be capable of observing conditions visible at the time and that subsurface ground conditions underiving the propertv could not be determined without a full scale-eotechnical subsurface investigation that might incur costs of several thousands of dollars. In addition, a floor level survey (manometer survey) was not within the scope of our inspection services. A floor level study would usually be recommended if there is a sense that the house tloorin- was out of normal.level or tilted. A floor level survey can be accomplished. but at an extra cost if requested. For the purposes of this property evaluation, HGI was not authorized to try and retrieve any documents related to soil aspects of the property at the City. This could be accomplished, but for additional fees not included in the services for this inspection and report. 1.1 Property Description and Conditions The subject property is located on the coastal bluff side of Pacific Drive as shown on the attached Site Location Map and consists of a southwesterly down sloping property and a t6-level residence with a wood sided exterior(see picture on the cover oi'this report) and a concrete slab-on-grade in the lower master suite and raised floor above in the second and third levels. The house is basically oriented facing northeasterly toward the street with the back of the house. facing southwesterly toward Newport Harbor and the Pacific Ocean. The neighboring properties to the left(as one faces the propertv from the sheet) and right of the house are at.about the same elevation as the subject property, also with a southwesterly descending rear sloping condition_ The smalf front yard consists of a low rock faced wall across the !eft front of the property and a concrete driveway to the right side of the house leading to the two garages. Inside the front wall, .there are planter areas fronting the yard, an entry concrete walkway and a large concrete patio with -------------- �I a.0 IFR OWN brick ribbons. A concrete walkway covers the entire southeasterly(left) sidevard,with.steps leading house. There is a narrow ice plant covered northwest sideyard with a downhill to th e rear of the wood fence along this northwesterly properly boundary.. :Across the back of the house, there is a narrow dirt area between the rear ofthe house and the old concrete and concrete block retaining wall that varies between 3 to 7 feet in height. Below the retaining wall, the 70 foot high, steep coastal' 60 de ees o stee ness . varies om about 26 degrees in some a Sr f P bluff( fr gr upper areas to as steep as�0 ry in other areas. The slope.is planted with drought tolerant shrubs and some varying ground covers, or is barren, exposing the soil and some of the geologic bedrock of Monterey Formation. Surface drainage in the front yard is generally away from the house toward the street. Alone the right sideyard, surface flow is downslope and over the rear retaining wall onto the descending slope: .. TWe is no area drain system. Along the left side of the house, surface flow is down the steps and over the rear retaining wall onto the descending slope. Roof guttering has been taken back toward the front of the house into tight lined downspout connections and runoff is discharged into the gutter fronting the property. 1.0 SUMMARY FINDINGS AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS In general, the residence did not display any signs of foundation or slab distress on the interior or floors. The interior concrete slab-on-grade in the lower rear portion of the house,felt generally level and there was no walkover detection of any preferred tilt that would suggest adverse heave, slope movement,or settling. The isolated and scattered hairline wall cracks are considered normal for this type and age of construction and are most likely related to lumber shrinkage and cu.:ng after the remodel and earthquake_shaking from the recent past 1992 Landers, 1994 Northridge, and 1999 _ Hector Mine earthquakes. The one foundation crack observed along the southeasterly side of the house is discussed below. The rear descending slope does not expose any recent massive. slope failures,-but is subject to sur6cial soil failures during heavy rains, The house foundations appear to be founded in the natural bedrock and marine terrace deposits that underlie the property Additional factors of importance, and possibly needing some attention at the property, include the followings a) Easterly Foundation Crack: Although there is a foundation crack in the easterly foundation csee Phom So: 1)it appears that it related to a condition where a newer concrete pour has been placed over the constructed joint between the east-nest foundation and tire north-south foundation. The crack may be related either to the curing and shrinkage of the ncoerconcrete pour, or it could be, earthquake relatedbecause of the unusualjunetion of the se,ertl foundation elementsat this location. Based upon other exterior foundation,retaining pull.and other under house foundation conditions obseroed. there was no evidence of am•on-going foundation movement or slope related distress. There were no pull uparts or separations along the rear foundation or W,,ccn the rear right comer of the house and the retaining Null at this location. The crack mar also be related to the adjustment of the new cast west foundation wall to its soil cm ironment that lead to the crack_ The crock is dye' L _ t _ fi i JI ❑��1�D + �R�`.r haf NI111, h • v d"Y i -•� t I,� asY'� f''' li ` .�. i .r 't ay+ey 4;el PHOTO NO. 1 Enlargement from photograph in Mr. Smilh f3acon's file looking toward the site(the middle oflhe thee blttffbooles) _M ;r that was dated 1971. PHOTO NO. 2 Remodeled (muse is the one with the fag poleio the right taken byllGI on August 11, 2000 from Eayside Drive below. 2315 PACIFIC DRIVE H.`ttll mi ' CORONA DEL MAR, ORANGE COUNTY, CA GhiTl'ti<.'HNU A/. IIGI PROJ. NO. 1032-001-I 6 PHOTO NO. 3 View of sewer pipe behind lower end of house where movement of the retaining wall is pulling the sewer line apart, and may have caused this �; - repair connection to have been placed initially. Since placement of the connect,the separation of the pipe has been about 1/2-inch. ARA 4Z l AS� t- . PHOTO NO. 4 n . View toward the central corner of the old retaining wall, near where it joins • � �, .; the masonry wall. The footing has separated from beneath the wall and s� there is deterioratingconcrete well, .. . o Crete as The sewer line can be seen in they bottom of the picture where it passes through the bottom of the wall. y ,� `qt 4�ti i 2315 PACIFIC DRIVE Haiman CORONA DEL MAR. ORANGE COUNTY. CA GF.0TF.C.VN1('.4: H HGI PROJ. NO. 1032-001-1 HAxx aS OEOTECHNr : , :>. ]314 j'.tC;FIC DRP E. ,i;Rtiv .f:. widest at Its bottom where the foundation elements join with no crack continuing to the top of the foundatioh stem wall. This crack is not viewed as compromising the integrity of the foundation system for the house or as indicating any current distress. b) Sewer Pipe Distress?and Leak Potential:The sewer pipe forthe property extends out of the iower foundation at the rear of the house. exposes a ribber coupling ime.Photo Va..3). goes back underground,and is observed coning out the bottom of the lover retaining wall footing<iee Iluva ]'o:J)before going back underground and down the slope buried from vietv.-The mbber coupling suggests that the pipe may have broken in the past and been repaired with this cpupling;this n'pe'. of rubber coupling is not resistant to ultraviolet sunligiv and ivill rat and fail without noucei. Nonetheless,the coupling has slipped%cinch as illustrated in Photo No.3.indicating that movement of the retaining wail and soil behind it may bejeopardizing the stabilim of the sewer pipe. Any leak of this pipe would be detrimental to slope stability. The sewer pipe would also be subject to damage or separations during an earthquake. c) Lower Exterior Retaining Wall Distress and Undermining:Behind the house. the older poured ' in-place retaining wall is cracking at its easterly end and nearing.failure. A portion of the footing has separated from beneath the wall and them is large gap with no support for the wall(see Photo No. 4). The wall is also badly cracked at this location and displays some lateral displacement than ' indicates movement. This portion of the will is probably not seismicaly' stable and could be adversety affected by the surface rinoff water that is concentrated in the planter. Water flowing around the link edge of the wall and beneath the wall.or through the soils on the uphill side of the wall. not have lead to undermining that has affected the will. The distress is also at the location when the sewer line passes through the wall foundation and the sewer line may be under stress. Leakage of the line would further endanger slope stability. the wall, and the sewer line. Further. because of the age and vintage of construction, the old retaining wall probably does not have sufficient foundation embedment into the geologic accirock to prevent failure during a local _ earthquake d) Geologic Slope Stability: The slope below the llUese is o\'ciall about a+5 degree slope and there is loose soil and weathered geologic bedrock that is subject to surlicial slope failures(the ower course offeer of(he slope race). In addition.the surliclal stability during a strong to moderate earthquake is probably questionable,but to what extent is unknown. On dry trasis of historical performance,the - 1971 and 2000 photographs(Pholos l and:) seem in indicate no major apparent changes in the slope. And our review of1927-10?0's photos mailable from Mr. Bacon also seem to indicate that the slope has performed satisfactorily over the,cars. This slope was also shaken by the 193u Long Beach earthquake and the more recent significant 199'_ Landers, t993 Northridge.and 1999 Hector Mine earthquakes. It should be noted howcyer- e the aitochcdAennarl Beach Quadrangle S'u+sunc Ha:ardsMan p):april/991)that the California Division of%lines and Geology rates the slope it this property as having the potential for seismically induced slope failures. In their words.they state the - follow'ing on the hazards map: Earthquake-Induced landslides l;ve;' Wiere p a- it e`uuaa!re a/' lmahhda umven!errt,artaculrupngrnahio.xea!<••,r<ai.geaarimimi;n:Jsm^ :u'fucz unret'emrc(ir.rge. indi['nlra;roravia(for pernrmre+u '. + a.li wp!na r"«'I!;lWrrmilignrian us dckaercl . in 2.31? p.aC"FIC '1R . COR .`. . ".. . Our field geologic mapping of exposures at the rear house foundation.'and along the bottom of the slope at Bayside Drive.suggests that the geologic layering ahedpropertyding)beneath theis inclined about 27 degrees into the slope.a condition which is generally considered favorable to long term and - gross geologic stability in the area. The Hazard Map user needs to understand that the CDMG mapping is intended as guideline mapping and it does not provide a level of detail. or research sufficient to check all slopes or past gemechnical or geologic investigations in an arcs. The trapping' is based upon steepness of slopes and the general propensin,of the geologic formation known to underlie the area. The mapping is generalized and not intended for assessing the actual hazard on an individual piece ofpropert. Presently,the slope appears stable,but water and seismic factors that are unpredictable could adversely affect the slope in the future. The plantings on the slope provide some strengthening of the suficial stability'.but do not enhance gross.or deeper seated stability. e) Broken Lower Step at Easterly Concrete Steps:The lower step has separated from the boron of the concrete stairway along the left side of the house. Our obseryations indicate that water pouring over the lower step has eroded soil from beneath the lower separated step and soft soil placed when • the contractor did his work may have resulted in some settling of the soil beneath the loner step. f) Surface Runoff Control Along the Two Sides of the House: There are no collection devices on either side of the house to prevent rainfall runoff from flowing directly mer the rear retainine all and musing erosion.or unnecessary soaking of the sensitive suficial soils on the descending slope. This could lead to suficial slope failures in the future. Presently.surface water flowing down!be steps on the left side of the house. is undermining part of the old retaining w:dl and could lead 10 unnecessary saturation of soil behind the v%a11 g) Raised Floor Supporting Piers and.Seismic Stability:The vertical axa wooden piers beneath the raised floor area of the main house have been set on concrete lrapet.hoidal blocks.but the piers arc: nailed to a block of wood beneath the piers and nailed to the tour beams and there am no cross members to reinforce the piers against sidewise earthquake motions. The floor support piers might fail during a local earthquake and seismic retrofitting should be evaluated by a specialty contractor. 2.1 THE HOUSE FOUNDATION where it is not obscured from view by concrete walkwars. patioslabs,or landscaping, displayedno vertical cracks other than the one on the easterl'v side of the house described above thatwouldsuggest anrJoundation distress. Thehouse foundation system appears to be performing as intended and it appears that it.is probably - mostly founder! in the geologic bedrock. or Duaternan terrace deposits native in the property. 2.2 DOORS in the house are all operable and we did not obsen•e any doorframe distortions that would suggest slab orfoundation distress. Further. the dill not observe amp evidence of any major repairs that would suggest distress.. ?3 The INTERIOR FLOOR LEVELS felt,from our walkv,er, to be normal throughout There was no felt preferred tilt direction of the house shah that would saggest settlink heaving, or slope movement. SLABCRACKING indicative of possible distress was not indicated in the floorings or by. our walkover of the carpeted areas in the Inver master suite at.the rear of the house. 2.4 The GARAGE SLAB displgvs some hairline to 1132-inch cracks which may be related to concrete curing or slight expansive soil conditions. but there was no cracking indicative of concrete distress that was considered unusual 2.3 The CONCRETE DRIVEWAY, FRONT WALKWAY, FRONT PORCH, AND EASTERLY WALKWA Y appeared to be in good condition with some scattered hairline splits normal for this type of construction. There were no separations or widened cracks that would suggest any geologic or soil related distress. • The black pipe beneath one of the lower steps on the left side of the house is believed it) be the subdrain outlet fir the buried drain that is installed behind the new retaining wall typefoundation that crosses beneath the house and thatforms the north side ofthe muster suite. there was no moisture coming from the pipe and would likely not be because of its location relative to the exterior.improvements and landscape conditions. 2.6 SURFACE DRAINAGE; The potential adversity due to uncollected runoff along file two sides of the house is discussed above. Otherwise, the surf itce flow mvgv from the front of the house toward the street and diversion of the roof eave gutters toward the front' indicates good control of surface runoff. 2.7 CUT/FILL CONDITIONS:Artificial man-made fill is likeh• behind the hover retaining wall and is known to be located beneath fire muster suite concrete slab-on-grade: We did not observe any adverse conditions at the site related to fill.settlement. 2.8 This property is located about 22 miles south-southwest of the ACTIVE WHITTIER FAULT ZONE (SEE ATTACHED Fault Map of Southern California) and about.112 miles northeast of the ACTIVE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD FAULT ZONE , both of which are capable of earthquakes afMagnitudes greater than.6.0. 77ie site is also situated within about 50 miles distance to several other active faults in southern California, all of which can generate strong earthquake ground shaking at the property. The properly..in general, is located within the seismicalhv active environment of southern California and the homeowner must expect that the property will be subjected to strong to moderate earthquake ground shaking during the life of the structure. As it result, the home and property improvements will experience cracking from time to time that may need repair. According to recent work by the California Divisionof.11ines and U.S. Geological Survey, and by the analysis from Home Risk (from EQE-JCP), the 41ax: Moment Magnitude earthquake for the Whinier/Elsinore or Rose CanyomNewport-Inglewood fcuult could be 315 PAUFN DR M=7.0 and Mercalli Intensity ground shaking would be expected at a level of V)II to IY (see attached HomeRisk evaluation and afodifted Mercalli Intensity Scale). 3.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Drainage Considerations: Some means of collecting the sidevard runoff before it impacts the descending slope at the rear retaining wall is advisable to prevent slope instability in the future. A low brick or masonry wall would be built along the top of the existing retaining wall to prevent overflow onto the slope and a collection system could be installed which might require installation of a disposal pipe down the slope. Consideration of a drainage - collection remedy should include consultation with the City. 3.2 Raised Floor Supports: A contractor knowledgeable in seismic retrofitting should be consulted regarding the suitability of the 4x4 piers that support the raised floor portions of the house. Brackets may be needed and anchoring of the bottom of the piers to their foundation element may also be necessary. 3.3 Potential. Sewer Line Break and Rear Retaining Wail: Some means of re-routing the sewer line appears necessary to preclude any break because of the movements of the old retaining wall. In addition, the pipe passing through the old wall does not provide a seismically stable environment for the pipe. A knowledgeable plumbing contractor, familiar with bluff conditions and installation of pipes on steep descending slopes is necessary to achieve a proper solution. The retaining wall should be evaluated by a structural engineer and there may be a need to remove it(if it falls durhrp it heavi.rain, or a seismic even. it would present a pnhlic hazard t n e to Bayside m Drive below rd could lead to.it jury or death qi.+�omet ue o the road) or rebuild it to provide future stability. It may also be.possible to demonstrate that the house does not rely on the wall. for foundation support, and removal of the wall may be feasible without building a new wall. Evaluation of this situation would require a ream of the geotechnical consultant and a structural engineer, with a subsurface investigation to determine the foundation materials that support the rear of the house and their depth of embedment. The house is probably no supported on deep caissons. 3.4 East Side Foundation Crack: Even though the crack appear related to the junction of several ages and pours of foundation elements, it would be advisable to mark a spot across the r t a ure that location several times a year to determine the an do m es if the crack is stable. It would be particularly.important to check the crack after a wet winter or a seismic event. 3.5 Future Property Improvements: If the property owner expects to add otherimprovements .el. A>UF1( DRi E. Uhl,\: Jr_ A,R to the yard, or add any other st:actures, the owner should consider obtaining the help of a qualified geotechnical professional to make recommendations for the design of yard improvements to mitigate any possible adverse conditions due to expansive soils, settlement prone fill soils, or adverse geologic conditions. 3.6 Photographic Documentation of Interior and Exterior Cracking: The new homeowner may want to photograph specific locations inside and outside the house with a oiler in the picture and with labels(using stickier) to document the present condition for future sale of the property. Once or twice ayear,selected crack locations could be checked for any growth or changes.in the width or length of the cracks. This is important for hillside properties and aids in future sale of the property. 1.7 Earthquake Safety: The property buyer may need to become educated on the matter of earthquake safety that involves interior house improvements and placement of book shelves and high, top heavy, furniture. High centered furniture that could topple during a strong earthquake should be bolted to the walls to prevent injury. See the attached Home Sgte Home literature from the Southern California Earthquake Center. - There are other aspects of food storage, water storage, and cooking and transportation and communication needs which could be important following a major earthquake. Earthquake preparedness is the responsibility of all southern Californians and information is available from the County of Orange,the City,the California Division of Mines and Geolo«v. the California Seismic Safety Commission,and from local bookstores and authors. Numerous resources are available from the World Wide Web (imecnet): /iOm the anierican Red Cross Orfrom thehederal Ftnergency,llrnatgement Agency at --err. .... .. 4.0 PROFESSIONAL LIMITATIONS. - The inspection of this property has been conducted in a manner consistent t ith professional practices in the area and no other warranbcs are expressed or implied. The inspection has also considered information regarding the proper which was verbally communicated by the real estate agent and has relied upon observable conditions of the building, inside and out. The history of the properly. and the history of any rewire or changes made in the structure. foundations.or the slabs, is unknown to HGI and could mask certain aspects of the property that might generally lead to a final determination regarding slab tilt, wall cracking.or other indicated distress features of the property. Our inspection has also relied on the fact that floorings have not been recemly repaired or new surfaces installed.and that walls and ceilings have not been recently patched. repainted. or covered to mask cracking conditions at the property which would be material to our evaluation of the performance of the propem-. The u,net s of the propem would be responsible for disclosing unv recent work accomplished on the imcnor or emenor of the building that would change our assumptions based upon crack locations or panems. Our opinions regarding thetnature of cracking at the prooem'and its significance has been based upon the usually accepted construction standards for interior gall board cracking. floor slab cracking. exterior flanvork cracking. exterior stucco cracking. masonry cracking,and our direct experience with distressed real estate in general It was not within the scope of this inspection to review soil.geologic,or construction documents which might beheld by the Citv. That could be accomplished, but only on a time and.materials basis in accordance with our current schedule of fees. It was also not within the scope of this inspection to conduct a manometer(floor level) survey for the purpose of documenting the floor level differential inside the house. This would also be an additional senior that might be _ requested if the actual floor differential was of concern to the buyer. - - A more thorough geotechnical investigation of the property by placement of borings or trenches,soil sampling_and laboratory testing would be necessan•to comment further on any future expectations for cracking due to the examsiye. or possible artificial fill. soil conditions. and to comment on long term slope stability. Such investigations can cost several thousands to tens ofthomands ofdollars and such investigations have not been discussed or considered for this real estate escrow assessment Such investgations are usually.only.recommended if there is known foundation or interior slab distress and repairs are being contemplated. Changed conditions may also occur as the result of local earthquake ground shaking in the future and thew types of events are not predictable given the standard of technical information which is currently.available. Property changes are also possible due to irrigation. landscape.and drainage improvements or maintenance,parlicularh interior and exterior wall cracking which can result in response to soil moisture changes oy.er, the Years The inclusion of the HomeRisk evaluation by EQEJCP is not warrantied by HGI and the conclusions and recommendations provided by the attached document are considered informational only for the benefit of the owner and buyer. HomeRisk can provide further risk analyses and building analyses if desired As soil or geologic related distress to a property is most likely to occur within the time from construction to about W years following construction. the buyer must understand that this house, at about 15—y.can of age ,<sirrer the 1984 remodel;should meal the general conditions of the house that would be expected to persist lezcepring.slope affects or affects from the wenkened retaining wall Woo the rear of the house). -Some small increments of soil moepment are always possible.but that is not predictable given the level of this inspection. Inherent geologic weaknesses may not meal themselves within any given or estimated period of time and can only be prediacd with completion of geotechnical and geologic studies of the property that are beyond the scope of this real estate distress assessment. This report is being provided for the exclusive use of kvlr. Smith Bacon and his real estate broker and is not intended for use in any other future real estate transactions other than the current sale that is being considered. Should the property remain unsold for a period of 90 days from the time this inspection yr as conducted another review, may be necessary for any transactions that occur beyond this period. Property conditions could change or repairs could be made which would not be addressed in this report _ At such time as this property should aavally be sold to a subsequent owner.it will be the responsibilin,of those parties to again retain geotechnical experts for the purpose of inspecting conditions pm%alenl at the time of that transaction. Our inspection of the propert also assumes no responsibility for detailing the nature of any other soil or geologic movements that have been reported at other locations in the neighborhood. Properties are orien involved in litigation without neighbor awareness, and such construction defect legal actions am.not alwa}s !egnimate and nmy taint the reputation of as cntim neighborhood unman tiably. HGI has no means for aclnovdcdging sites where possible HaV�a} CEorv('H?I('.;L Ihi'. 'FO.IEf.".u. oti'-•uil-� 1 A(]FIC DRI\'E, CORONA OF! %IAii . . ..6'm ?-i: i' soillgeologic distress may bere ident or where litigation may hate occurred. It is the responsibility of the prospective bmvr and his real estate broker to be aware of the market conditions in the neighborhood This property has been etalumedon the basis of its own manifestations of cracking,irrespective of conditions at other properties in the general area which we cannot inspect within the scope of services for this review. We are not privileged to know a buyers background financial situation,or motives for purchasing or not deciding to purchase, and such a blanket recornmendation is not professionally within our scope of work. Our professional opinions regarding the conditions that can be related to soil or geologic performance of the proper are the focus of ourdiscussion,conclusions,and recommendations in this report. It is the responsibilityof the report recipient to satisfi' himseWherself that he/she understands the information being supplied for this real estate transaction. Hannan Geotechnical, Inc. cannot be responsible for a lack of communication from the user of this report relative to his understandings.or misunderstandings. Lacking any written communications within 30 days of the issuance of this report from the current owner, or the prospective purchaser of this property regarding this report..Hannan Geotechnical. Inc. will consider same as constituting acceptance of the conclusions and recommendations presented herein. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Should you have any additional questions,or require any clarifications of the items discussed in this report, please do not hesitate to contact the, undersigned Yours truly, �H NNAN CEO TECH Ni( AL.. INC V D V!iS L v` Y:AN tV Dennis L.Hannan, CEO 953 President, Certified Engineering Geologist DLH/dlh Jwrr _ T Of Anachmen[s: Site Location Map Photographs 1. 2. 3 &i - Newport Beach Quad Seismic Hazards Map Fault Map of Southern California Earthquake History Map. 1932-1997 HomeRisk Neighborhood Analysis Home Safe.Home S .' 1. S , • � A ------------------- _ f c y i 5 s isje NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE SEISMIC HAZARDS MAP April 15, 1998 California Dept.- of Conservation Mines and Geology Potential seismically induced landslide areas. GREEN = Potential liquefaction prone areas during an earthquake i 2315 PACIFIC DRIVE CORONA DEL MAR, ORANGE COtiNTl . CA HG1 PROJECT NO. 1032-001-1 GEG1i ,Y\7CiL 4�W MUME61MI) 1932-1997 .5 and greater ILAAND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKES Relative to the Propert: 11 4.5 and greater. from January 19:32 through April 1997(From conthern Californ is Far1hgnake Cdn H•r. 1997'J The above map of southern California illustrates a plot of all the epicenters of earthquakes greater than or equal to long diude 4.5 that have been instrumentally recorded since 1932. 'then the first catalm s of such records hegtm. (Some symbols of smaller quakes and aftershocks are hidden due to nceriap.) A small number of cities and towns are labeled for refcrettce. Shown. too. are major highways (in tan) and the surface traces of major faults On •tireenish-blue). As uith the map of historic southern California earthquakes. lite m:+_nitudes ;riven by the scale are generally moment nlamininnfes for earthquakes abode mtigivitude 6. and local magnitudes for most earthquakes held,%' nu+eninlde H. 2315 PACIFIC DRIVE CORONA DEL ILVI ORANGE COI1T1'. C 1 •id]3I= RGI PROJECT NO. 10:32-001-1 %t -f, Home tijl 1���.� Yeilrhnc�r!tocd ft�so� - I7m.Cr jhvu-wx.d This page summarizes the .Tolearnabonrtheoilierhdzards- earthquake shaking hazards srtch as Patio i-r,tu e,liynetaotioq n r i'ntht landslides.tmiends,and Lasawdoas believed to be most significant for your neighborhood. Other .1 ...is--or he.racer house rarer 'nry'Tig ram tordnniagrporeutialar the kinds of hazards that may - arrlryrmkr inrensin p hncin�1.-.ai effect your home in an criyhhodraad--vrou uprarcd i+i warn Acadd obtain un earthquake are not addressed apprapriare JCP disclosure repnnJor ]i,su \krgirbor s fhnar at this web site. ynvrsperifir rsd�ess. The tnremairs kale The Nciuitborhood Pacific Dr in Ninpont Beach, California Like neighborhoods throughout California and in three dozen other stares,your nelghbnhood on Pacific.Dr has within the reach ofactive,faults and damaging earthquakes: Th,'u,,ghborhood"referred So hen:s root,purr gl'ro+vn,urgrnend4•ed h, yronreip code urca.r YOUI FeLth The Nesoportinglm+road-Rose Canvonfault The Newport Inglewood-Rose Canyen fault IS the most hkely recomuzed soruce of earthquakes that would must shongk shake this neighborhood.This fault mane dominates the earthquake shaking hazard here.hot it mat not be the closes,fault to the property.for mom detoilcd fault inGwautiun.get an on-line earthquake risk assessment and prelintinmy risk rating-for tour specific address with EQL s 'Seismic Snapshotrv. Magnitude i.0 Earthquake"magnitude"is a must ire tit hov, much energt is relen turd at the source of the earthquake-at the fault.for the acieun'of this neighlorhoud.the Newport hsgtewuud-Rose Convert fault is hello.ed capahlc of pniducmg earthquakes as large as;matinimde-0 drum,the design hie of modem buddfnus.(Engineers call thiswarm'design-basis earthquake-,he ,mated negmmde of the largest event espeeted during a J'S-vea period on the fault that dohumslcs vow shaking hazard based on earthquake stutistiw for mur crea.l the Shekin_ L.eve; Intensity Vlll toLY Earthquake"intensity'-is a measure of how strongly the ground is shaken b.-im cathquake 3cuuuse some apes o[�m.me shake more Ih:m others.imm�sin caw van'from place to place in an canhquake.even within the same neighborhood In your neighborhood.the manauns carhyuoke imrtunirs:are ecpecled intense from Vm to a on the it. ,The level of damaxe that can .or at these intensities depends ho,c!r oh the desim and yuailt of the residemiat constmcuuu in a neum urhood.tfor some neirblwrhouds.the esthnmed intensity range cited here could i<incorrct by met unit higher or Lou ee l Homes in the Block eL'i Ir,,or The houses in the smetsmicMow represent some tittle most common rapes found I.Caliumia noighlomoislr.Click ran u Lou.e belu.. .-Ie:un show the ' eunhyu:dc risk fxmrs that can result u:danJL .0!hui a of home. Modem Me+lita- Tract ar.bn Yrtmosm. wiiiiiiffiill M_ ` _- Post War B,SIgBIOW Tract [Modern Tma I Post '%Ur i-t I Continue 1% itil Repol-, , The Modified Mercalli Intensity(NM)Scale ranks the strength of earthquake shaking by its effects on people and buildings.Unlike earthquake"magnitude",which is a measure of total energy released at the source of the earthquake. the intensive is a measure of shaking strength at different locations in the region where a quake is felt.Developed in Italy nearly a century ago. this 12-hovel "shaking scale" has since been modified and amended for use in modern US communities.One change is that the highest inensity levels(.1'. 11 and.V/)--originally defined by spectacular damage to building foundations. underground pipelines. etc..--are now recognized as the effects of shifting ground caused by surface faulting,slope failure or soil liquefaction. rather than by increasing levels of shaking. Today.the nine levels of shaking intensity•commonly used include the effects described below.Of course,you should note that the damage and sensations listed for each intensity le%cl generally include the entire range of effects described for the lower intensity levels--hot in nuez ofied proportions nmt severip:'. The damage descriptions below me adapted from Dh e,.,'W..Dmgler.'...Rogan A.G.:;mJ Moiev.K. 1995.Spatial vzamtiuns of intensity is the Nortuidge earthquake,in The Northridge.Califomsa Earthquake of 11 lapu:vf 1994.Calif 1Tv.Mines&C:olo_gV Special Publication It 6.Is 3946. NAII As originally defined,this intensity level described earthquake effects that involve - permanent changes in the shape of the ground (,fault rapture,landsliding.liquefaction. etc.). Nowadays,however,Intensities X,XI and XII an incressim iv rcearded as approximately the same level of shaking as Intensity UL Them:my phenomena originally associated with these highest intensities(X and above) are relived less to the level of ground shaking than to The presence of around conditions susceptible to spectacular failure,or to the ease with which seismic faulting of different sivle and depth can propagate to the - - ground surface. The worst effects at these intensity levels include the entire spectrum of effects described for Intensities LY,Vlll.VII.etc. Worst effects include multiple cases of structural damage to reinforced-concrete buildings and parking structures built when a seismic code was in effect,with some cases of partial or complete collapse;collapse of elevated freeway sections:widespread damage to unreinforced masonry buildings(e.g.,old brick buildings),with total collapse;widespread incidence of wood-frame houses shifted off foundations where not securely anchored and braced;widespread destruction of wood-frame apartment buildings hating large open areas in their first stories; widespread collapse of masonm(brick. block or stone)chimneys,whether reinforced or not,on itngicfamily homes; furniture and building contents generally overturned and thrown across room. Intensin � 1111' Worst effects include considerable damage to old,unreinforeed masonry buildings,with partial collapse; many cases where - - wood-frame houses are moved on their foundation if not anchored and braced; damage to wood-frame apartment buildings having open first-stories,with some cases of apartments being destroyed; significant damage to reinforced, lined,masonry chimneys on single-family homes,and widespread damage to old masonry chimneys; .structural damage.to some reinforced-concrete structures built when a seismic code was in effect: .er_, heay_v furniture moved conspicuously or overturned. Worst effects include significant damage to unreinforeed masonry buildings. including cracks in bearing wails and 'out-of-plane' movement or fall of upper walls and parapets; mane old masons'chimneys fallen or broken at the rooflinc on single-family homes: mime masons fences fallen or desirm'ed: heavy furniture overturned. Worst effects include some windmos broken out a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged old masony chimneys on single-famik houses; large cracks in interior walls; man, small objects overturned and fallen; man items thrown from store shelves: many glassware items or dishes broken; light furniture overturned and moderately heavy furniture displaced. Worst damage includes a few small objects merturned and fallen: a 1'm, items thrown from store sheves: hairline cracks in interior walls; a fen' window cracked: ham-in, pictures tilted out of place,or lailen: trees and bushes shaken moderately to strongly:obwn ers report difficulty standing or walking; felt OTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 16 Variance No.VQ2001-002,Modification No.MD2001-060 (PA2001-063) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Mr. & Mrs. Jim Glabman, property owners, for Variance No. 2001- 002 and Modification No.2001-060 on property located at 2315 Pacific Drive.The property is located in the R-1 District. Request to approve a variance to permit an addition to an existing single family residence of which a portion of the new construction exceeds the 24-foot height limit ranging from approximately 2 feet m 11.4 feet. The proposal includes a modification request to the Zoning Code to permit encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks: 5 feet into the required 17.5-foot front setback on Pacific Avenue 4 feet into the required 4-foot side setback along the northerly property line. (The garage presently is existing non-conforming in that it currently encroaches into the front and side setbacks). This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 21st day of June. 2001, at the hour of 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. For information call(949)644-3200. Steven Kiser,Secretary,Planning Commission,City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. SUSANW. CASE, INC. 0 OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 917 Glenneyre Street,Suite 7 •Laguna Reach, CA 92651 PHONE(949)494-6105 • FAX(949)494-7418 GLARNAN FILE#0101112 2315 PACIFIC DR /QO, 300- LISTING �( � 05201105 JANUARY 18 2001 052-011-01 052 011 08 052 011 09 MARGARET SIMPSON BARBARA LUBASH PHYLLIS RODEFFER 2204 WATERFRONT DR 2231 PACIFIC DR 11770 WARNER AVE #129 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 - FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 9270 052 011 10 052-011-12 052 011 14 E O & E O RODEFFER AL T ROSS GRANT BETTINGEN 11770 WARNER AVE #129 9903 SANTA MONICA BLVD 2215 PACIFIC DR FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052 011 19 052-011-20 052 011 21 SIMPSON MARGARET H & BIS JOHN C & MARY KOHLER RANDALL & CHERYL LUSH 2340 BAYSIDE DR 1221 KEEL DR 22526 FACINAS CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 052 012 02 052-012-03 052 012 04 2223B PATRICIA JEAN MANZO GARY E & MARGARET SMITH JOHN CRAIG COMBS 2223 BAYSIDE DR 6408 E TANQUE VERDE RD 2231 BAYSIDE DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 TUCSON AZ 85715 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052-012-11 052 012 12 CYRUS TABAZ CAR 013 17 54 GULMASF JSTREAMENKINS CAROLYN MARTIN 13255 MULHOLLAND DR 54 GULF STREAM CT 615 S PASADENA AVE BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 LAS VEGAS NV 89113 PASADENA CA 91105 052 013 23 052 013 26 052 013 36 RICHARD FRANK R JOSEPH COLLINS GART & RONDA SUTTON 234 E COLORADO BLVD #500 301 CARNATION AVE 111 BAYSIDE PL PASADENA CA 91101 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459 101 06 459 101 07 459 101 08 ROGER & LORI PECHULS STANLEY & NANCY NING WALLOCK 2216 PACIFIC DR 2220 PACIFIC DR 2224 PACIFIC DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459 101 09 459 101 12 459 102 03 ERVIN ROBERT KENDZIORSKI SUSAN BAKER CUM INVESTCO PO BOX 4720 2200 PACIFIC DR 15252 TRANSISTOR LN IRVINE CA 92616 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA //92649 PA2ca(' bba -f" (/<1 • 459-102-04 459 102 05 459 102 06 MICHELLE L MANLEY GLENN & CAROLYN ALMQUIST JAMES SHEPHERDSON JR. 13 AMISTAD 408 ACACIA AVE 1401 CARMELITA PL IRVINE CA 92620 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 ARCADIA CA 91006 459 102 13 459 102 14 459 102 15 JAMES & CARMIT NEFF JANET BELL ELIZABETH BALDE RSTON 3 LONGVIEW RD 411 BEGONIA AVE 415 BEGONIA AVE WESTPORT CT 06 880 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459-102-16 459 103 01 459 114 24 PATRICIA E FROEHLICH CITY OF NEWP BEACH EDWARD & HELEN FOSTER 417 BEGONIA AVE PO BOX 2501 1ST AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 NEWP BEACH CA 92658 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459 114 25 459 117 01 932 660 01 CITY OF NEWP BEACH CITY OF NEWPO CH RICHARD BLATTERMAN PO BOX 3. PO BOX 17 115 BAYSIDE PL NEWEORT BEACH CA 92658 NEWP BEACH CA 92658 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 932 660 02 932 660 16 932 660 17 TERRY LEE BELLARDI GREG MALONEY THOMAS & LINDA COLTON 117 N BAYSIDE DR 303 CARNATION AVE #1 2193 VISTA ENTRADA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 932-66-018 932 660 19 932 660 24 WASEEM M & AMAL IBRAHIM ELAINE TABER BE HANAHAN LAFORCE 6909 ROYAL HUNT RIDGE D 1429 DOLPHIN TER 311 CARNATION AVE RIVERSIDE CA 92506 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 932-66-025 932 660 26 932 660 27 THOMAS L & JAN PHILLIPS RICHARD PIANTADOSI BALDEV & JASHANJIT RAI 8709 CRIDER BROOK WAY 315 CARNATION AVE #3 6917 ROYAL HUNT RIDGE D POTOMAC MD 20854 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 RIVERSIDE CA 92506 MR&.MRS DM GLABMAN TOM BURGER,III,ARCHITECT 1363 GALAXY DRIVE 20331 IRVINE AVE-#7 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS CA 92707 CORONA DEL MAR COMM ASSOC CORONA DEL MAR CHAMBER OF ATTN DICK NICHOLS COMMERCE CDM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION 519 IRIS AVENUE ATTN LUVENA HAYTON P O BOX 1500-STE 179 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 2843 EAST COAST HWY CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 `1 Fh awl A: " �+ vF �; >07 G 'x ' to ern SUSANW. CASE, INC. OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 917 Glenneyre Street,Suite 7•Laguna Beach, CA 92651 PHONE(949)494-6105 •FAX(949)494-7418 GLABMAN FILE#010112 2315 PACIFIC DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 100' LISTING 05201105 JANUARY 8 2001 052 011 03 052 011 04 052-011-05 CHARLES DAWKINS STEPHEN & NANCY MCNASH GLABMAN 2329 PACIFIC DR 2292 CANYON DR 3089 BRISTOL ST CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 COSTA MESA CA 92627 COSTA MESA CA 92626 052-011-07 052 011 22 052 011 23 STREET VICTORIA C TR DOROTHY WESTOVER HARRY & LEANN WESTOVER 25 PINEHURST IN 4041 MACARTHUR BLVD 2301 PACIFIC DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052-012-05 052012 06 052 012 07 BRIAN W RAY LAURIE ANN BURG MINERBI JAMES & DIANE FLAHERTY 2815 VILLA WAY 2301 BAYSIDE DR 2307 BAYSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052 012 08 052 012 09 - 052 012 10 GROUT ELIZABETH Q;SEC PA RAY & LINDA JOHNSON SENK PO BOX 54029 2319 BAYSIDE DR 2323 BAYSIDE DR LOS ANGELES CA 90054 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459 102 07 459 102 08 459 102 09 MICHAEL MANN WILLIAM YINGLING ELIZABETH DELAMATER 2304 PACIFIC DR 2308 PACIFIC DR 2312 PACIFIC DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459 102 10 459 102 11 459 102 12 DONALD CORBETT JOHN DAVISON MELODY ORR 2316 PACIFIC DR 2322 PACIFIC DR 2324 PACIFIC DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 TOM BURGER JIM GLABMAN BURGER AND ASSOC 1363 GALAXY DR 20331 IRVINE AVE 17 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SANTA ANA CA 92707 CORONA DEL MAR COMM ASSOC CORONA DEL MAR CHAMBER OF ATTNDICKNICHOLS COMMERCE CUM RESIDENTSASSOCIATION 519 EUS AVENUE AT TN LUVENA HAYTON P O BOX 1500-STE 179 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 2843 EAST COAST HWY CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 SUSANW. CASE, INC. Vqr dV r - OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 917 Glenneyre Street,Suite 7•Laguna Beach,CA 98861 y� PHONE(949)494-6105 •FAX(949)494-7418 V ILSI0 R P101112 2315 PACIFIC DR 10- 300' LISTING 86 , 05201105 JANUARY 18 2001 052-011-01 052 011 08 052 011 09 MARGARET SIMPSON BARBARA LUBASH PHYLLIS RODEFFER 2204 WATERFRONT DR 2231 PACIFIC DR 11770 WARNER AVE #129 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA .DEL MAR CA 92625 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 9270 052 011 10 052-011-12 052 011 14 E O & E O RODEFFER AL T ROSS GRANT BETTINGEN 11770 WARNER AVE #129 9903 SANTA MONICA BLVD 2215 PACIFIC DR FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052 011 19 052-011-20 052 011 21 SIMPSON MARGARET H & BIS JOHN C & MARY KOHLER RAND ALL BAYSIDE DR ALL & CHERYL LUSH CINAS CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MARCA 92625 MISSION 22526 AVIEJO CA 92691 052 012 02 052-012-03PATR 052 012 04 2223 BIA JEAN MANZO GARY E & MARGARET SMITH JOHN CRAIG COMBS 2223 AYSIDE DR 6408 E TANQUE VERDE RD 2231 BAYSIDE DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 TUCSON AZ 85715 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052-012-11 052 012 12 052 013 17 CYRUS TABAZ THOMAS JENKINS - CAROLYN MARTIN 13255 MULHOLLAND DR 54 GULF STREAM CT 615 S PASADENA AVE BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 L S VEGAS NV 89113 PASADENA CA 91105 052 013 23 052 013 26 052 013 36 RICHARD FRANK R JOSEPH COLLINS GART & RONDA BUTTON 234 E COLORADO BLVD #500 301 CARNATION AVE GART111 &YRONDASIDE S PASADENA CA 91101 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459 101 06 459 101 07 459 101 08 ROGER & LORI PECHULS STANLEY & NANCY NING WALLOCK 2216 PACIFIC DR 2220 PACIFIC DR 2224 PACIFIC DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459 101 09 459 101 12 459 10203 ERVIN ROBERT FJMZIORSKI SUSAN BAKER CDM INVESTCO PO BOX 4720 2200 PACIFIC DR 15252 TRANSISTOR IN IRVINE CA 92616 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA p�3 Q ` 92649 YA aAcM1 v VI,ywa) 459-102-04 459 102 05 459 102 06- MICHELLE L MANLEY GLENN & CAROLYN ALMQUIST JAMES SHEPHERDSQN JR. 13AMISTAD - 408 ACACIA AVE 1401 CARMELITA PL IRVINE CA 92620 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625. ARCADIA CA 91006 459 102 13 459 102 14 459 102 15 JAMES & CARMIT NEFF JANET BELL ELIZABETH BALDERSTON 3 LONGVIEW RD 411 BEGONIA AVE 415 BEGONIA AVE WESTPORT CT 06880 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459-102-16 459 103 01 459 114 24 PATRICIA E FROfiHLICH CITY OF NEWP BEACH EDWARD & HELHN FOSTER 417 BEGONIA AVE PO BOX 2501 1ST AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 NEWP BEACH CA 92658 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459 114 25 459 117 01 932 660 01 CITY OF NEWP BEACH CITY OF NEWPO CH RICHARD BLATTERMAN PO BOX PO BOX 17 115 BAYSIDS PL NSWp. BE CA 92658 NEWP BHACH CA 92658 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 932 660 02 932 660 16 932 660 17 TERRY LEE BELLARDI GREG MALONEY THOMAS & LINDA COLTON 117 N BAYSIDH DR 303 CARNATION AVE #1 2193 VISTA ENTRADA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660. . CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 932-66-018 932 660 19 932 66024 WASEEM M & AMAL IBRAHIM .BLAINE TABER BE HANAHAN LAFORCE 6909 ROYAL HUNT RIDGE D 1429 DOLPHIN TER 311 CARNATION AVE RIVERSIDE CA 92506 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 . CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 932-66-025 932 660 26 932 660 27 THOMAS L & JAN PHILLIPS RICHARD PIANTADOSI BALDEV & JASHANJIT RAI 315 CAR 8709 CRIDER BROOK WAY NATION AVE #3 6917 ROYAL HUNT RIDGE D POTOMAC MD 20854 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 RIVERSIDE CA 92506 MR&MRS IIM GLABMAN TOM BURGER,III,ARCHITECT 1363 GALAXY DRIVE 20331 IRVINE AVE-#7 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS CA 92707 CORONA DEL MAR COMM ASSOC CORONA DEL MAR CHAMBER OF ATTN DICK MCHOLS COMMERCE CDM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION ATTNISCK NICHNUE ATTN. LUVENAHAYTON PO BOX 1500-STE 179 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 2843 EAST COAST HWY CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 SUSAN W. CASE, INC. OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 917 Gdenneym Street,Suite 7• Laguna Heady CA 92651 PHONE(949)494.6105 •FAX(949)494.7418 GLABMAN FILE#010112 2315 PACIFIC DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 100' LISTING 05201105 JANUARY 8 2001 052 011 03 052 011 04 052-011-05 CHARLES DAWKINS STEPHEN & NANCY MCNASH GLABMAN 2329 PACIFIC DR 2292 CANYON DR 3089 BRISTOL ST CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 COSTA MESA CA 92627 COSTA MESA CA 92626 052-011-07 052 011 22 052 011 23 STREET VICTORIA C TR DOROTHY WESTOVER HARRY & LEANN WESTOVER 25 PINEHURST IN 4041 MACARTHUR BLVD 2301 PACIFIC DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052-012-05 052 012 06 052 012 07 BRIAN W RAY LAURIE ANN BURG MINERBI JAMES & DIANE FLAHERTY 2815 VILLA WAY 2301 BAYSIDE DR 2307 BAYSIDE. DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663- CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052 012 08 052 012 09 - 052 012 10 GROUT ELIZABETH Q;SEC PA RAY & LINDA JOHNSON SENK PO BOX 54029 2319 13AYSIDE DR 2323 BAYSIDE DR LOS ANGELES .CA 90054 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459 102 07 459 102 08 459 102 09 . MICHAEL MANN WILLIAM YINGLING ELIZABETH DELAMATER 2304 PACIFIC DR 2308 PACIFIC DR 2312 PACIFIC DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 459 102 10 459 102 11 459102 12 DONALD CORBETT JOHN DAVISON MELODY ORR 2316 PACIFIC DR 2322 PACIFIC DR 2324 PACIFIC DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 TOM BURGER JIM GLABMAN BURGER AND ASSOC 1363 GALAXY DR 20331 IRVINE AVE #7 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660. SANTA ANA CA 92707 CORONA DEL MAR COMM ASSOC CORONA DEL MAR CHAMBER OF ATTN DICK NICHOLS COMMERCE .CUM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION 519 MIS AVENUE ATIN LUVENA HAYTON P 0 BOX 1500-STE 179 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 2843 EAST COAST HWY CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 •SUSAN W. CASE, INC. is OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 917 Gtenneyre Street, Suite 7, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 PHONE(949)494-6105 •FAX(949)494-7418 CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS LIST THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN 300 .F7 EXTERIOR OF THE rX_T'ERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT jo 1'�/j�IL�'(.� 10-r 1AG�MRM COS THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED THROUGH TRANSAMERICA INTELLITECH, A - DATA SOURCE UTILIZING THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER DATA SOURCES. THIS INFORMATION IS GENERALLY DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED. SUSAN W. CASE, INC. I *SUSAN W. CASE, INC. • OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE r , 917 Glenneyre Street,Suite 7,Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • PHONE(949)494-6105 •FAX(949)494-7418 CE RTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS LIST THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN / 0 V FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIE'Sw OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT III THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED THROUGH TRANSAMERICA INTELLITECH, A DATA SOURCE UTILIZING THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER DATA SOURCES. THIS INFORMATION IS GENERALLY DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED. " 4(/ m SUSAN W. CASE, INC. 9 3pW a Q e 101 u 1 •-eta 4<CY O li g i I y Q Q Q 9 s i h i j I 2 IOp�4 O &K 3:0 I I 1 [EY � OEL Mqq = 6AYS/OE T `$P m i• a .� O s ® \ � •, J Q ,v s � ♦ ' s j pms.' O • I U ♦ M♦n. F s . M+ ,l'O) J !' Ownership Map 9 5 re BGK � a a e O 2 V n 14 b i j 1 Irn ±«Fr BLK 330 z ° W f03 \' s O D O p O ' O O {BLK. . oGt ,yAA 4Q a rsme DRf: r 30 2. b / 't O � �� b ) O •i �� 1 � d O N y 4tr,1 ro 0�3 la r Y O Q 10 t. !i•S•a w + � � ® B I4i e• a`+D� f ry 4t ! M1 a tn' v O tr t» n (Ownerchin Man A P-c A � aecarLUNN ^P• uNN � '�' - d' �, sba o-PJaq° R: as a 1 A1x �° 1 E O C T1`� pJ R qq q s • K q' C Rr` CG9j d.. 'fC '� 1 <Dettil"A' A P40 \� r.b e ti ...o,'fe�q.2 •iP, q o e R= A G,e �•,�� �\ yf pf° $ vF qr Qp4 qR P Lrc R2 v° Z- eJ1jJ ` f Y Rp vi p 0 9.2 a aP�R q.? ; GtFj R R.2 i ,k2 Rj t ppA ;s; o — ,MF.F'. a AMM 566 MeP h DISTRICTING MAP LNorsv aLxK .N..xs F.>a„• NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA I' .1maMmerR iB88 EeG%%M1wc Wd%tlseta lrwn rNNy w4NieMd _ _ _ ��{ p•Lmafby 4u[fNN eiY lPfciflc 0.. H9 L,.T. lk+OmwI Y] FAMILY ai xlL YENi CO NNERCULLY • LL E Em L C—E OExEPeI CONYERLIaL SLxLf pF FEEi FIL NVIPhE FwM1Y P®R.m°t PoGiyR�N4 ORJ.NO. °SS I fgYSININO pSFR1Gi uaCLn9561f0 F Npp NO A LFrpn! Y'8/E Df W'n In FxY 5F n inu -1 LI XC P y1v O TNOMAs T. Omit, III 20991 Irzvws Ave. SUNS J PLANET DESIGNIa. SANTA A"A HEIGHTS mhUectm plaaaiag imedarr Cneiroarvin 92JOJ aaalae. s - FAA: 714-950-0772 ASCHITECTURE tttw re0aoi,co William R Edwards pdmipal arrAifeel Comm del Mar,CA Ali.MI CA USA Lei: 949.439I Fat 949.723.0735 WRp:' *b-W-w'h aaI �i' .aiie�gai�Yaravo D OF BURGER ' , RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY 09 NEW0"rr 1,EACH 01> XT H 2001 AM PM 1019 0%q :& 0tv IV �)Iq. OF IV A • '7& offARCHITECTURE 20331 IRVINE AVE. TOR ON (date): SUITE 7 0 PLANITING DIREC As Saint, As Modified,tefer"': itted -B ON kdate): SANTA ANA HEIGHTS MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE C3 MODIF CALIFORNIA 92707 EI As Modified,Mittr to: -s/o/ P. As Submitted (date): PH: 714-850-0700 PLANNING COMMIS$ION ON 0 NV / *As Submitted FAX: 714-850-0772 c)"k 0 CITY COUNCIL ON (date): www.burgerandossoc.com U d 13 As Modified,Q A, Stibmitte nAW's 15 Al �f`C11 ' 0 8 LLJ -------- 7. 18 02 BUILDABLE STRUCTURE R _ I - -0 Area� 3635 aq It 702�37' ID: LINE OF ADJACENT )ABLE AR EAS A RIDGE ELEV. 'IF, 0 - M 6' Q 411< .41 L__�tDABLE AREA -44 - 3635 sq It "Waft 0 S"TIELROOF-PAJAN KEY NOTES. (D7 I CLASS 'A CEDARLITE ROOF BY MOMIERLIFETILE. 5.6 PSF. 0 C�_ �kq�§p E $ R� ------ IC8092656. HAND MADE CLAY TILE HIPS IN FULL MORTAR. UL. 0 4 -01, 30 2 NEW OPERABLE SKYLIGHT BRISTOLITE' MODEL 2222GALV-SD. IM ICS0#2469 3 NEW SKY LIGHT BRISTOLITE' MODEL 2246GALV ICBO#2469 z D" 6 (D I cz-y- 4, NEW OPERABLE SKY LIGHT "BRISTOLITE" MODEL 2246GALV-SD _T Z 8 ICBO#2469. PROPOSED 5. LINE OF NEW COPPER GUTTER. c? BAY WINDOW 0 6 4x12" COPPER ROOF DRAIN SOLDERED INTO COPPER CRICKET Z 7 PROVIDE NEW SEWER LINE AND CONNECTION 0 v) 8, COPPER CRICKET. V CROSS-HATCH AREAi . - i " "�ft CC f INDICATES PROPOSEQ 9 EXISTING MASONRY CHIMNEY TO BE REBUILT SETBACK MODIFICATION 0 IG LINE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT cn 18 r I<Xz ---------- 11 SETBACK LINE 5 ca N 4EM ---------- 12 EXISTING ROCK WALL TO BE REMOVED. LINE OF ADJACENT STRUCTURE 13. HATCHED AREA INDICATES EXISTING SETBACK ENCROACHMENT TO BE VACATED. o"TO VENEER F 14 CROSS-HATCHED AREA INDICATES APPROVED SETBACK AV �Aj�, MODIFICATION 2001-060 HAT ED AREA IND TES 0,.V RMING 16 EXISTING RETAINING WALL. '6, xja) Iv < SET CK. 16 NEW BAY WINDOW W/COPPER ROOF z DASHED CIRCLES 0 41 - > I�DICATE,PqOPOSED L----- -------- ------ 17 EXISTING CONCRETE STEPS L TeACK•MVDIF ICA I ION rrI 18 DOWN SPOUT LOCATION(COLUMNS t'PART OF RO F lIt/ /I r I I I 19 LINE OF ADJACENT STRUCTURE. CAD S-HATCH ARE 20 EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK ?,F D ARCy I qUI TES PROPOSED ET CK MODIFICATION • 21 NEW CONCRETE DRIVEWAY IS 22 EXISTING WATER VALVE HATCHED AREA Ittl ;S SETBACK ENCROAGII 4T, 23 EXISTING GAS METER. PRTy VACATION OF E*13 U' tET Ai n13 ' No. 1$902 24 AC CONDENSER LOCATION. UNDER LOWER DECK JPp Expires—"0 is T-,-r @ )r C III 12 'N_ t I fito,,w At A. eW ,1.It.cannon lar TIttiiitt ,on. .. w I.w 'W,Itw� that"d c, tk,t� tc,r 0 t1,H W, vIkh.t rt P7 t.t JOB NO. 20034 SHEET-,INDEX DATE: 0 A2 FRONT ELEVATION Al SITE / ROOF PLAN SCALE: -0. A3 RIGHT ELEVATION C, C, A4 LEFT ELEVATION DRAWN BY. TTB 1/1 SHEET *Nyr \RI '°" �� � � p � � �Ajrn \^\ A b ed S101 to� LUS ON (d s Submitted IPL NNIN N 0 COM IS$10 A S. e ❑ a r b`mt d ❑ W (date):" OC COUNCIL ON (d, )� A%MrItbf 14,m t3 As Submitted C3 ...... K 2, 0 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE ROOF PLAN PROPOSED SITE ROOF PLAN `.�� SITE/ROOF PLAN, Maw z I , C 29 FT_ABOVE GRADE — — " — — — — —n— - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — W !i RIDGE ELEV. 103 20' 1-2. '. RIDGE ELEV. 102 37' — 37'aT-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - _J - 24 FT. ABOVE GRADE q� - - _ Ti - - 12 11221_ - - �Z- y _ PL IINF_ -AIR OA _ / ARCHITECTURE 20331 VINE AVE. SUITE 7 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS CALIFORNIA 92707 --. n PH: 714-850-0700 j a 2 FAX: 714-850-0772 12 -_ - . 4 _ _ _---- �_e�— - ___ _ _ ___.__ �B , ._ www.burgerondassoc.cam ba p I 1 o- I' I I s x ^ I PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION Ncc cc Q QO � LL! f �i cc Q Q z 37 ELEVATION KEY-NOTES, 1 CLASS A' CEDARLITE" ROOF BY M.ONIERLIFETILE. 5.6 PSF. �+ �IeTt; r L-- O ICBO#2656. HANDMADE CLAY TILE HIPS IN FULL MORTAR. SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR 3. SMOOTH STUCCO. 4. 4"STONE VENEERCN u ' 5. STONE VENEER CHIMNEY WITH DECORATIVE COPPER SCREEN - ---- — ---- - � __ OVER MANUFACTURES TERMINATION CAP W/SPARK ARRESTOR COPPER GUTTER. 7. COPPER DOWNSPOUTS _ 1 , 8. EXISTING CONCRETE STEPS. 9� COPPER ROOF. j- f - 10. COPPER CRICKET I�`�- 1 MANUFACTURED 1. WOOD SHUTTER 2 STONE VENEER 1 . -L - 1 , t - -� _ 13. SKYLIGHT BRISTOLITE MODEL 2222 GALV. ICBO#2469-17 14. SKYLIGHT BRISTOLITE MODEL 2246 GALV. ICBO#246915. - - _ 15. GAS METER. - ---- SELECTED BY OWNER. - 16 EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE TO BE GATE BY SEPARATE PERMIT. No. 15902 18. 6"x14"VENT W/ 1/4'COPPER MESH SCREEN. 9 F PireS � T - — ,- - - 19. ATTIC VENTILATION. 20. EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALL. -- -- -- 21. RELOCATED ELECTRICAL PANEL Bur « k Aeep... a . eMaalY rearInt aap« oln« papal r o's n ueee pone -+ 22. NO ROCK VENEER BEHIND MAIN WATER VALVE 000 eoM f not f be pr�oaa.a morrow « » O no a manMf Mwfect. Ch na or j 23. AC CONDENSER LOCATION. aapN ally IMy 1p M awglM to any U'rE porfy uicneaAaut k>l — --•F-__ F - '_- -. L+. — A _ • } —f "_ .- ___—__-__, _ off 11�,nf «p ,wiften CopYWt2001 aM cmeenl of an k Alto[ I 1 4001 ". . ._._ JOB NO.: 20034 I DATE: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 114' 1'-0" DRAWN BY: TTB ill SHEET /J\ EXTERIOR ELEVATIOJVS r)A2—ct - 63 P 2 off" 2t FT. ABOVE NATURAL GRADE I p L� fi Al I RIDGE ELEV. 103.20, 12 'Y RIDGE ELEV. 102.37 HEIGHT ENCROACHMENT ? 24 FT. ABOVE NATURAL GRADE RIDGE ELEV, t01.29' 8� V 12 _ 2001- Y VARIANCE - - 12 APPROVED B APPROVEVMID-'POIMT— 8 — 12 3.25 REVISED MID-POINT 8 ` - { \ _ I ml PL LINE ARCHITECTURE, 7 -- _ I 4o- -� \ - \ ro l 20331 IRVINE AVE. i 11 ns �_ _ r'= I SUITE 7 7 Y —1 I FLR SI:`G 888T— - - ---- - --±-- ---- - - ----- ------ — - -----=- -- SANTA ANA HEIGHTS` a� • :, ` I - - — - - _ -_ _ - — - ---- -- --- �k- >Ir CALIFORNIA 92 707 — --- __. L _ — �' '. vF C?Z7 PH: 714-850-0700 _ -- [ FAX: 714-850-0772 kn n b i I I Ell! www.burgerand6esoc.corn 9' j ! I ' I • � le le r OD al ' ,_,�!_, � Is re IB e l ---- --- I I! _ FLR SH iG '762' �• � > > ._ —._. ___ __ _ __-__—_ .—.._ —_—. _ I -----..__ BO'_OM OF BEAM I ! ' 1 � ` ' t !! TOP OF CONE ELFV 68.15 - - N9 PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION I; i �,( Al E VAMN KEY N TE&; �►.. /OZ• �7� EMI:r•1 � 1`L CLASS "A" °CEDARLITE" ROOF BY MONIEHLIFETILE. 5.6 PSF. = -- --� - - - - ' - - --_-'" - TILE HIPS FULL MORTAR. x 1 ICBO#2656 HAND MADE CLAY T IN SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR. I 2 3 SMOOTH STUCCO � 4. 4'STONE VEN 5. CHIMNEYs t -- r — -- -- - - -- --- --- OVER MANUFACTURES TERMINATION SPARK - . . STONE VENEER .. .._ ' .,. �, _, _ _ _ . • . . \ — I CAP W/ ARRESTOR. � M. WITH SCREEN R 6. COPPER GUTTER. _..,_,... _ �.. .,—_.._,.__—. -- y _ti I 7. COPPER DOWNSPOUTS 8. EXISTING CONCRETE STEPS. } i \ COPPER E �- .. . .. ._ ....- . .__ - . ._... . _ ... �� � � � \ 90 COPPER CRICKET " cn It WOOD SHUTTER �� — 12. 2"MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER — -' -- - --- -- - - - -- - - - ( - 13. SKYLIGHT BRISTOLITE MODEL 2222 GALV. ICBO42469 _ - - _ __ _—.__.______ / .._ _ ___.— _ . —„ 1 - ,. _ — _�_ �•8 j L� ;. -- �. 14, SKYLIGHT BRISTOLITE MODEL.2246 GALV. ICBO#246915. - - - I 15. GAS METER. - - u. �r=�•.r.' I: '�� r �' � -+r��- �LJti:� 16. EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE TO BE SELECTED BY OWNER. "I I _ .. 17. WOOD GATE BY SEPARATE PERMIT rry 18. 6"X14"VENT W/1/4"COPPER MESH SCREEN. 9±. L-- • �xl's?6 �:N.V�L� - - _..-. - : -s ._I�. �. 19. ATTIC VENTILATION - , .._._ _ .._ ._. ...... .... . . �.— _ ___._ __-- ! - 20. EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALL. k.YJN EU 21 RELOCATED ELECTRICAL PANEL gED A gey i - - -- - - -- - 22. NO ROCK VENEER BEHIND MAIN WATER VALVE. - \��- 1'r BUR �j• 23. AC CONDENSER LOCATION. ' - �� ��� - • � - -. _ I ._ _ 4 , No. 15902 �— _. .. _ . -- -- r — ,-- -- T� Z J1 Expires � O - OF Cp�f Wx t:woe. aFr�Y ov re* x.aunmpl-rr y :. - i - bry b M Igilpy to MY lair!Gorr% NIIIaR 1iq — .-. - , oM^KM+I+evrr MMM.WIOIYryI UW foIIM111 �'- _ _ t a a,ey.r %uec. capxgm Qom JOB NO.: 20034 f , . SCALE., 1/9' s DRAWN.SY.• TTB it/ [ PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RIGHT ELEVATION; SHEET A3 . . EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS , , � �1 r 1 n 29 FT. ABOVE GRADE 7 T{L � '='�^ i � RIDGE ELEV. t03.20' - 12 r HEIGHT ENCROACHMENT 02.3 - PoDG L-EV ? 7 APPROVED BY VARIANCE ----'"---'-----�- �--� -------- - 2001-002 i RIDGE ELEV. 101-29' 24 FT. ABOVE GRADE rr12-- r12 ��_-_ T2 — _ — — 12 — 6�/� i% / \� — - -- -- PL LINE ® HALL_ N Pl_ SINE `` � ARCHITECTUREt 20331 IRVINE AVE. ' u k SUITE 7 12 t FLR SHTG _. - - - -- _. - ---- -� Ij ----- — _- - ._- __.- --- _ - - ---- .. ---- - --- - - - - -- - - SANTA A HEIGHTS — 1_.._ 7TOM Of BEAM CALIFORNIA 92707 rEI =L LINE �F i LINE PH: 714-850-0700 r II i� - - - FAX: 774-850-0772 www.burgerondossoc.com - I ----- - -- - -- ---- - - - --- - --- - -- - __-_ — ' ' -- — �. TOP OF CO!•JC. ,3 11G,; r I' I / I . ,,s OF I,G - PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION ui , / Lu- - -- - „ l TK 1 i - --- ELEVATION KEY N&EM O CLASS A "CEDARLITE ROOF BY MONIERLIFETILE. 5.6 PSF _NVE $W ICBO#2656. HAND MADE CLAY TILE HIPS IN FULL MORTAR. 2. SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR. L. i, CCj 3 SMOOTH STUCCO. 4. 4 STONE VENEER .��' --'#'• '-'- - -- _�--•----------- _ _____.-_-.__ -_______ •�`'- 6 - EJS(ST•F.F. 8B.ST 5. STONE VENEER CHIMNEY WITH DECORATIVE COPPER SCREEN _..- _� --�-- -- ' - �- - �-' *" -- -�-- - OVER MANUFACTURES TERMINATION CAP W/SPARK ARRESTOR. . ' _ ... .. COPPER GUTTER . i . 7. COPPER DOWNSPOUTS -- - -- 6 EXIST CONCRETE I. `�"�_ I; �;• _ �: . . �. . - - - � -- I - EXISTING STEPS. - - - _ A 9. COPPER ROOF. h . - . ' ..-. I. .� _. ... . 10. COPPER CRICKET - 11, WOOD SHUTTER 12. 2".MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER 1 ... v 13. SKYLIGHT BRISTOLITE MODEL2222 GALV. ICBO#2469 - r'iF`�u -"' I k'a y - .� -"- 14, SKYLIGHT BRISTOLITE MODEL 2246 GALV, ICS00246915. ' _i - I _ I , ! I - �' - 15. GAS METER. - £QRC'Y r 1"-'* -" -- —•-_-_.-_______..y � �r -„ �Y/ST .7,. 16. EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE TO BE SELECTED BY OWNER. \� p' S ✓� :��: _.... _. .. . . _ _. . . . - ... _ .... . _ _ - — 17. WOOD GATE BY SEPARATE PERMIT. 4 ` mow - _-- - X- - -- - 16 6k14" 'VENT W/ tl4 COPPER MESH SCREEN. ~ -- No. 15902 NN r .. - ,...._ z — -- 19. ATTIC VENTILATION. m j " J1� Ezpireb 'mac ` � . .- ._ ...__.._. WPO'p �9UUh`IV I_ ,_ -, 20. EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALL. �-,�I _ _ 21. RELOCATED ELECTRICAL PANEL OFA�}O ` z 22, NO ROCK VENEER BEHIND MAIN WATER VALVE. 23 AC CONDENSER ON LOCATION. - �vnh Y ��-- .r.- LroMe n my wm v per y 94 / ..." _;• d� l01YM.r'll YOM,.,Irim G4Ml _q 4 JOB N0. 20034 soo? + PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LEFT E " TION DATE. .- . .SCALE: .1/4* SHEET ` 511 y EXTERIOR ELEVA TIONSW. y. g_ r };1r ,A f: r t SCALE 1 = 8 8.70 l k F MOO S / a: RESIDENCE SOE«A x 7.WT wu 3sW`E 121.7S P R POLE a ✓ f // / / / ON CL ----�-- -- --L----- - -- -- -L�s+r' .4LI v _ ru` 'M'_ 1,'B ME WT ET �N. X. RESIDENCE p 7 w / o Ap t �� O 1. l 01 mmu 7MW'E 11].97 J�L ' 1 J �l FD N!T IN l jIDE ON a SO ,. ].00 SET 12I9 20.00 ' ------------- 'Y Y-I�----- — ' f. mat W I ----------r .w—iil--------i' ST._ VACATED AND ABANDONED R//WW . i ) RESIDENCE PER CITY RES NO. 20M-55 (e S-DO) p1_ j s� RON MIEDEMA Q xp. Date. 9/31/0 No. 46 3 9� G CP1�F �h'a x to .a^ R d M Surveying Inc . TOPOISRASPHJC SURVEY OWNER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION : BENCH MARK: ADDRESS OF PROJECT: 23010 Lake Forest Drive, #409 & > Nail at Centerline of Street Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Mr .and Mrs bman (949) 858-2924 2315 Pacfic ive Elevation = 74.97 2315 PACIFIC DRIVE Newport Bea CA CORONA DEL MAR, CALIF, Ron Miedemo L.S. 4653 DATE: 4-18-2.001 JOB# (MAP) \c z to 20o I — 06 3 j vA 2mo1 ' I � '` Y FILE COPS' s Q r_... . A5 APPROVED By; VLC[NlT_YMAE ❑ Do Not Remove' F PLANOING DIRECTOR ON (date): -- - -- - - - 0 As Submilted E) As Modified, refer to: ❑ xruroer '¢x o��� •`+r�wt�® +s.°0 p <,� o s mnrs •' _ ■ rsurm yl��J'ca " MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE ON (date): ttsoxr u ° A G As Submitted G As Mod r- a if Bied, refer io:\ T ,F G COMMIS"ION ON date --7J,C) 4� 02 \ - PLA r (date): �„, .. �, •mod "' \� ❑ As Subml ted� As Mod iffyy d, re .. —7 i /O 7 n„rP n pROPFATy CITY COUNCIL ON (daye) e t P � _G As Modified. a = s' a' e ❑-..ilsJ�bmttted defied, refer to: 0 � N i % ; ° ` l ARCHITECTURE • �; � i 0�oj °�`' a� ., ,r t ` rn �■ 4 31 RVINE AVE v,v sx u . SUITE /! NEWPORT BAY SANTA ANA HEIGHTS 4 CALIFORNIA 92707 —PH: 714 850-0700 FAX: 71 —850-0772 1 W(tYu@Y, f<F �v Y www.burgerandassoc.com '�!r{q e oR xc, 4 /,`r/ ,1 I caSTAk aw Butr x 4 �W% 4126101 4�' `F° w, CLIENT REVISION tia 1�,gN0 D TOPOGRAPHY . r i t , MAWL� VEL DECK ��t , . A ' ra ^ OWNER MR & MRS JAM - UPPER LEVEL DECK S\�'-J �"'% i % ES GLABMAN - ELEV. 88.62 �J 1363 GALAXY DR.-/---s NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 � i LU (949)642-8600 V ASSESORS PARCEL NO. i ospsT i �'�ot ' 052-011-05 .� ` i � J �i ARCHITECT I ( .\ \ LINE OF ADJACENT r RID BURGER & ASSOC, P STRUCTURE I rn I _ E ELEV. 102.37' t " L_-BUIl_DABLE AREA -F--;- - „o R, THOMAS T. BURGER. III, ARCHITECT AreP= 3835 s / — t v 1I ( 6 20331 IRVINE AVE., SUITE 7 } z J SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, CA 92707 o i TiFr6 (714)850-0700 CIVIL ENGINEER _ ♦ �� DUCA McCOY, INC. t ■ . 1 z r i W w 3840 E. COAST HIGHWAY WLL w 1 --------- I _ I - 0 --XIS -- ^ - CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 I O I - -- - N 4' i (949)675-4487 [ 1 ., - 0� > I i AREA TABULATION EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL ^ LOWER FL. 811 123 934 �+.. PROPOSED BAY WINDOW I MAIN FLOOR 1,909 96 1,736 O o FL /( GLA ; UPPER FLOOR 909 945 1,854 1 n SK T _ f I TOTAL LIVING 3,360 1,164 4,524 �+ J cc - ---- -- GARAGE 574 111 463 I M CROSS-HATCH AREA, ( ) I CO O ;; -- INDICATES PROPOSED STOR & MECH 0 305 305 I 1 SETBACK MODIFICATION - <, I �' TOTAL GROSS 3,934 1,358 5,292 N LOT AREA = 5,392 SQ.FT. --------` LINE OF ADJACENT BUILDABLE AREA = 3,635 SQ.FT. I STRUCTURE 1.5 x 3,635 SQ.FT. = 5,452 SQ.FT. ALLOWABLE GROSS AREA- t EXISTING FOOTPRINT AREA = 2,214 SQ.FT. = 41% �25 HATCHED ON— ONE MIN PROPOSED FOOTPRINT AREA = 2,210 SQ.FT. = 41% g w \ ExlsrNc NON-Vo}vF-S4RMING EXISTING PAVED AREA TO REMAIN = 563 SQ.FT. = 10% SETBACK EXIST LANDSCAPED AREA TO REMAIN = 2 SQ FT = °/ CROSS-HATCQHED AREA'-., \ I 49 0 (45 INDICATE$�ROPOSED -/ - - I L--------------. SETBACKIFICATION ...-.... ,n (COL 7A ,AR7 OF ROOF) 66. r: (FRONT 9 , RED A 80 S-HATCH ARE % TES PROPOSED E 'z'CK MODIFICATION I GE1 HATCHED ARE I s .. I �-' VACATION OF E I --- - t FILE COPY Do Not Remove No. 15902 — s�,� "SETBACK ENCRO T 0) Expires— b �.... Si 70- 9TF 0�2 9S'IV �` PA2001-063 for V.A2001-002&MD2001-060 OF CA�� 2315 Pacific Drive �� ^ `\�•. 9e - M Mrs Jim Glabimin 9,e9n ! W wanly AWYw IU emi p-M i cWYliht an0 oMo irYPMtY rip1,U M Ihw ma qms a.rwt to a npoauowl p,ongaa « SHEET INDEX toey to w w y cw th" ts% .t w P `o �\ TS �� /rt-lA- REVISED SITE PLANS 8x l of • ra.oc. eonrro.t Al SITE/ROOF PLAN JOB NO.: 20034 A2 MAIN & LOWER FLOOR PLANS A3 UPPER FLOOR PLAN DATE: MARCH 76, 2001 �? \ A4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS s°P��, �'�� s\ - A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8- = 1'-0- A6 BUILDING SECTION /C /4 ,� \, DRAWN BY: TTB Ill ' .�� ' SHEET 40 �. \ Al m SITE/ROOF PLAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _g • - • 6 - ._ - i7- 7_4' 0'-616 7 -4" 6 7 -4 F.S. ELEV. 77.25' WALL LEGEND DASHED L TES LINE OF j EXISTING WALL N DASHED LINE INDICATES -- — - -- -- — DEMO WALL -- — LINE OF EXISTING DECK TO m D i - - -�'BE -REBUILT — I y. NEW WALLINA i F.S. ELEV. 67.90' — — — — LINE IN— —:—"- .—'-� IMEMENNONN NEW AIC�EA AStiE(y LINE INDICATES a - SU PORT DECKS TO LINE OF DECK ABOVE ENLARGE EXISTING DECK NEW DECK m II II II II ARCHITECTURE • 20331 IRVINE AVE. - _- :47 _. f I i I I F.F. ELEV. 16P. 15' (EXIST.) F. ELEV. 7762' (E r.) � % \�� SANTA ANA HEIGHTS I llll CALIFORNIA 92707 II II II I II II I II II PH: 714-850-0700 II II I II II FAX: 714-850-0772 --O+�BROO I II EN II I I II www.burgerandossoc.com o l CLIENT REVISION 4126101 I I i t I I I I LIVING ROOM AND ADD TOPOGRAPHY II II I II II j II II I II II � n II II I it II �� I I I I�jll � II � I '!� /'I I D Lin r ` / Ate/) i II II _ - I I i I UP ��\\ �� I I I I p I c/y :\\\ \\� I ` KITCHEN cj) V Q) \� \ DINING ROOM FOUNDATION W LINE OF EXISTING - \\ \ ----- LINE OF EXISTING IN _ t I ll `\ \ FOUNDATION I� - _....¢O Q ENTRY - �� y: PANTRY Qc � I SHADED AREA INDICATES DISH NEW AREA RECLAIMED ^, FROM EXISTING CRAWLSPACE II I ` v n EXIST. GARAGE WDR. SLAB ON GRADE d I - fi \ PR �D, PORCH - -- - � qRc • • GARAGE No. 15902 - - --- -- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �plExpires DASHED LINE INDICATES EXISTING WALLS TO FOF CAS-\�O - -.BE REMOVED I'le -I cIIIop�w If olW ww«thy rlpwnl.t in�ew pmac inau plena are not 10 M ragoWya. !wn It th0I I caalaG in any loan or mmnar vW,, vlr, nor me Y w la a aaapiM to any 1nnE aany, ai- fvM — L O WER FLOOR PLAN — _ JOB Na : 20 4 �` ��' I r of Burger Y Aeaoc. CODXNnI ]001 JOB NO.: 20034 DATE: MARCH 76, 2007 SCALE: 7/4" = 1'-0" II - DRAWN BY TTB III MAIN LEVEL PLAN o SHEET f A 2 I WALL LEGEND r EXISTING WALL DEMO WALL NEW WALL F.S. ELEV, 88.62' �� \A NEW AREA 3'-6" L 22'-6" 2'-0 'o ARCHITECTURE NEW DECK 20331 IRVINE AVE. — — _o SUITE 7 SANTA ANA HEIGHTS a CALIFORNIA 92707 N PH: 714-850-0700 FAX: 714-850-0772 www.burgerandossoc.com I I //�� CLIENT REVISION 4126101 ZL= ADD TOPOGRAPHY I I I a a � I I I � I 1 I I j � I � I I � II � z Li BATH cc I yBATH 1 j II I 0 L BEDROOM BEDROOM - I, o — I r I I I vi I ' I i I tV I N N W L N OFFICE —u O CLOSET - , r- - - - - I II - - I CLI DN I \ n'' a I V CLOS" CLOS. I I z � � I CC i S �iRMrELLCN STUDY BATH I ! 10 y I o I p I \�LF'R Z. BURC'yiT�` uo ' ~ No. 15902 ( I S Expires �Q -- - -- 1 — FOFCp1�� EXISTING UPPER FLOOR PLAN ' &vpr k Neoc, egreeely rae dot. ot la common—In" I I �p fiw pone mt iat to Weiyr�oWl`uglcnmgae « copiE n ony Mm « marmr ekolwerr, nr «a I I 1n ay a a a enr.we yrly. .Iron MI I I L qwg of 20M ra cmeml of Burger k /aooc. tapyM�t 20D1 L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JOB NO.: 20034 DATE: MARCH 76, 2607 14'-2" 3'-B" 19'-0" _ SCALE: 7)4" - 11_0" in SHEET PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN A3 f� f �ZE7r ARCHITECTURE 4'� L ti 20331 IRVINE AVE. — SUITE 7 -- SANTA ANA HEIGHTS -- - 2 - ---T- �.. CALIFORNIA 92707 { �''�Fbk1eJ titr�'{3 PH: 714-850-0700 FAX: 714-850-0772 www.burgerondassoc.com - - _ .. — _=� --_ -- _. _ _ _ �6 --.. EjSI'ST•F.F. 88.87 ENT R /01 ENSION 4 26 AND ADD TOPOGRAPHY WOOD &N�UHIII� UJ cc I - f -- � T ;-roe or" ONE — - Q Lu r, W LEFT ELEVATION �y pC p i QL — t ^ M cn ca NV w — I No. "" �f r �FOF CA� �� �`' Bwgr d A..a, aprcry rww its cammm-Ip. aawnr ran.77 . :.. of Burger a A.soc. Co ,vt =I JOB NO.: 20034 DATE: MARCH 16, 2001 SCALE: 1/4- = 1'-0- FRONT ELEVATION DRAvw BY: TTD 1,1 SHEET EXTERIOR EL E V A 4 A TIONS fA 20 I - .o6 3 ,¢ROf' 4 f /02 37 �XI�TIN/ r�rfMt v i T T : 110 — — �. — ARCHITECTURE — - -- -- -- 20331 VINE AVE --- SUITE - �- - SANTA ANA HEIGHTS - -- -- _ — -- CALIFORNIA 92707 -..--.---.__— PH: 714-850-0700 _ - ---- - f— _ ___ __ 1• . - _ _--- -_. _---- - --- _ FAX. 714-850-0772 _ — _ y — k , l G — www.burgerondassoc.com 1�=r -'� . .. { GG�'I��'� -�"!,l'G= -. -_.- _- — _-- -- CLIENT REVISION 4126101 _ ------{ �ND __ I ADD TOPOGRAPHY •bclSt� €ALG --- --- _ VA . Vic: _.... —.—_ 6 7. oc - - ��. cc 4I 16 i,74 ttT, - RIGHT ELEVATION Y' � V 0 1 - - - tc CC 85437 Lr -u " ; CN — 1 f FTa I Ir1s_I7 �•-:, � i . . rKv_NCr•! pooh i r.ftJ � i �R No. 15902 I °F S Expires-- �� _ a � F C < !r,^y - ,_ ,Y 4 Y ^ a fV v t 2 ? �AL f f•'�'I I I�� Bwgx k N..c. aWwYY ruww Ns comom-mr c-p k, a.pa 1p a..w 0.a ' ..e � Fr f.Wml pr my llo .11a.GMrF. e01 w. —— -- �— IMY 1n M wgnN to aY 1.i0 perm Nlhaul lr.l oplmn9 1es 4plw Flex: pMm.p, ryq [u�,l pl Burger l� M.pc. CopKiy,. 2g01 JOB NO.: 20034 .- r DATE: MARCH 16, 2001 SCALE: 1/4' = 1'-0It ' Y ," � Y - »..�� �•'� DRAWN Or TTB /it SHEET REAR ELEVATION A � EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Do _. ARCHITECTURE 20331 IRVINE AVE. SUITE 7 . -- SANTA ANA HEIGHTS CALIFORNIA 92707 PH: 714-850-0700 FAX: 714-850-0772 www.burgerandassoc.com CLIENT REVISION 4126101 HEIGHT ENCROACHMENT RAND ADD TOPOGRAPHY HATCHED CONFORMING ROOF PLANE \ GRADE _ _MID-POINT AT 24 FT. ABOVE GRADE _ 29 FT_ABO—VE NATURAL — — — — — — — — _ DAS(iEO. LINE INDICATES EXISTING UPPER FLOOR RIDGE / �/LC2- v�Y • /e2.37 ROOF LINE MID—POINT tat FT. A'�" o PL LINE AT DORMER �X� L LINE_. EXIST. TOP S• P L. N a � / DASHED LINE If4OOR EXISTING MAIN Fj400R / ASTER ROOF LINEcc BEDROOM ii STAIRWELL/HALL ii BATH 3 a E X; 'T,jpIO UPPET~: FIpOR YL / ! � .� ' EXIST. UPPER FLOOR ELEV. M-0 EtiiST MAIN F..OJR.PL LINE - _ - _. _. _... _-___ ___ EXIST. T0� L ELEV. o III — t ' , uj 0 c LIVING ROOM GARAGE II PNTRY u Q Q ' _ STOR. II m CL Z / a �7 1 �a EXIST. M IN FLOOR ELEV. � � I CC / 'I EXISTQCO GRADE _ � o \ � \\/\\\ O C \ � �\�O �Q\\O\��\� ��Q�j\\\\�'��� O _y _ NATURAL — — — ,�/�\��� _ DEN \ — -- \ ExiS : F_OwER i,00R ELE a -. DASHED LINE INDICATES EXISTING DECK TO BE DEMOLISHED . - \/ �ERED ARC EXISTING CONCRETE FOUNDATION _ 1'- O\�O`l\ No. 15902 EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALL ��\���✓o��\O!�' 9T x Tres�Q- \ \ \ \ .11 t W mwaamY.y VA i�a emimap- cap%kM mE fam p lY . N rom pmu. �j / 1%w Om w%el b b e W % mmWC a amFtl M my Iwl a mamm alwtamw. nar w imY tom anN/W.b my NYG Purl% MMm.I kH ml ft IM mpaY aaltlm pwJ= and fgnMl \ \ \ \ "\� M Bargm Y Aaao¢: OOVYW 1Um JOB NO.: 20034 - DATE: MARCH 16, 2001 SCALE: 114". = 1'-0. DRAWN BY: TTB 111 SHEET BUILDING SECTION A 6 CA 2oa ( - 063