Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutG-1 - Recommendation of Planning Commission and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission regarding the ac-quisition of property located at 2333 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar, adjacent to Begonia Park (Variance No. 1066)City Council Meeting 97 Agenda Item No. FEB 27 1978 By the CITY COUNCIL Oily 40WON NCH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 22, 1978 TO: City Council February 27, 1978 G-1 FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Recommendation of Planning Commission and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission regarding the ac-quisition of property located at 2333 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar, adjacent to Begonia Park (Variance No. 1066). OWNERS: Mr. and Mrs. Donald G. Griswold, Corona del Mar Suggested Action If desired, direct staff to have appraisals made, investigate the possi- bility of acquisition of the property, and report back to City Council. Planning Commission and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Recom- mendations At its meeting of January 31, 1978, the PB&R Commission voted (6 Ayes - 1 Absent) to recommend to the Planning Commission that Variance No. 1066 be denied and that the City have the property appraised and try to pro- vide City funds to purchase it and preserve the view for all concerned. At its meeting of February 16, 1978, the Planning Commission voted (6 Ayes - 1 Absent) to deny Variance No. 1066 and voted (5 Ayes - 1 No - 1 Absent) to recommend the acquisition of the subject property by the City for park purposes. Background On December 2, 1977, a request was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Griswold for a variance to exceed the permitted height limit for a proposed single- family dwelling to be constructed on the site. A complete description of the project is contained in the staff report to the Planning Commis- sion dated December 29, 1977 (copy attached). On January 5, 1978, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission. At that time the matter was referred to the PB&R Commission for their consideration of the impacts the project might have on Begonia Park. The City Council should be aware that the construction of any project within the required setbacks and height limitations on this site will adversely impact public views of the bay from the City's park as well as from the adjoining public streets (Pacific Drive and Begonia Drive),. with or without a variance. It is for this reason the matter has been referred to the City Council for possible site acquisition. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By AM D. HEWI ER, Assistant Director/Planning JDH/kk Atnts for Council Only: 1) Planning Commission Staff Report dated 2/10/78 with attachments 2) Excerpt from the minutes of Planning Commission meeting of 2/16/78 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 1978 Item No. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 10, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Variance No 1066 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling in the R-1 District that exceeds the height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limita- tion District. A modification to the Zoning Code is allso requested since a portion of the proposed structure encroaches 2 feet into the required 5 foot front yard setback adjacent to Begonia Park. LOCATION: A portion of Pacific Drive (abandoned) located at 2333 Pacific Drive, on the southerly side of Pacific Drive, adjacent to Begonia Park in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-1 APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Donald G. Griswold, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Same as Applicants At the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 1978, the Commission continued this matter to the meeting of February 16., 1978, for the purpose of considering alternative designs which would take into consideration the problems of height, bulk, and loss of view; to allow the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission the opportunity to review the matter at their next meeting and report back on their findings; and that the preliminary soils report be reviewed by the City's grading engineer and a report made as to his findings. Following is additional information which has been assembled since the last Planning Commission meeting. Alternative Designs To date no additional designs have been submitted by the applicant, however, the architect has indicated to the Parks, Beaches and Recrea- tion Commission that a house could be built on the lot under the height limit (see attached minutes from P.B.& R. Commission). V i ew While recognizing that the applicant has substantial property rights and should be allowed to build if he can do so without a variance, the P.B.& R. Commission voted (6 ayes - 1 absent) to recommend that Variance No. 1066 be denied and that the City have the property appraised and try to provide City funds to purchase the site and preserve the view for all concerned (see attached minutes). As indicated in the staff report on Agenda Item No. 5 (Modification No. 2188 of Roger McKinnon on Ocean Boulevard) that while the applica- tion of the police power to protect individual views is substantially limited, the ability of the Commission to preserve public views from an adjoining street or from a view park is a legitimate exercise of the police power so long as the restrictions leave the resulting property in a condition where it can be reasonably developed. Pre- suming that the site is buildable and that any structure built within Item No. 4 103 Planning Commission - 2. the required setbacks and height limits would destroy the public view or that any special restrictions to preserve the view would leave the property undevelopable, the best alternative may be for the City to purchase the site. As indicated in the minutes of the P.B.& R. Commission, the applicant has indicated a willingness to sell the site to the City. Information from the County Assessor's Assessment Roll of Secured Property 1977-78 indicates that the site has a full value of $27,040.00 Access At the Planning,Commission meeting of January 5, 1978, the architect indicated that he proposed a driveway connection to the existing drive- way serving the Stansbury residence on Bayside Drive. A review of the improvement plans for the realignment of Bayside Drive and Carnation Avenue indicates that the existing driveway is on City property and was constructed for the owner by the City along with the other road improvements. The Public Works Department has indicated that, no additional permits 'would be required for the applicant to connect to this access point. Preliminary Engineering Investigation A preliminary Engineering Investigation was submitted to the Community Development Department on February 8, 1978. The staff's Engineering Geologist has not been available to review the report but will have a report for the Commission by February 16th. Environmental Significance and Alternative Courses of Action Ordinarily a project to construct a single family residence is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environ- mental Quality Act. This type of project falls into Section 15103, Class 3: New Construction of Small Structures, (a) single family residences. However, the State EIR Guidelines also point out that this classification is qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located, and consideration of any potential impacts on environmental resources of hazardous or critical concern. The Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan indicates the potential for unstable geologic conditions and seismic hazards resulting from ground shaking in this particular area. The bluffs are considered to be a sensitive and unique coastal resource. The site is adjacent to a public park, and also affords some ocean view from the top of the bluff. Further, because of high pedestrian and bicycle traffic and some vehicular traffic hazards associated with the area, the proposed access to the project may present a significant conflict. Therefore, an exemption may not be appropriate in this case. The Planning Commission may choose one of the following courses of action in making a determination regarding this project: 1. If the Planning Commission wishes to deny the project because it fails to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and not for environmental reasons per se, then no environmental documen- tation is required. The staff does not feel that all of the criteria for the justification of a variance can be met and the project should be denied. 2. If the Planning Commission wishes to consider the approval of the project then one of the following environmental documents should be required prior to the approval of the project: (a) An Initial Study should be prepared to investigate the geologic, seismic, aesthetic, and traffic conditions, and to determine if these potential impacts can be resolved by the application of appropriate mitigation measures. If sufficient mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, then a Negative Declaration can be prepared. If the project may result in unavoidable significant impacts, then an EIR must be prepared. Item No. 4 TO: Planning Commission - 3. (b) The Planning Commission may wish to make the determination that sufficinet evidence exists to determine that the pro- ject may have a significant effect on the environment, and require the immediate preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By arstant"Hewicker, AsDirector - Planning JDH/sh Attachments: Report to Planning Commission from Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Excerpt from minutes of P.B.& R. Commission meeting of January 31, 1978 Correspondence received since the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 1978 Planning Commission Staff Report from the meeting of . January 5, 1978 Item No. 4 TO: FROM: SUBJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION COMMISSION February 16, 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION PB & R Commission VARIANCE NO. 1066 Pursuant to the request of the Planning Commission, the PB & R Commission held a Public Hearing on January 31, 1978, to determine the impact that the construction of a residence at Pacific Avenue and Begonia Avenue would have on the views from Begonia Park. Several residents spoke from the audience regarding the pros and cons of the subject project which aided the Commissioners in making their decision. At the conclusion, the PB & R Commission voted to recommend denial of the Variance and suggested that the City pursue acquisition of the lot in order to provide a perpetual view of the Ocean from the Park. Attached for your information is a copy of the PB & R Commission meeting Minutes concerning their action. ames B. Wood, Chairman JBW:CCS:h Attachments COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH' PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1978 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Due to a possible conflict of interest Chairman Wood stepped down from his seat on the Commission and Vice Chairman Lovell opened the Public Hearing on the proposed residential development adjacent to Begonia Park at Pacific Avenue and Begonia Avenue. Director Stewart said this item was referred to the PB & R Commission by the Planning Commission because Planning is interested in the PB & R Commission position on allowing a structure to occur that might have a detrimental effect on a long-time existing view from one of the public parks. Mr. Stewart ran slides showing the existing views and various angles of the lot where the proposed development would occur. Gordon Glass, architect for the applicants, also showed slides with an overlay on each depicting the outlines of the house. Mr. Glass said a house could be built on the lot under the height limit and it would still obliterate the view; in fact, a six-foot fence would do the same. Five property owners living in the neighborhood addressed the PB & R Commission saying the project would ruin their views. Mr. & Mrs. Stansbury, residents at 2340 Bayside Drive, wrote a letter to the PB & R Commission expressing concern about some of the requests the applicants are making in regard to the construction of their new home. The letter states this proposed building will start within 3 feet of their block wall and tower over them 61 feet; to grant this application for variance will completely destroy their privacy; the proposed pool will look into their bedroom windows; and any drainage from the new roof or pool will be on their property. The letter further stated the Stansburys feel a more appropriate plan or viable solution would be for the City to acquire this property as a part of Begonia Park and accept from them the westerly point portion of land adjacent to the Grisold property on Pacific Avenue as a gift for the Park use. No one else wished to speak and Vice Chairman Lovell declared the public portion of the Hearing closed. The owner of the lot in question, Mr. Donald G. Griswold, was asked if he would be willing to sell his property to the City and he said yes, he would. -2- INDEX Proposed residential development adjacent to Begonia Park Variance No. 1066 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS 61� MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1978 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. Motion x Ayes xxx x xx Absent x The Director was asked how he would develop the property as a park, and he said he would preserve the open space that exists today; would put in a railing at the outer edge of the property for safety reasons and would even consider grading in some areas. The consensus of the Commission was that Mr. & Mrs. Griswold have substantial property rights and should be allowed to build if they can do so without the variances. Vice Chairman Lovell said he felt the importance of this beautiful view is inestimable and would recom- mend to the Planning Commission that it avoid a structure that would rise above the view level. A motion was made by Commissioner Johnson that the Variance No. 1066 be denied and that the City have the property appraised and try to provide City funds to purchase it to preserve the view for all concerned. Motion carried. Chairman Wood returned to his seat on the Commission. -3- INDEX TO: Planning Commission - 2. f 3 Analysis The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling containing approximately 4,009 square feet of interior living space and a three car garage on this very steep site. The following outline reflects the major characteristics of the proposed development: Lot- s i ze Required Yards Front (Pacific Drive side) Front (Bayside Drive side) Side Rear Proposed yards Front (Pacific Drive side) Front (Bayside Drive side) Side Rear Maximum building height Number of stories Lower Level Second level Third level Upper level 4,500 sq.ft.+ 5 feet (so designated on the Districting Map) 15 feet (so designated on the Districting Map) 3 feet 10 feet 5 feet, except for a corner of the proposed structure that encroaches 2 feet into the required front yard. 15 feet 3 feet 10 feet 61 feet + (measured from grade adjacent to Bayside Drive to the average height of the pitched roof above the proposed living room). 2 along Pacific Drive); 4 along Bayside Drive) 311 sq.ft.+ of interior living space (including an entry area, an elevator equipment room, a storage area; and a stairway and elevator area); and a 744 sq.ft.+ 3 car garage. 911 sq.ft.+ of interior living space (including an indoor swimming pool and spa, a lounge area; and a dressing room). 1411 sq.ft.+ of interior living space (including two bedroom and related bath- room$ a laundry room, and an open balcony. 1376 sq.ft.+ of interior living space (including a living room, a dining room, a kitchen, an entry area; a powder room; and a guest bedroom/den suite); and an open balcony. Item No. 7 /7 TO: Planning Commission - 3. Total interior living space 4,009 sq.ft.+ Total floor area (including 3 car garage) Buildable area 2 X buildable area 5 X buildable area (maximum area permitted by the Coastal Commission unless a Coastal Permit is approved). Proposed and required number of parking spaces Access of parking spaces to Bayside Drive Required open space option Proposed open space option 4,753 sq.ft.+ 3,030 sq.ft.+ 6,060 sq.ft.+ 4,545 sq.ft.+ 3 driveway over Bayside Drive right-of-way which is a portion of Begonia Park 4,608 cu.ft.+ 6,900 cu.ft.+ The proposed structure has a two story elevation alon the Pacific Drive side of the site with a building height of 32 feet + ?measured from grade to the top of the skylight domed roof above the living room). However, the proposed dwelling unit has a four story elevation along the Bayside Drive side of the property with a height of 61 feet + (measured from grade to the average height of the pitched roof above the proposed living room). The proposed development meets or exceeds all of the required Residential Development Standards (i.e. floor area, open space option, parking, etc.), with the exception of the building height limit and a proposed building encroachment into the required 5 foot front yard. Staff has no major objections with the proposed development, since said modification to the Zoning Code is minor in nature and will not obstruct any views from adjoining residential property. However, with respect to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the proposed height of the living levels above the downhill grade causes the dwelling to be classified as a four story structure and will thereby necessitate an additional stairway from the upper level. The Zoning Code requires that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the grounds for a'variance.set forth in Chapter 20.82 (Section 20.82.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code). The grounds for a variance as enumerated in Section 20.82020C are: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 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. Item No. 7 TO: Planning Commission - 4. The applicant has submitted the following statements in support of his request: Hardship Involved Request variance from 24' height limit in R-1 District for portions of residence, per attached drawings, due to extreme steepness of grade and difference in elevation of 44' across this lot. Also, request encroachment 2' into 5' setback next to open space (park) at one point only. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property? Same as Hardship Involved. Why is a Variance necessary to reserve p operty ri hts? Height limit was intended primarily for flat lots that prevail in City. Why will proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? Residence will it against existing tall cliff; top of roof will be well below allowed 24' height above highest portion of lot. Staff is of the opinion that the topography of this lot is such (i.e. a 38 foot + drop in existing grade from the nortgerly corner of the site to the southwesterly corner of the property) that a variance to the height limit requirements may be justified regardless of design. However, no attempt has been made, in this particular case, to step the dwelling down the slope and thereby reduce the need for the variance and perhaps eliminate the Building Code problem mentioned above. Until such time as alternative designs have been explored which more closely approximate the natural slope of the site and until such time as the applicant has met the three criteria required for a variance, it is the recommendation of the staff that this request be denied. Staff also has the following concerns in conjunction with the proposed development: Vehicular Access The Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer have recommended that the proposed plans should be redesigned so that vehicular access to the required garage spaces should be taken from Pacific Drive. It is their opinion that additional traffic taking access from Bayside Drive is undesirable. The attached plot plan indicates that the proposed driveway will be designed to connect with the existing driveway on the adjacent residential property. View from Begonia Park The Director of Parks, Beach, and Recreation has indicated that the sight plane and view from Begonia Park would be greatly obscured if the subject development were constructed as now proposed. A field inspection of the site reveals that an unobstructed public view of the Newport Bay Entrance Channel now exists in Begonia Park that will be severly damaged in conjunction with the proposed development. Buildable Area The proposed buildable area of 4,753 sq.ft.+ on the subject property is less than the 2 times the buildable area of the property (i.e. 6,060 sq.ft.+) as permitted by the Municipal Code in the R-1 District. However, the proposed residential development exceeds the 1.5 times the buildable area (i.e. 4,545 sq.ft.+) permitted by the Coastal Commission. The Planning Commission may desire to continue this matter to a future Commission meeting so that the applicant has an opportunity to redesign the project to incorporate the concerns of staff noted above. Item No. 7 TO: Planning Commission - 5. On the other hand, if it is the desire of the Commission to approve this request, the following findings and conditions are suggested: Findings 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and will not preclude the attainment of the General Plan objectives and policies. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district, because of the steep topography of the site. 4. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, since the steep terrain of the site precludes the construction of the single family dwelling within the required 24 foot height limit. 5. That the proposed dwelling will maintain a two story elevation along Pacific Drive similar to other structures existing along the westerly side of the street, and therefore, will not inder 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. 6. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of su¢¢h proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed front yard encroachment is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. If access from Bayside Drive is permitted, City Council approval of a driveway approach on Bayside Drive within the Begonia Park area shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. A topographical map by a civil engineer shall be submitted at this stage showing all easements, etc. on the site. 4. Approval of this proposed residential development shall be conditional upon a geological report, and said report should investigate faults for activity. 5. Construction of the proposed structure shall conform to all provisions of the Uniform Building Code. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By, William R. aycoc Senior Planner Attachments: Vicinity Maps (2) Plot Plan, WRL/dlt Floor Plans, Elevations Item No. 7 SEi AfAft A41 91 C I'0. AU +IIJ C/ ,, AIR, (, If. /f1 � tJIJ N vN-;, 11, AIT•1'.fJ, na0 W •�.I l01 I• IL 4I1.Y4f[D •LE. / L C \I o-° o r ttT ~l ,� QG�,tiq Rr �r010 a� i � d P J 92 . R2 0 90 P ry �•'' � � 9.P. q b PJ r y 92 ;iC �I :• � \ (Arfi y'y; �� P g„r R y P �r c` 2 q. %• 'p 0.5.0, \ 10 Ol 1 \ •\` � � \K q2 st2 t���PTy �` ,b c' ' � q2 .., cPE / 1 9 W \\ \ R 2 P4 o �t2 °, 19.2 ? q? /\ 1p Cl. vd ,,, •s, / ., 0 1y � P /� o �P p \ ,`- -lo_ •ao_ 9, . , P A.a, re, is AD. c LW.. AO. A° W f� 1 .° �y a? fa �' ///� oro. nc a IN. MA Ad In 1. � 'p'9p v • � 1� L EAST ✓ETTY o S` co If r /IAP NO. /B 4Ev ! DISTRICTING MAP =ALC Of FEET t00 fp0 Aw AO° / 9.2 V v Cr ys� A� 9.2 R2 0 q? / 2 JE• Q y ' �r VARIANCE No. 10&6 V /n /7( C� r- � //25 % o •sEsvc E� T ; \ /322/G7 D P 5x15/28 \ �9T. E'd'T. �•` ag= •252/•/� ao r .i �PncEc18 /7', � r .. 33 O / `� ' i --' naaoEt�G •. r-- /5 , h c/TY PPO NN la _ o ao Cl- •2. I (¢ 3 / 5 1 Z5 YS I/l8" I ( 4 LLfBv 44 V Q suvilt � •'ems �••:a �i(. T'ROP� � - i `"- `Ic.S � � � "�=------------� � •-- --=-- ---, . r`3 . 333 ► R �� g8 - '4i 1. h: r ii o� r Ac E i �7 t.. I � i 35 i �o � #Z ,9'� • 1' AN i I ra ' zi P. Y. / _S`7 b DAY St'D / ' •?;i•,� - � l r i4�-..+-►- - ' 111 f 1 Q I ( .w � �� `� ' � IN NI N 8 \. O.R. 64?0Gd, ' �P/-S. Z7/S I Z fir ' Q 11 /•15 n — - - 75 25' M z5oo. //B.O' I //Po' r of,6f✓PORT q\� . � / . � � o � �, e,�'s�cy / o� RES.1r2792 OR.//97/352 Q' // of �_ /8 •zs//- zsl/ /7 tiM �I VARIANCF, No. 10(o(o CommISSIONERS is C '3� c� qC y� O��iC► Gl �� f z -t :) L4. '` - LL Noti on All Ayes leach t.;Ry �' Newport Lo February 16, 1978 MINUTES Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Jim Plou, 214 N. Grand Avenue, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the staff report and recommendations. ere being no others desiring to -appear and be he d, the public hearing was closed. X Motionhas made that Planning Commission make the foilowinl,,,findings: 1. That therom*ap meets the requirements of Title 19 of the.fport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances oi;'+he City, all applicable general or specific pla and the Planning Commission is satisfied with he plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed res division presents no problems from a plannin tandpoint. and approve Resubdivision No. 5 subject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructXa required by ordinance and the Publ Department. 3. That all conditions of approval for Resubdivi-- sion No. 564 be fulfilled. Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling in the R-1 District that exceeds the height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limita- tion District. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested since a portion of the proposed structure encroaches 2 -feet into the required 5 foot front yard setback adjacent to Begonia Park. INgFIx Item J#4 VARIANCII NO. 106, DENIED Location: A portion of Pacific Drive (abandon- ed) located at 2333 Paci fi c Dri ve, on the southerly side of Pacific Drive, adjacent to Begonia Park in Corona del Mar. - ---- Page__4_ COMMISSIONERS C.71�a' MINUTES /0 C 01 February 16, 1978 :LL CALL IN08X Zone: R-1 Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Donald G. Griswold, Corona del Mar Owners: Same as Applicants Commissioner Agee stepped down from the dais and refrained from deliberation on this matter because he was absent from the previous public hearing. The report from the Grading Engineer relative to the geological report received at the previous hearing was distributed to the Plianning Commission for review. Staff also advised of the possible need for an environmental report in connection with this request should the Planning Commission make the finding that the requirements for a variance had been met. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Gordon Glass, Architect, appeared before the Commission in connection with this matter and distributed a drawing which indicated the problems involved in the development of the site because of the topography. Al Stover, 2316 Pacific Drive, appeared before the Commission and reiterated the objections expressed at the previous public hearing and felt that approval of this request would set a precedent for future development on the bluff. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. ;lotion X Motion was made that Variance No. 1066 be denied. Commissioner Hummel felt that adequate provisions had not been made by the City for the regulation and control of development of the bluff areas; questioned whether or not this was a buildable lot because of the magnitude of preparation required; and recommended that the property be acquired by the City and made a part of the adjacent park. `.des X X X X X X Following discussion, which included forwarding Absent X the matter to the City Council for decision, the motion was voted on and carried. i1otion X Motion was then made that Planning Commission Ayes X X X X X recommend to the City Council that the property Noes X be acquired for park purposes. Absent X Commissioner Agee returned to the dais. \� Item #5 Request to p �dditions to and remodeling of MODIFI- CATION an existing s i ngI e alb iel 1 in g i ncI udi ng construction of a new entry w i 1 encroach N0.2188 to within 6 feet of the front property 4�here the Code requi res a 10 foot setback) . The prope ROVEI has the following nonconforming features: (1) the CON - T.T(Ah l.. nl_L.' riI.ln I inn_ nv+n v. n.�r•Hnc f'r+ �.�i '.-.4.�r ?.-F.-...}_-. L._�...._i......_1.,...-__., ,..--. CC ''S TO MAYOR DOST:U, COUNCILMAN -CKOFF, MR. WYNN AND DENNIS O'NEIL ON 3-31 EXCERPTFROM COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 1978 RE: AGENDA ITEM G-1/P.C. RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT 2333 PACIFIC DRIVE, CORONA DEL MAR 1Mayor Dostal: Mr. Wynn -- Mr. Wynn: Mr. Mayor, you are in receipt of a recommendation from two of your Commissions, the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission to acquire property located at 2333 Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar above, I believe it's Begonia Park. The property is currently vacant, it's a hilly parcel and if the Council would desire, we have, do have some slides showing how hilly it is. It is legally possible to construct a dwelling on the parcel with access either from, what's the upper street name? Pacific Street or off of Bayside. Legally that could be done, it would require some grading but they could meet the City's Code and construct a structure there. the Planning Commission denied a height variance on the subject parcel and at that time recommended to you that the City appraise it with a, and acquire it. We're suggesting either the recommendations of your two Commissions or delay decision on this Jpending '78-'79 fiscal budget review, which will be to you in April. Mayor Dostal: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this matter? F Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I'm Gordon Glass, architect, Newport Beach. I'm the Griswold's architect and I'd like to just quickly take a minute and bring you up to date as to why we originally requested the variance and what our possible options are from here on out. The Griswolds have owned this property for fifteen years. It probably came as a surprise to many in the City, myself included, that it was a private piece of land rather than an unused piece of public land. Either part of Begonia Park or just an unused remainder scrap of land. It is possible to build on it, we've had a geology report. We've had a soils report --both preliminary, but they both came back positive. With more study.and with quite a bit of expensive engineering, it is possible to build a safe structure on this property. The reason the Griswolds requested a variance was because they are endeavoring in hoping to build on this property, to regain a view up the Bay toward the Pavilion, that they lost in their present home on Pacific Drive just five doors away when a large contemporary residence was buil� next door to them. They lost about 90 degrees of their 180 degree view. It is possible on this property to regain that view. However, because the land is so steep, the height ordinance -2- which was essentially intended, when it was drafted a number of years ago, for the flatlands that prevails in the City, the Height Ordinance makes the volume of building envelope (?) very small. As an example, if you have an absolutely steep cliff, vertical, and you have a 24' height ordinance, it's straight up but.it doesn't go out anywhere. Therefore, there's nothing to build on, so you take this, and do that with it, and you have nothing left. The variance does not exceed the total height of the legal buildable height on the Z of the lot. The variance is intended primarily to make use of the volume of the lot --the air space outside the face of the cliff at the lower end of the lot. Therefore, as the staff report states, any residence that is built on the property within the height ordinance, without a variance, will still do the same job of blocking the view from both the upper street and from the Park. The Park is not a view park; essentially, it's primarily an active park. It was never intended as a view park, it does have a small amount of view from the sidewalk at one corner of the Park, but it's not really a view park of the Bay or the Ocean. So, in asking for the variance, the Griswold�s primarily are intending to solve a particular problem that they have and they have always had this particular view recapture in mind since they lost their portion of their view. Now they would, whether the Council does agree to an appraisal and then next year's budget allows purchase, at this time, since that is still unknown, the Griswold v would still like to leave their options open as to other avenues of the use of the lot. Mayor Dostal: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Glass? Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that wishes to address the Council? Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Paul Hummell. I live at 416 Heliotrope, Corona del Mar and I am addressing you as a private citizen. I'm not here to discuss the manner of the proposed construction, ah; whether or not it should be granted as a variance or whether or not it is a suitable development atthat location. But I would like to bring to your attention something that I have had an occasion to become aware of in the last few days and as you recall, in the last Planning Commission Agenda, there were two proposals to develop Bluff lots in Corona del Mar. As a result of those two Bluff lot questions, and they both had particular problems, unique problems, the Planning Commission recommended to the City staff that a Bluff Ordinance be prepared. The first draft of that Bluff ordinance will be on the Planning Commission's Study Session this Thursday. I have read that first draft and I noticed a couple of things that I think that perhaps you should consider when you make your decision regarding the placing of the appraisal or the delaying your decision as suggested in the ; -3- staff report. I found in that draft of the Bluff ordinance that when it referred to some of the sections of the General Plan that had to do with grading ordinances, bluff setbacks, and so forth, there was quite a deficiency in the fact that the General Plan had not been carried out to too great a degree in some of those areas. There is also a phrase in that report that speaks to an action by the Coastal Commission that was to have taken place in February of.1978 which will end tomorrow., February 1978 will be over tomorrow. I believe I understand that the Coastal Commission has already made a decision on bluff development ordinance for Orange County and including Newport Beach. Now here's my point. When the City tells someone that they cannot use a lot, I think it follows that that person is entitled to have the City take some steps toward the possible acquisition of that lot. I think that's been generally what has taken place in the past in the City in those matters. It occurs to me that if it is not the City that is imposing a. regulation upon this particular lot, or any of the Bluff lots, that prevents their development, in plain language I don't think the City should be the ones who are faced with the obligation of acquisition. I think that that other authority and perhaps you need to talk with the City Attorney on which comes first here and what the precedent, and whether there's vested interest in the application. But I would think that before we feel obligated to enter into this, and the appraisal, and the acquisition of this or any other Bluff lots that we thoroughly, I recommend that you consider looking into thoroughly the results of the Coastal Commission action. Thank you very much. Mayor Dostal: Any questions of Mr. Hummell? Is there anyone else that wishes to address the Council? Is there anyone on the Council that wishes to see the slides that the staff has mentioned? OK, if there's anyone else that wishes to have the slides, alright, I think we've all seen the property. Ok, any further, is there anyone else that wishes to address the Council? Alright, for the pleasure of the Council M (What is the pleasure of the Council?) Mr. Mayor. Mayor Dostal: Yes. McInnis (?): I wonder if we could get a staff reaction on the comments relating to the Coastal Commission. Mayor Dostal: Mr. O'Neil. O'Neil: Apparently the Community Development Director has some information with regards to the Coastal Commission Bluff Guidelines and it may be appropriate to have him comment but in any event, I would imagine or I would think that it would not be inappropriate if the Council wishes to h.re an appraiser to appraise the property for the possible future acquition for park -4-- and open space because I can't conceive of how that could possibly conflict with anything the Coastal Commission would be considering. Mayor Dostal: Mr. Hogan. Mr. Hogan: Mr. Mayor, the Coastal Commission is in the process of adopting a set of guidlines. I.don't know whether they've been completed yet or whether they've acutally adopted them or not but those guidelines did include some fairly heavy restriction on blufftop development, or bluff face development and, but they would in any case be used as guidelines so they would have to be applied in each individual instance and until the Commission took action regarding this particular, or a particular piece of property, there's no way that the property owner nor the City could know the actual effect of the guidelines because they are just that and not ah, ordinances or something of this kind that the City would adopt. McInnis (?) Mr. Mayor. Mayor Dostal: Yes. Speaker (McInnis?): I would gather that this piece of property, however, is not under Coastal Commission jurisdiction. It's an exempt piece of territory, is it not? mayor-Bastali- Mr. Hogan: Well, it's one of those pieces of territory, Mr. Mayor, that has a, made a part of the City's responsibility for develop- ment or for approval in the Exemption Clause (?) and in that Exemption Clause it was approved for the City, no specifications were made as far as ah, the City's being responsible for following the guidelines. So this is something that really, we really haven't ah, thrashed out. Mayor Dostal: Thank you, Mr. Hogan. Yes. Mr. Ryckoff. Ryckoff: Would it be premature to get appraisals since the Coastal Commission hasn't ah, spoken on the matter? Mayor Dostal: Mr. Wynn? Mr. Wynn: I would estimate, Mr. Mayor; that it would cost between $3,500 and $5,000. We've not obtained any estimates ah, for the appraisal and it would take maybe 60 days, 45 to 60 days to get the appraisal done. And I think it's a value judgment, really, on whether the Council wishes to proceed with an appraisal or wait and consider it along with the budget consideration. I don't think I could respond any more directly than that. Speaker: Mayor. Mayor Dostal: Yes, Councilman McInnis. McInnis: To use a term that the City Manager uses from time to time, I think there's capability within the City to do what Bob calls a "windshield appraisal" every now and then. That's where you walk by and kick the tires and which -5- would be good enough as far as I'm concerned to get it into the budget review which is gonna come off very suddenly now. That would be the type of action that I would recommend that we take.A we see from that windshield appraisal there's something we want to pursue on the budget then for goodness sake, order out the formal appraisal which does cost money. Mayor Dostal: I think your suggestion is to take action, Item (b) Delay the decision and direct the staff pending review of the '78-'79 fiscal budget and direct the staff to come back with a quote "windshield appraisal" end of quote. Any other discussion? Yes, Councilman Rogers. Rogers: Mr. Mayor, where does that leave Mr. Griswold? Mayor Dostal: Mr. Wynn. Mr. Wynn: The variance from the City's height regulation has been denied. Ah, they have the right to redesign the structure, or appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Now those are two options that they have, or of just awaiting I guess, the appraisal and the decision of the Council to acquire I guess the property. /Three basic alternatives are still available to them. Mayor Dostal: Any other discussion? What is the.pleasure of the Council? Councilman Kuehn. Did you? Kuehn: No. Mayor Dostal: I don't think there was a motion unless Councilman McInnis' motion was on the floor. McInnis: Well, I will move action (b) on the ah, directing the staff to come up with a "windshield" appraisal. Mayor Dostal: Alright, there's a motion on the floor to support Item (b) on the Agenda. Any further discussion on that motion? All those voting? City Clerk: All ayes. Carried.