Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSweeney Residence (PA2004-206)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 4 November 4, 2004 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: James W. Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3219, iampbell Ca�citv.newoort- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Director's determination of grade for the purpose of measuring structure height for 401 -403 Heliotrope Avenue (PA2004 -206) APPELLANT: Ed Sweeney, Newport Beach Discussion at the previous Planning Commission focused upon the term "fill" or 'filled surface" and the intent behind its inclusion within Section 20.65.030.B. The applicant has submitted several additional letters in support of his position that are within the separate bound folder. The Dodd Appeal The current code was adopted in 1992 after the Planning Commission overruled the Planning Department's determination of grade by upholding an appeal filed by a property owner in 1991. The case centered upon the use of an excavated finished grade rather than the "natural profile" of a sloping lot as the baseline for measuring building height. The staff report for that appeal and the minutes from that meeting are attached for review (Exhibit No. 1). The code in effect at the time of the appeal prior to the 1992 amendment read as follows: "GRADE. For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be the natural grade unless one of the following applies: (1) The Planning Commission has approved a grading plan or map, or a grading permit had been issued on or before October 12, 1972, under which circumstances grade shall be the finished grade as shown on the plan or map so approved or on the plan for which the permit was issued." The staff report states that staff had been measuring from finished grade rather than the natural profile of the site since any previously altered surface within the footprint of the building was presumed to have been permitted even if there was no plan or map. The Appeal of Grade Determination for 401 -403 Heliotrope Ave. November 4, 2004 Page 2 appellant contended that the finished grades that were lower than the natural profile were not part of the original subdivision, not previously approved by the Planning Commission and not part of a grading permit previously issued and therefore were not to be used and that the pre - altered natural profile of the site should be used. During the hearing, the Planning Director indicated that it was his belief that the use of the finished grade related to the lowering of grade and increasing grade was inconsistent with using natural grade as originally set forth in the code. The intent of the natural grade concept was to allow roof planes of a building on a sloping lot to parallel or follow the contour of the slope beneath so to eliminate the creation of a high structure coming straight out and straight down. The director outlined a proposal to amend the definition of grade that would have eliminated the use of altered surfaces entirely. The Planning Commission found that measuring from the excavated finished surface was inconsistent with the practice of using natural grade and upheld the appeal with the expectation that the code amendment that the Planning Director outlined would clarify the issues raised. Amendment No. 743 The Planning Director presented a draft text amendment on March 19, 1992 that would have prohibited the use of any artificially lowered or increased surface (Exhibit No. 2). The concept was not endorsed and the current code language was subsequently developed and adopted. The staff report from April 23, 1992 where the current code language was first introduced and minutes from that meeting in 1992 are attached (Exhibit No. 3). The report indicates that the first draft amendment "would result in the loss of building envelope for sloping lots where retaining walls and filled surfaces were constructed prior to October 12, 1972 and in which case a higher finished grade was established on the site which was used for measuring height." Noteworthy is the reference to the higher finished grade, which modes both retaining walls and filled surfaces. During the 1992 hearings, a sketch was used to demonstrate the existing and proposed standard (Exhibit No. 4). This sketch shows what the filled condition to which they were referring as well as an excavated building condition. Staff believes the intent of the term filled surface does indeed indicate soil placed atop natural grade to increase the elevation of the grade as Commissioner Selich opined at the last meeting. Staff also believes that this filled condition would have had to be used for the purpose of measuring height and it would also have had to be a pre October 12, 1972 condition. Therefore, since the Sweeney grade is likely lower than the natural grade, it is not a filled surface in the context of Section 20.65.030.13. The sketch also gives us an indication as to what the term "excavated surface such a basement or wine cellar' was that was not to be used under any circumstances based upon the current code. Staff believes this provision was the one added to avoid the application of the code that lead to the 1991 appeal. (I Appeal of Grade Determination for 401 -403 Heliotrope Ave. November 4, 2004 Page 3 The research into the intent of the code does bring to light a related issue. The 1992 sketch clearly indicates that the retaining walls and filled surfaces was the grade directly below the building; and therefore, the grade used for the purpose of measuring height. The grade directly below the building has always been used for the purpose of measuring height and there would never have been a need to measure from any surface outside the building footprint. This entire discussion needs to be viewed within the context of 1992 and the code at that time. First, since 1972, the primary surface to be used as the baseline for the purpose of measuring height is, and still remains, natural grade. Second, the entire discussion about retaining walls and filled surfaces related to an exception from the use of natural grade. This exception was, and remains, only applicable to existing, altered conditions created prior to October 12, 1972. Lastly, it is also important to recognize that at that time, the most typical type of residential development were additions to existing buildings and many buildings did not occupy the entire buildable area. Today, it is common to see the demolition of the existing development and new construction to occupy the entire buildable area. What does it all mean? A result of the 1991 interpretation made during the Dodd appeal and the resulting code amendment is that a building on a sloping lot can be constructed higher than the stated height limit depending upon the unique pre -1972 alteration of the lot. Additionally, whether understood or not, homes side by side might have different baseline grades with the resulting homes being at different heights. Lastly, identifying the prior natural grade can be a difficult, subjective and inexact exercise and differing opinions as to what the natural grade is will emerge. Staff believes that an excavated finished grade, within a pre -1972 building footprint that is also below natural grade, is not the grade to be used as the baseline for measuring building height unless it is the grade that was established with the original subdivision or happens to be the grade established by a pre -1972 grading permit. Staff also believes that a filled surface (with or without a retaining wall) within a pre -1972 building footprint that is above natural grade is the grade used for measuring height, unless the grade was part of the original subdivision or part of a pre -1972 grading permit. What do we do when excavated surfaces, retaining walls or filled portions of a lot were created for open space purposes (i.e. yards, pools, driveways, etc.) and not buildings? The record from 1991 and 1992 does not directly answer this question. �J Appeal of Grade Determination for 401 -403 Heliotrope Ave. November 4, 2004 Page 4 How does this apply to the Sweeney appeal? The grade of the Sweeney property was created prior to 1972 and staffs current determination of grade is similar to the interpretation of the 1991 appeal, except however, the grade in question today is the existing finished grade of the entire building envelope rather than the finished grade below an existing building. Additionally, there is not a basement, wine cellar, garage or similar subsurface building area that the grades thereto would not be utilized. What the applicant contends is that we have an excavated lot creating sufficient area for a pool, sideyard and building and that the prior natural grade should be used for height measurement. If we apply the logic of the 1992 Planning Commission, which was to apply natural grade when insufficient direction exists, natural grade should once again be used today. The remaining question is: what was the natural grade of the Sweeney property? Four natural grades have been identified in this case. First, staff believes that natural grade is close to the existing grade based upon photographic evidence from the 1930s. Second, the architect has identified a natural grade within the proposed house plans. Third, RBF has identified a natural grade based upon stereo photographic analysis using air photos from the 1950s. Lastly, the geotechnical engineer Tod Houseal has expressed his opinion as to what the natural grade might have been. If the Commission believes that the natural profile of the site is gentler than the existing grade after looking at the photograph prominently displayed at Cocos in Corona del Mar, staff suggests the natural grade identified in the building plans be used as it will achieve the applicants objective. Identifying either of the remaining higher grades could result in much taller buildings than the neighborhood might expect. The natural grade identified by Mr. Houseal within the Bayside Drive greenbelt is not supported by historical grade data taken from public improvement plans on file with the Public Works Department and historical air photos; therefore, it is not recommended for use by staff for the property. The RBF natural grade is more consistent with historical grade data taken from public improvement plans and historical air photos, so it could be a reasonable depiction of natural grade given the margin of error in the analysis. Section 20.65.030.B has a provision related to the grade approved by the Planning Commission at the time of the subdivision. In that instance, the finished grade is the grade used for height measurement. In essence, the City can approve a finished grade with a subdivision since often times a mass grading effort is undertaken where gullies are filled and terraces are created that have no resemblance to natural terrain. This provision avoids the possibility to use the prior natural grade (assuming it could be identified) that might result in a project out of character with the planned subdivision. This provision is important in that it allows the Commission to approve a finished grade not resembling the natural grade for the purpose of development and height measurement. The relevance of this provision to this matter at hand is in staffs belief that the existing grade is resembles the site plan from Variance No. 581 as it shows a III Appeal of Grade Determination for 401 -403 Heliotrope Ave. November 4, 2004 Page 5 rock outcropping at the northwest corner of the site. Although this plan is not a detailed grading plan and could either be existing or proposed grade and it was not approved with the original subdivision of Corona del Mar, it was a plan approved for development by the Planning Commission. Staff sees little difference between the two examples and, if this theory is valid, it would support the use of the existing grade for the purpose of measuring height today. This interpretation is similar to the interpretation by staff in 1991 that lead to the Dodd appeal. Although there is no clear solution, staff believes that the natural grade concept should guide the Sweeney matter. The most important lesson staff sees in this entire matter is the need to amend the Code to re- define grade and height so a simpler process can be exercised. Any attempt to re- define these terms must be done within the context of current development trends in an equitable manner so that there is a simple system to administer while preserving neighborhood character. Staff is presently working on such a code amendment as authorized by the Planning Commission and City Council. Prep by: es W. ampb I, Senio nner Exhibits: Submitted by: Patricia L. emple anning Director 1. Dodd appeal — staff report and minutes from March 23, 1991 2. Amendment No. 753 — staff report and minutes from March 19, 1992 3. Amendment No. 753 — staff report and minutes from April 23, 1992 4. Grade sketch from Amendment No. 753 5. Applicants supplemental materials (separate bound documents) rJ Planning Commission Meeting May 9. 1991 Discussion Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Appeal of Dick Dodd, architect, from the decision of staffs interpretation of the Zoning Code regarding measuring the height of a single family dwelling on property located at 701 Kings Road. This matter has been brought to the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 20.01.060 E. of the Municipal Code which provides that an applicant who is aggrieved by the denial or a conditional approval of a building permit pursuant to Section 20.01.060 D hereof, may request a hearing on such matter before the Planning Commission. In this particular case, the applicant is in disagreement with staffs interpretation of the definition of the term "Grade" as it applies to the measurement of building heights. In accordance with Section 20.02.025 of the Municipal Code the term "Grade" is defined as follows: GRADE. For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be natural grade unless one of the following applies: (1) The Planning Commission has approved a grading plan or map, or a grading permit had been issued on or before October 12, 1972, under which circumstances grade shall be finished grade as shown on the plan or map so approved or on the plan for which the permit was issued. (2) Flood Hazard Areas. The height limit for the inhabitable areas of all new structures or addition to existing structures, excluding all accessory structures, on a parcel of land within the Flood Hazard Area, shall be measured from the site's required pad elevation or existing natural grade, whichever is higher. Pad elevation is determined by the Flood Hazard Protection Maps recognized by the Building Department as part of flood safety requirements and maps adopted by City Council. Notwithstanding the building pad elevations established by the Flood Hazard Protection Maps, the minimum required first floor finished floor elevation for the interior living areas of all new structures shall be at least 6.27 Mean Sea Level consistent with the Public Works Department standard for bulkhead elevation. Ex. i TO: Planning Commission - 2. It is staffs interpretation that in accordance with paragraph (1) of the above Code section, when "natural grade" has been altered as part of a previous development of a building site, and such alteration occurred prior to October 12, 1972 (date of adoption of current height limit provisions), "grade" for the purpose of measuring building height for any new construction shall be the finished grade as shown on the previously approved grading plan or map approved by the Planning Commission or on the plan approved in conjunction with the previous development. Staff makes no distinction whether the finished grade of the previous development was established by an approved grading plan or an approved building permit. It is the applicant's contention that in the case of his project located at 701 Kings Road, the existing finish grades of the four building pads that exist on the property, were not established in conjunction with the Planning Commission's approval of a grading plan or map, nor were they established by an approved grading permit. Therefore, building heights . should be measured from the original natural grade that existed on the site prior to the original construction of the existing dwelling. Such a distinction is significant to the applicant inasmuch as the existing finish grades on the site are as much as 7± feet below the original grade of the site, which results in a building envelope that is 7± feet lower. It should also be noted that Section 20.02.026 of the Municipal Code includes provisions which allows the Planning Commission to establish grade through the approval of a Site Plan Review when the following findings can be made: 1. That the proposed grade being requested by the applicant is reasonable and comparable with the . grades of surrounding properties and that the establishment of such grade will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 2. That the proposed grade and related development will not result in the loss of any public views and shall be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood in which the project is located. That the existing grade on the subject property, is inappropriate and unworkable for the purpose of measuring height. 4. - That the proposed grade being requested by the applicant is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. Staff has indicated to the applicant that the Site Plan Review procedure would be available to him for the project at 701 Kings Road. It should be further noted that staff and the applicant will have some drawings at the Planning Commission meeting which . further explain the pertinent issues involved. 1 TO: Planning Commission - 3. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director Wffl " „ Ward - Senior Planner COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1991 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEIC Discussion Items: Discussion Iteffi No.l Appeal of Dick Dodd, architect, from the decision of staffs interpretation of the Zoning Code regarding measuring the height Appeal of a single family dwelling on property located at 701 Kings Road. Upheld Planning Director Hewicker distributed to the Planning Commission copies of a document he had prepared which contained some of the existing language regarding height limits and grade as it appears in both the Zoning Code and the Building Code. Mr. Hewicker traced the language back to October 12, 1972, when the City adopted new height regulations as a result of a citizens' committee that was formed to study the issue of height and bulk of buildings in the City. The committee's recommendations included dividing the City into five different Height Limitation Zones with basic height limitations for each zone and a higher height limit allowed by use permit. At the same time, the definition of the term "grade" was changed, basically, to what currently appears in the Zoning Code, and Mr. Hewicker read the language as it appears in Section 20.020.25 B. Mr. Hewicker continued that it was the desire of staff to eliminate the mention of October 12, 1972, as it refers to a way of measuring grade prior to 1972 and a way to measure grade after 1972, resulting in an ambiguity which was not the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Hewicker stated that the original intent of the regulation was to allow the roof planes of a building on a sloping lot to parallel or follow the contour of the slope beneath so to eliminate the creation of a high structure coming straight out and straight down. In this kind of design, it is possible to elevate the grade slightly so as to provide a level floor at ground Ievel and to build a retaining wall and actually cut into the slope in the rear so as to provide either a structure with a one story elevation on the street level and a two story elevation at the rear or some kind of a split level structure in the middle. Continuing, Mr. Hewicker said that in past years interpretation of grades on hillsides has been done in such a way that if someone once cut into the slope and then, at some future date wanted to add on to the original structure, instead of honoring the original topography of the land and measuring from the natural grade, the 1972 reference was interpreted to mean the height of the -23- A� COMMISSIONERS ROLL CALL May 9, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH structure must be measured from the lower level. Following that same interpretation, if the structure had been raised on the front of the lot prior to 1972, grade must be measured from that higher elevation, and Mr. Hewicker stated that was not the intent of the regulations. Referring once again to the handout, Director Hewicker read the language from the section of the Building Code regarding Exceptions from Grading Permit Requirements, which lists, "An excavation below finished grade for basements, footings, retaining walls or other structures authorized by a valid Building Permit." He said that the Planning Commission had had many discussions regarding applicants desiring to excavate for a basement, gravity furnace, etc., and he believed that these type excavations should not be interpreted as needing a grading permit for purposes of measuring height under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hewicker stated his suggested amendments to the Zoning Code as being: 1) eliminate reference to October 12, 1972; 2) clarify definition of natural grade to include vertical location undisturbed by any man -made forces; and 3) add language to clarify that height is not measured from excavated floor surfaces or fill that has been placed on the site which artificially raises or lowers approved grades. In the ensuing discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Hewicker, it was agreed that in areas graded for subdivisions where pads have been created, natural grade is the pad as approved by action of the Planning Commission and City Council when approving the subdivisions. In attempting to determine natural grade in some of the older portions of the City, staff would use whatever data might be available, such as older photographic information or topographic surveys. If the reference to October 12, 1972 were deleted from the Zoning Code, any future need for determination of grade would be processed through a Site Plan Review procedure. Dodd, 201 Shipyard Way, addressed the Planning Commission stated that he did agree with most of the changes amended above for the determination of grade in the Zoning ; however, he stated that the definition of grade is contained -24- INDEX COMMISSIONERS May 9, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX in the Grading Ordinance and not in the Uniform Building Code. He felt that the effort should be made to conform the Building Code definition with that of the Zoning Code. Mr. Dodd stated that he was protesting a decision by Planning Department staff and their interpretation of the Zoning Code. regarding his method of measuring the height of a structure on property located at 701 Kings Road, and he was requesting that the Planning Commission make a determination whether the staffs decision was correct or not. In the ensuing discussion between Mr. Dodd, Mr. Hewicker, and Commissioner Pomeroy, it was ascertained that Mr. Dodds issue of measurement would be resolved by the recommended changes . to the Municipal Code outlined by staff. Motion Motion was made to uphold the appeal of the applicant and to All Ayes instruct staff to bring back clarifying language of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the establishment of grade to the Planning Commission. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Permit No 1852 Discussion rtem No.2 UP1852 Request consider revocation proceedings on Permit No. 1852 that permitte he establishment of Hassan's Cafe with on -sale beer and wine on pro rty located at 3325 Newport Boulevard in the No C -1 District. The r ocation proceedings are in conjunction with Revocation the failure of the apple nt to purchase required in -lieu parking permits from the City. Set P.R. Assistant City Attorney Flory info ed the Commission that she 6 -20 -91 had met with Mr.. Hassan, and discuss the possible action of the Planning Commission, and that Mr. san had indicated a willingness to begin making payment on the i ieu parking fees in arrears. Mr. Hassan was advised by Assistant Ci Attorney Flory that she would prepare an agreement for the monthl ayment and that the Planning Commission would set the amount. Sh dicated that due to the construction taking place on Newport Bo vard and the loss of the Municipal Parking Lot, Mr. Hassan want o -25- V s Planning Commission Meeting March 19. 1992 Discussion Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO:. Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Amendment No. 753 Request to'initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code so as to revise the definition of "Grade ". INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Application This item involves a request to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code so a$ to revise the 'definition of the term "Grade" as provided in Section 20x02.025 of said Code. ?amendment procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.84 of the Municipal Code. Background At its meeting of May 9, 1991, the Planning Commission upheld an appeal of Dick Dodd, architect, from the decision of staffs interpretation of the Zoning Code regarding the definition of the term "Grade" as it relates to measuring the height of a single family dwelling on property located at 701 Kings Road. The Commission's opinion in upholding the appeal was that in subdivisions where pads have been created as part of the subdivision approval process, natural grade is the pad elevation as approved by action of the Planning Commission- and the City Council when approving the subdivision. For older portions of the City which were subdivided without reference to specific pad elevations, the determination of natural grade should be made by staff based on whatever information is available, such as older photographic information or topographic surveys. The action of the Planning Commission also included instruction for staff to bring back clarifying language for . . the Code as it relates to the definition of "Grade." For the Planning Commission's information, staff has attached a copy of the staff report for the above mentioned, appeal and an excerpt of the May 9, 1991 Planning Commission minutes which:provide additional background. Analysis As requested by the Planning Commission, staff has prepared revised language to Section 20.02.025.8'6f- the Ivfuiucipal`:Code, which clarifies the, manner in which grade shall be determined for the purpose' of measuring building heights:. :The revised language defines the term "grade" as "the unaltered natural vertical location of. the ground surface" unless one of EX Td Planning CommissiQn,- 2• r. two exceptions. apply_ Such terminology incorporates language from the Uniforu> Building Code so. as to, minin i any cronfusion between the Builduig CQ, and° the Zoning Code: The firs#, exception which is, presented in; Paragra ai }; (1), is fo> sines rvh ch haXe . grading glans-. %r maps t 4 were. approved: at tlie. time Qi mb& s lit sypl ca shall be flu shad grade.as slaoaxn on the Flag or s1 app�a�red *. case of." sites that predated the req*ement for a; gradzrig P I � D, shall be respQgw' deterituning the l i tiosa a gs t Pu> pose of . height,. The suggested language also includes the crifena that tfie Plannm Depa use to deterua ne grads m 4414. cases. The cisteria iticludes the exzSt g Qn -site and coatours,, its welt as the elevations- an4l corato cs a£ adiott ?ng. and riearby, pF� The suggested'_ lguagg also irickudes a p{ta�nsi4flhrkt AFe @s tie use of ecavatd qr filled grade surfaces that havc bezu establislig4 on, b4 _0n' saes wl>aich artif cW t Y. rats; oz lower the natural grade of the stte Famples of such asaE{ea.0 ©u1d be bevenxs wine cellars, berms or raised suraes. The second eteegtrosx for de�ng. "grade" has to. dp,with sites located in k74Q4 Hazard Areas within the City. and is covered in Paragraph.:(2)1 o€ the Cflde Section staff is not suggesting sub tantive chaisges to this.Paragrap %xiwexer it has been rrientioned by the Building Degaztg ent who is responsible for adiain}sienzig the l"tation�l ��Sl �ur� Program for the ON that P'mm", ph 2 . inc-0rrectly mares. reference to Ffaod I �zard' Protection Maps. Said maps are correctly called, Hpod Insurance ktate Iv�aps, Therefore, staff has included tlie, appropriate change.. iilti}catJl. ugeested Action . Should the Planning CQn=* Sion wish to, consider:zny of the above mentioned. changes, it, is. suggested.that staff, he directed.to scbedule a public hearing for the Planning C© mssiori meeting of April. 23, 1992. . PLANNING DEPARTMENT. JAMES D: HEWICKER, Director W. Wffflam Ward. Senior Planner Attachments: I ( March 19, 1992 COMMISSIONERS • . 0tt� � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent a Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to revise the definition of "Grade ". ;sponse to questions posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. lcker stated that inasmuch as October 12, 1972, was the last the Section regarding the definition of "Grade" was modified, lems have occurred because one property may be treated ently from another property and they could be adjoining ;rties. Mr. Hewicker concurred with Commissioner Gross' nent that the proposed Amendment concerns problems that occurred in the past. owing a discussion between the Commission and staff regarding proposed revisions to the definition of "Grade", Mr. Hewicker ad that staff would submit examples in the upcoming staff :ion was made and voted on to schedule a public hearing for Planning Commission.meeting of April 23, 1992. i s Director Hewicker discussed items on the Joint City lanning Commission Agenda of March 23, 1992, with the m was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Gross the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1992. 11:15 p.m. NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -37- D -1 A753 Set for PH 4/23/92, Add'1 Business IJoint CC/ ' PC Mtg cross Excused `6 20:02.010 - INTENT. AND PURPOSE... The intent and purpose of this ,Chapter is, to establish regulations,on the height of buildings, throughout the City in order to ensure that the unique character and. scale of Newport Beach is preserved during that time when the. General Plan is being developed. . This chapter creates five (5) height limitation zones which govern building height but allow design flexibility with City review. These regulations shall be reviewed and revised as necessary following the adoption of the General . Plan. (Ord. 1454 §A (part), .1972). . 20.02.020: EFFECT OF. CHAPTER. All Sections. of tins Title shall be, subject to the provisions- of ,this .Chapter. (Ord. 1454 §4 .(part),, 1972). 20.02:025 DEFINITIONS. A. ;: . HEIGHT OF BUILDING The height of a structure. shall, be the vertical distance between grade,at:an 'point and.the highest point of the structure directly above, provided that a roof shall be.measured;.to:the average height of the roof, but that no part of the roof shall extend more than five (5) feet `above the permitted height - in:.the' height limitation. zone. Page 14 HEIGHT LIMITS Chapter 20.02 Chapter 20.02 HEIGHT, LIMITS ; Sections: 20.02.010 Intent and Purpose. 20.02.020 Effect of Chapter. 20.02.025 Definitions...-... 20.02.026 EstablisI nent.:of Grade: : 20.01030 Height Limitation Zones. 20.02:035 Planned! Community. Districts... . 20.02.040 Planning Commission or City Council Review. 20:02:050 ,: Existing Structures. and Permits.:.. 20.02:060 Chimneys and Vents. . 20.02:061 Architectural Features and Solar Equipment. 20.02.062 Flag Poles. ,. 20:02.063 Parapet Walls „Elevator and Mechanical Penthouses, and ..Mechanical Equipment. 20.02.065 Skylights and hoof Windows. 20.02.070 Fences, Walls,. and Plantings: 20.02.080 Church Exception. 20.02090 Airport Height Limits... 20:02.010 - INTENT. AND PURPOSE... The intent and purpose of this ,Chapter is, to establish regulations,on the height of buildings, throughout the City in order to ensure that the unique character and. scale of Newport Beach is preserved during that time when the. General Plan is being developed. . This chapter creates five (5) height limitation zones which govern building height but allow design flexibility with City review. These regulations shall be reviewed and revised as necessary following the adoption of the General . Plan. (Ord. 1454 §A (part), .1972). . 20.02.020: EFFECT OF. CHAPTER. All Sections. of tins Title shall be, subject to the provisions- of ,this .Chapter. (Ord. 1454 §4 .(part),, 1972). 20.02:025 DEFINITIONS. A. ;: . HEIGHT OF BUILDING The height of a structure. shall, be the vertical distance between grade,at:an 'point and.the highest point of the structure directly above, provided that a roof shall be.measured;.to:the average height of the roof, but that no part of the roof shall extend more than five (5) feet `above the permitted height - in:.the' height limitation. zone. ra Page 15 HEIGHT LIMITS. Chapter 20.02 B. GRADE. For the purpose of. measuring height, the grade shall . be natural gFede unless one of the following applies: 'i2) Rood Hazard Areas The =height limit for .the I nhabitable areas `:of all geW stradtures or addition do existing - structures, excluding all.accessory structures, on a pxcel of .1and :within the "Flood :Hazard Area, shall be momprpd from the site's required pad elevation.or.existing natural grade, whichevgr is higher. Fad elevation is ileternuned•:byxhe ivlaps recognized by =tht Building. Department .as .part of:tlood safety requirernents and maps adopted by .':City Council. Notwithstanding the building pad eievaiions. established by the Maps, the = :minimum,.required first floor .finished .floor . elevation for the: interior living areas.of all new structures shall,:be, at least 6.27 Mean Sea Level :consistent with the Public Works Department,_standard for bulkhead elevation. (Ord. 90=43, January .9; .1991) 20.02.026 ESTABLISHMENT OF _GRf1I In ;, case where. natural grade or firished grade as, referred to herein is, in the : :ju0gernot of %t Planning Comte sission inappropriate or unvorkabie for the purpose of measuring h eight, t}le Flannlr}g Commission shall- establish- grade :in -such a way to.: nsure..that the intent or,purpose of Chapter 20:02 is fulfilled. The establishment of, grade by the Planning.Comrnission or:$y the" city Council upon = appeal or review.:of the decision of the :Planning;Commission,.shalf require the I approval•of•a site ;Plan Review which ; shall -:be.obtained in accordance. with Section 20.01:070: A. `FINDINGS. In order to- establish .grade;..the Planning- Commission or., the City Council, upon appeal or review of the decision of the Planning. Commission, shall make:ihe following findings in addition to those required by Section 20.10.070: r , Page 16 HEIGHT LINT Ck#pler 2PJi2 1. That the proposed grade being requested by the applicant is reasonable and comparable with the grades of surrounding prop" is and. that the . establishment of such grade will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious 'to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 2. That the proposed grade and related development will not result in the loss of any public views and shall be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood in which the project is located. 3. That the existing grade on the subject property, is inappropriate and unworkable for the purpose of measuring height. 4. That the proposed grade being requested by the applicant is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. (Ord. 91 -8, March 27, 1991; Ord. 90-43, January 9, 1991). 0 ' Planning Commission Meeting ARril 23: 1992 Item No. 7 CTI'Y OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department. SUBJECT: Amendment No. 753 (Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code so as to revise the definition of the term "Grade." INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach This item involves a request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code so as to revise the definition of the term "Grade." Amendment procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.84 of the Municipal Code. At its meeting of March 19, 1992, the Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing to consider Amendment No. 753 at its meeting of April 23, 1992. As part of the consideration of this item at the March 19, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, staff prepared a report which provided extended background concerning the necessity of the proposed changes to the definition of the term "Grade." Staff has attached a copy of that staff report with related attachments for the Planning Commission's information. Since the preparation of the March 19, 1992 staff report, staff has had further discussions concerning the proposed changes to the definition of "Grade." Said discussion has been related to the fact that the proposed definition in the staff report of March 19, 1992 will result in the-loss of building envelope for sloping sites where retaining walls and filled surfaces were constructed prior to October 12, 1972 and in which case a higher finished grade was established on the site which was used for measuring height. It is staff's opinion that in such cases, the appropriate grade for measuring height is the higher finished grade resulting from the filled condition. As a result of this further discussion, staff has made additional changes to the previously suggested language for the definition of "Grade." The revised language is set forth in the attached excerpt of the Zoning Code identified as the April 23, 1992 Revision. Ex . 3 TO: Planning Commission,- 2. Staff has also prepared an exhibit which graphically portrays the resulting building envelopes that result from a lot with a cut condition as well as one for a filled condition. Suggested Action Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend the approval of Amendment No. 742 to the City Council, it is suggested that the attached Resolution No. be adopted. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER,. Director am Ward Senior Planner Attachments: Excerpt of the. Zonmg Code; April 23,1992; Revision . Diagram showing building: envelopes resulting from the most recent revisions to suggested definition Planning Commission staff report, dated. March 19, 1992 with related attachments Resolution 20.02.010 20.02.020 20.02.025 20.02.026 20.02.030 20.02.035 20.02.040 20.02:050 20.02.060 20.02.0'61 20.02.062 20.02.063 20.02.065 20.02.070 20.02.080 20.02.040 EXCERPT OF ZONING CODE APRIL. 23, 1992 REVISION HEIHHT LIMIT$ Chapter 20.02 HEIGHT LIMITS Intent and Purpose. Effect of Chapter. Definitions. Establishment of Grade. Height Limitation Zones. Planned Community Districts. Planning Commission or City Council Review. Existing Structures and Permits. Chimneys and Vents. Architectural Features and Solar Equipment. Flag Poles. Parapet Walls, Elevator and Mechanical Penthouses, and Mechanical Equipment. Skylights and Roof Windows. Fences; Walls, and Plantings. Church Exception. Airport Height Limits. 20.02.010 INTENT AND PURPOSE. The intent and purpose of this Chapter, is to establish regulations on the height of buildings throughout the City in order to ensure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved during that time when the General Plan is being developed. This chapter creates five (5) height limitation zones which govern building height but allow design flexibility with City review. These regulations shall be reviewed and revised as necessary following :the adoption of the General Plan. (Ord. 1454 §'4 (part), 1972). 20.02.020 EFFECT OF CHAPTER. 1 All Sections of this Title shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter: (Ord. 1454 § 4 (part), 1972). 'V Page 15 HEIGHT LIMITS Chapter 20.02 20.02.025 DEFINITIONS. A. HEIGHT OF BUILDING. The height of a structure shall be the vertical distance between grade at any point and the highest point of the structure directly above, provided that a roof shall be measured to the average height of the roof; but that no part of the roof.shall extend more than five (5) feet above the permitted height in the height limitation zone. B. GRADE. For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be gnaw ., ....;. , .; . �.., .. 5 natural grade unless one of the following applies: (2) Flood Hazard Areas. The height limit for the inhabitable areas of all new structures or addition to existing structures;. excluding all accessory structures, on a parcel of land within the Flood Hazard Area, shall be measured from the site's required pad elevation or existing natural grade, whichever is higher. Pad elevation is determined by the Maps recognized by the Building Department as part : of flood: safety requirements and maps adopted by City Council. Notwithstanding the building pad elevations established by the O € t � Maps, the min* required first floor. :finished floor elevation for the interior living .areas of all new structures shall be at least 6.27 Mean Sea Level consistent with the Public Works Department standard for bulkhead.elevation. (Ord. 90 -43; January 9, 1991) vq' Page 16 HEIGHT IBM Chapter 20.02 20.02.026 ESTABLISHMENT OF GRADE. In a case where natural grade or finished grade as referred to herein is, in the judgement of the Planning Commission, inappropriate or unworkable for the purpose of measuring height, the Planning Commission shall establish grade in such a way to insure that the intent or purpose of Chapter 20.02 is fulfilled. The establishment of grade by the Planning Commission or by the City Council upon appeal or review of the decision of the Planning Commission, shall require the approval of a Site Plan Review which shall be obtained in accordance with Section 20.01.070. A FINDINGS. In order to establish grade, the Planning Commission or the City . Council, upon appeal or review of the decision of the Planning Commission, shall make the following findings in addition to those required by Section 20.10.070: L. That the proposed grade being requested by the applicant is reasonable and comparable with the grades of surrounding properties and that the establishment of :such grade will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 2. That the proposed grade and related development will not result in the loss of any public views and shall be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood in which" the project is located. 3. That the existing grade on the subject property, is inappropriate and unworkable for the purpose of measuring height. 4. That the proposed grade being requested by the applicant is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. (Ord. 91 -8, March 27, 1991; Ord. 90-43, January 9, 1991). �N A� 4L F- w7 SA lu 7. lu This Page Intentionally Left Blank IFA