HomeMy WebLinkAbout26 - Rowe Residence, 2231 Pacific Drive Appeal�EwcpR>
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Hearing Date:
May 24, 1999
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Agenda Item No.:
25
y^.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Staff Person:
Patricia L. Temple
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949)644 -3200
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250
Supplemental Re Ort
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT:
Rowe Residence
2231 Pacific Drive
PURPOSE OF
APPLICATION: An appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission which upheld the
decision of the Modifications Committee, which denied a request to change
Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538. The Condition of Approval
requires that use of an attic space over a garage be limited to storage only,
and that the storage area is not to be used as additional living space. The
applicant is requesting that the condition of approval be changed to allow the
area over the garage to be converted to living area and used as a home office.
SUGGESTED
ACTION: Concur with the determination of staff related to the changes needed to bring
• the project into conformance with the original approval of the Modification
Committee, incorporate as additional conditions of approval of Modification
4538, and remove the appeal from calendar.
Discussion
On Wednesday, May 12, 1999, the Planning Director met with Mr. Phil Rowe and his attorney to
discuss what changes to garage and storage space would be needed to be in conformance with the
approval of the Modification Committee, and, further, to be consistent with the Uniform Building
Code.
In order to be considered in compliance with the planning approval, the following changes were
agreed to:
• Removal of all plumbing and connections in the storage space. Water service in the garage shall
be limited to a water heater, sink, and laundry connections.
• Remove all cabinetry and furniture from the storage space. Cabinetry may be relocated to the
garage to serve the laundry area.
• Remove the telephone connection from the storage area. A telephone connection may be
installed in the garage.
The Building Director also reviewed what additional changes would be needed to determine the
. storage area as a non - habitable area. This is needed to allow the maintenance of a loft within the
storage space which does not meet minimum clearance requirements. The following will
accomplish this:
• Removal of the carpet from the storage area.
• Recordation of a covenant stating that the garage and storage are not habitable floor area and
may not be used for living space.
If these changes are implemented, staff is of the opinion that the project will be in compliance with
the original approval of the Modification Committee. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to these
changes. If the City Council supports the recommendation of staff, the applicant withdraws the
appeal.
Submitted by:
SHARON Z. WOOD
Assistant City Manager
Prepared by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
� ! . T
Page 2
•
r1
u
o°
m
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item No.:
Staff Person:
May 10, 1999
17
Marc Myers
(949)644 -3210
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: Rowe Residence
2231 Pacific Drive
PURPOSE OF
APPLICATION: An appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission which upheld the
decision of the Modifications Committee, which denied a request to change
Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538. The Condition of Approval
requires that use of an attic space over a garage be limited to storage only,
and that the storage area is not to be used as additional living space. The
applicant is requesting that the condition of approval be changed to allow the
area over the garage to be converted to living area and used as a home office.
SUGGESTED
ACTION: Approve, modify or deny:
• Modification Permit No. 4843
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block D, Corona del Mar Tract
ZONE: R -1 (Single Family Residential)
OWNER: Phil and Mary Rowe, Corona del Mar
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting of April 8, 1999, the Planning Commission upheld the decision of the Modification
Committee to require the area above the garage to be limited to storage use only, and not as living
space. The applicant "finished" the area above the garage by converting the storage area to living
space which was specifically prohibited by the Modification Committee. The conversion of the
storage area was done against the specific findings and conditions of Modification No. 4843 and
without the benefit of the appropriate permits. Since the Modification application did not include a
request to build living area over the garage and the applicant agreed to the condition of approval
limiting the area over the garage to storage, and found that use of the existing garage beyond
storage would worsen the existing unsafe traffic condition, the Planning Commission denied the
appeal. A copy of the staff report to the Planning Commission and an excerpt of the meeting
minutes are attached for the Council's review.
Based on the appeal application, the applicant feels that the decision of the Planning Commission to
deny the request was "arbitrary and capricious" and was an "emotional and punitive response to the
applicant's failure to obtain the necessary permits" and that the decision was not based on existing
building or land use restrictions. The applicant believes that denial of the request deprives them of
the lawful use and enjoyment of their property. A copy of the Application to Appeal the Decision
of the Planning Commission is attached for the City Council's review.
Submitted by:
SHARON Z. WOOD
Prepared by:
MARC W. MYERS
Assistant City Manager Associate Planner
Attachments: Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 8, 1999
Appeal Application
Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
Page 2
0
I*
E
0
l @x'POgr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
o ° COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�n PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item No.:
Staff Person:
Period:
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Rowe Residence
2231 Pacific Drive
April 8, 1999
1
Marc Myers
(949) 644 -3210
14 days
PURPOSE OF
APPLICATION: An appeal of the decision of the Modifications Committee, which denied a
request to change Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538. The
Condition of Approval requires that use of an attic space over a garage be
limited to storage only, and that the storage area is not to be used as
additional living space. The applicant is requesting that the condition of
approval be changed to allow the area over the garage to be converted to
living area and used as a home office.
ACTION: Approve, modify or deny:
• Modification Permit No. 4843
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block D, Corona del Mar Tract
ZONE: R 71 (Single Family Residential)
OWNER: Phil and Mary Rowe, Corona del Mar
Points and Authority
• Conformance with the General Plan and Zoning
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.
• Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act)
It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing
Facilities).
• Modification Permit procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.93 of the
Municipal Code.
16
r \
VICINITY MAP
Y
.LY I�tA�ii Z
F 1M�
SAS OG
r.�
Modification No. 4843=
t Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses
Current Development:
The subject property is developed with a single family residence and two garages.
To the north:
Across Pacific View Drive north of Acacia Avenue are single family residences. Across
Pacific View Drive south of Acacia are two-family Residential units.
To the east:
Are additional single family residences.
To the south:
Across Ba side Drive are additional single family residential homes.
To the west:
Are additional single family residential units.
Appeal of Modification No. 4843
April 8, 1999
Page 2
11
L.J
Background
At its meeting of March 4, 1997, the Modifications Committee approved Modification Permit No.
4538, a request to permit the addition of a storage loft and roof on to an existing accessory structure
that encroaches 15 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback along Bayside Drive. The
justification for the application request was that the structure has existed since 1965, and is
retaining the hillside for additional parking on this lot. Additionally, the existing structure was
uncovered, and the alteration and new roof would improve the aesthetics of the structure to make it
look more residential than industrial. It was found that the site area was of sufficient size to
accommodate the construction of additional living space adjacent to the main structure, and for that
reason, use of the area over the garage was limited to storage only. A copy of the letter of approval
is attached for the Commission's information.
On March 2, 1998, Code Enforcement received a complaint regarding the subject property. The
complaint indicated that work was being done to the area over the garage along Bayside Drive. The
work reported included building and plumbing improvements without the proper permits, and
concerns were raised regarding the possibility of a second dwelling unit.
On October 14, 1999, Code Enforcement received another complaint regarding the subject
property. The complaint directly concerned the occupancy and use of the storage area over the
garage along Bayside Drive. On October 15, 1999, a letter was sent to the owners of the subject
property from the Code Enforcement Department wishing to arrange for an inspection of the
premises.
. On October 26, 1998, a letter was faxed to Code Enforcement from the owner of the subject
property stating their intentions to make the property available for inspection in approximately 2 to
3 weeks due to business travel. Code Enforcement spoke to the owners and made arrangements to
inspect the property November 9, 1998.
0
On November 10, 1998, Code Enforcement sent a letter to the owners of the property
acknowledging the inspection, the additions and changes made to the structure without necessary
permits, and the time frame in which the violations must be permitted or removed and corrected.
On November 11th and 13th, 1998, Code Enforcement received letters from the owners' attorney
acknowledging the owners intent to cooperate with the City, and that the owner had contacted their
contractor and instructed him to apply for the necessary permits and approvals required for the
violations cited in the letter, pursuant to the site inspection.
At its meeting of February 9, 1999, the Modifications Committee denied Modification Permit No.
4843 (unanimous), which was a request to change Condition No. 4 of Modification Permit No.
4538, that limited the floor area over the garage for use as a storage loft only. The Committee
found that conversion of the storage area to living space could set a precedent for the approval of
other similar requests, which could be detrimental to the neighborhood. Additionally, it was found
that the change in use would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and the surrounding
property owners were opposed to the conversion. A copy of the letter of denial is attached for the
Commission's information.
Appeal of Modification No. 4843
April S. 1999
Page 3
It should be noted that the storage area over the garage was converted to living area prior to the
Modification request to permit the conversion. Additionally, no building, electrical, mechanical or
plumbing permits were obtained for the work to convert the approved storage area to living area. .
The property owner subsequently filed an appeal of the Modification Committee's decision, based
in part on the misrepresentations that the proposed addition would be used as a rental unit and
adversely impact the neighborhood surrounding the subject property.
Statement from the Appellant
The appellant does not believe that the. Modifications Committee had adequate or accurate facts at
the time of the hearing and they do not agree with the findings of the committee. The applicant
does not believe that using the area over the garage as a home office would be detrimental to
persons, property and improvements in the area. A copy of the Application to Appeal is attached
for the Commission's review.
The appellant has raised issues related to the specific use of the floor area, the impact of using this
area on the neighborhood, and the enjoyment of his property rights. Additionally, the applicant
does not believe that any views are affected, and that the improvements have improved the
property's appearance and enhanced the neighbor's view. Furthermore, the applicant does not
believe that it is fair for the Modification Committee to use the finding for denial that adequate
space exists within the buildable area of the site for such an addition, rather than in the required
front yard setback area. The applicant emphasized that the converted storage area is to be used as
an office and not as a rental unit. The letters of opposition, support, and appeal by the appellant and
his attorney are attached for the Commission's information.
Analysis
The project as proposed will allow the addition of living area over an existing detached garage
which encroaches 15 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback along Bayside Drive. The
area in question was approved as a storage loft area, and has been converted to living area without
approval of the Modification Committee.
The Modification Committee crafted the original condition of approval to limit the room to storage
use only, with the intent that the room was to remain unfinished and used strictly for storage of the
owner's artwork and sails. Though the condition makes no specific reference to the extent or nature
of the finished condition of the storage area, the fact remains that the intention of the Modifications
Committee was for the area to not be used as living space.
The storage area in question has now been converted to living area with an additional loft area
constructed without necessary approval and permits. Access to the loft area is from an interior
spiral staircase from the main floor of the storage (living) area. The main floor of the storage
(living) area measures approximately 12 feet by 21 feet long. The converted storage area is
completely finished and fully equipped with telephone, electricity, cable television, a heating unit in
the wall, a full size kitchen sink with hot and cold running water, a garbage disposal, an under -
Appeal of Modification No. 4843
April 8, 1999
Page 4
0
counter refrigerator and cupboard space above and below the sink counter. Additionally, the sink -
countertop has a cutout area provided in the countertop space suitable for an apartment size stove or
dishwasher appliance, although it is currently occupied by a filing cabinet.
Also, it should be noted, the previously approved plans identified a new opening to be placed in the
wall that leads beneath the exterior stairs which lead up to the primary residence. Presently, the
area identified as a "new opening" on the approved plans for the original improvements, is a built -
in shelf unit approximately the same size as a door. There is also a 3 inch pipe which leads into the
wall in the area beneath the stairs, which the Building Department indicates is the size commonly
used as a sewage drain line from sanitation facilities. Additionally, the drain lines beneath the sink
lead into the area beneath the exterior stairs.
The loft area measures approximately 8 feet by 14 feet and has an average ceiling height of
approximately 6 feet 6 inches. Based on the field measurements made by staff, the Building
Department has indicated that the additional loft area does not meet the minimum ceiling height
requirements for a living area of this nature. The Building Department has also indicated that the
spiral staircase used to gain access to the additional loft area does not meet the minimum size
requirements for access of this nature.
The Public Works Department is opposed to the garage structure with living area above on Bayside
Drive because it encroaches 15 feet into the required 15 foot setback. The Public Works
Department believes that if the structure is used for storage, it's low level of usage would prevent it
from becoming an increased hazard due to the unsafe traffic condition the encroachment creates
along Bayside Drive. However, should the structure be used for living area, the owners may be
more inclined to utilize the garage below, resulting in a negative affect on the neighborhood by
further contributing to an already unsafe traffic condition along Bayside Drive at that location.
Planning Commission Alternatives
The Planning Commission can either overrule the decision of the Modification Committee and
approve the request, or sustain their action and deny the application.
A decision to overrule the decision of the Modifications Committee would permit the storage area
to be converted to living area and used as an office, provided the necessary permits are obtained for
the improvements made to the storage area. This alternative would not only require that the owner
obtain the appropriate permits for the improvements made to the structure in a timely matter, but
also ensure that the improvements are in compliance with the applicable codes and regulations. In
considering this alternative, it should be acknowledged that the Zoning Code does not restrict
homeowners from constructing detached accessory structures which contain rooms or offices used
for living purposes separate from the main dwelling and used for living, provided the room(s) are
not used as an additional dwelling unit.
The revised findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "A" would implement this alternative.
Appeal of Modification No. 4843
April S. 1999
Page 5
A decision to deny the applicant's appeal and uphold the decision of the Modification Committee
would require the area above the garage to be restored to a storage area. This would support the
Committee's determination that the addition of living area within the front yard setback on
Bayside Drive could be detrimental to the neighborhood due to the more intense utilization of the
area along Bayside Drive, and that additional living area can be accommodated within the
buildable area of the lot. If the Commission selects this alternative, staff suggests an additional
condition to limit the use of the area above the garage to storage only, that the area shall remain
"unfinished ", nonhabitable storage area only, not be used for living purposes, and the area above
the garage shall be returned to an "unfinished ", non - habitable condition within 90 days of the
final decision.
Exhibit "B" containing findings for denial would implement this alternative.
Specific Findings and Recommendations
In order to grant relief to an applicant through a modification permit, the Modifications
Committee or the Planning Commission on review or appeal of the decision of the Committee
shall find 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 such
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 modification is consistent with the
legislative intent of this code.
Since the Zoning Code does not restrict homeowners from constructing detached accessory
structures which contain rooms or offices used for living purposes separate from the main
dwelling, the Planning Commission may find that under the circumstances of this particular case,
the storage room conversion is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Should the Planning Commission
wish to approve Modification No. 4843, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the
attached Exhibit "A" are suggested.
However, the location of the loft area as living space within the 15 foot setback can be found, under
the circumstances of the particular case, to be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort
and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood by adversely affecting
the flow of light and air to the adjoining property since the roof of the garage was built higher to
accommodate the storage area, and the traffic condition due to more intense utilization of the area
along Bayside Drive. Therefore, the Planning Commission could also reasonably make findings
for denial. Should the Planning Commission not wish to approve Modification No. 4843, the
findings and conditions of denial are set forth in Exhibit `B" are attached.
0
Appeal of Modification No. 4843
April 8, 1999
Page 6 g
Submitted by: Prepared by:
. PATRICIA L. TEMPLE MARC W. MYERS
Planning Director Associate Planner
0
Attachments: Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Modification No. 4538 Approval Letter
Modification No. 4843 Denial Letter
Photographs of Subject Property
Letter from Property Owner
Letters from Surrounding Property Owners
Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations
P. \USERS\PLN\BHARED\I PLANCOM\1999\04 -08\m4843tpt
Appeal of Modification No. 4843
April 8. 1999
Page 7 q
EXHIBIT 'W'
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Modification No. 4843
Modification No. 4843
Findines:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
designate the site for "Single Family Detached" residential use and the proposed
development is consistent with this use and is compatible with surrounding land uses.
2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt
under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act
3. The approval of Modification No. 4843 will not, under the circumstances of the case 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 or
improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with
the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons:
• The Zoning Code does not restrict homeowners from constructing detached accessory
structures which contain rooms or offices used for living purposes separate from the
main dwelling and used for living.
• The conversion of the storage to living area will not affect the flow of air or light to
adjoining residential properties.
• The conversion of the storage to living area will not obstruct views from adjoining
residential properties.
• The living space is within the framework of the existing structure and the height of the
structure will not change.
• A condition has been included to further restrict the area from becoming a rental unit.
• 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.
Conditions:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor
plans and elevations except as noted in the following conditions.
2. All applicable conditions of approval for Modification Permit No. 4538 shall remain in
effect with the exception of the following changes. 0
Appeal of Modification No. 4843
April 8, 1999
Page 8 �O
3. The area above the garage shall be permitted to be converted to living area. Prior to
issuance of building permits for the project, the applicant shall provide revised working
. drawings which show proposed work to be completed to the storage area. All applicable
permits must be obtained and the work must be completed within 90 days of this
approval.
r1
4. A covenant to hold the property as a single family building site shall be recorded in the
County Clerk's office.
5. The proposed improvements to the storage area conversion to living space and the loft
addition shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
6. Upon obtaining the appropriate permits for the storage room conversion, the owners shall
provide inspectors full access to the area in question beneath the stairs leading up to the
main structure.
7. The appropriate permits including, but not limited to building, mechanical, electrical
plumbing shall be obtained by the property owners for the improvements within 30 days of
this approval.
8. Additionally, that prior to final of building permits, an inspection of the premises shall be
performed to show to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the improvements have
been completed within these limitations.
Appeal of Modification No. 4843
April S. 1999
Page 9 /'
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF
Modification Permit No. 4843
Findings:
1. The approval of Modification Permit No. 4843 will, under the circumstances of the case 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 or
improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following
reasons:
• The use of the structure for other than storage use will create undue traffic
hazards along Bayside Drive.
• The proposed construction will adversely impact the flow of light and air to
the residential property immediately adjacent and to the subject property.
• The conversion of the storage area to living area will adversely effect the use
the subject property and those in the surrounding neighborhood.
• Improvements to the storage area have been completed without the
necessary approvals and permits.
• The addition of living area within the front yard setback on Bayside Drive
is detrimental to the neighborhood due to the more intense utilization of
the area along Bayside Drive.
• Additional living area can be accommodated within the buildable area of
the lot.
Added Condition for Modification No. 4538:
1. The use of the area above the garage shall be limited exclusively to storage only, and that
the area shall be returned to, and remain "unfinished ", nonhabitable storage area only, and
shall not be used for living purposes, and the storage area above the garage shall be
returned to an "unfinished, non - habitable" condition within 90 days of the meeting which
a final decision was made.
9
0
Appeal of Modification No. 4843
Apol 8, 1999
Page 10 1�2,
f�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644 -3200
Ken Friess
c/o Friess Company Builders
31726 Rancho Rd., 4219
San Juan Capistrano, Ca 92675
Application No:
Applicant:
Address of Property Involved:
Legal Description:
Dear Ken Friess:
MODIFICATION PERMIT
March 6, 1997
4538
Ken Friess
c/o Friess Company Builders
2231 Pacific Drive
Lot 1, Block D, Corona del Mar
Modification Requested: Request to permit the addition of a storage loft and roof to an existing
accessory structure that currently encroaches 15 feet into the required 15 foot front yard setback.
The Modifications Committee on, March 4. 1997, unanimously approved the application subject to
the following conditions:
1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions.
2. That the roof over the garage shall not exceed the height limit (24 feet at the midpoint)
measured from the existing grade of the floor of the garage.
3. That a covenant be recorded to hold the property as a single family dwelling site.
4. That the use of the area above the garage be used for storage only and this area not to be used
as additional living space.
5. That an encroachment agreement and encroachment permit be approved by the Public Works
Department for any proposed work in the public right -of -way.
The Modifications Committee determined in this case that the proposal would not be detrimental to
persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the modification as approved
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
/3
March 6, 1997
Page- 2
would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
and made the following findings:
1. That the proposed alterations to the garage are a logical use of the property that would be
precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for the following
reasons:
• The existing structure has existed since approximately 1965 and is being used as a
retaining wall for the hillside on this property.
• The existing structure has an operable roll -up garage door and is being used for
additional parking on this lot.
• There exists sufficient area located elsewhere within the buildable area to obtain more
living space and for this reason, the only use allowed above the garage would be for
storage use.
• The existing structure is uncovered, and for that reason, a new roof will improve the
aesthetics of the structure.
2. That the proposed alterations to the roof and the additional storage area will not be
detrimental to the surrounding area or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use
because:
• The pitch of the roof required to cover the structure results in a roof element that is
more aesthetically pleasing than a flat roof.
• The volume of space above the garage that is created by adding a roof is only to be
used for storage and is not to be used for additional living area.
3. That the proposed alterations will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential
properties because:
• There are no other residential structures adjacent to the garage on this side along
Bayside Drive.
4. A new garage door, new siding and new roof will contribute to the overall look of the
building which results in an accessory structure that fits in with the residential character of
the neighborhood.
I*
�Y
March 6, 1997
Page - 3
5. That this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing
Facilities).
6. The proposed roof and storage area will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining
residential properties.
7. That the proposed roof and storage area will not obstruct views from adjoining residential
properties because the structure is located at the base of the hill and views are from the top of
the hill.
8. That the dwelling provides the required parking elsewhere on the property and the garage
parking is surplus parking.
NOTE: This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as
specified in Section 20.81.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
The decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the
date of the decision. Any appeal filed shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $876.00. No building
permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired.
MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
By 6� EX't'l' jog// /V"
Eu ' is Garcia
Associate Planner
cc:
Phil and Mickey Rowe
2231 Pacific Drive
Corona del Mar Ca 92625
Letters of Opposition Received From:
Victoria Street, 2235 Pacific Drive
Matthew A.. Cox, 2027 Tahuna Terrace
. Appeared in Opposition:
,>
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
Phil Rowe
2231 Pacific Drive
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Application No:
Applicant:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 644 -3200
Address of Property Involved:
Legal Description:
Dear Mr. Rowe:
February 16, 1999
Phil Rowe
2231 Pacific Drive
Lot 1, Block D, Corona del Mar Tract
Modification Requested: To change Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538 that limited the
area over the garage located on Bayside Drive for use as a storage loft only and convert the use to a
home office.
The Modifications Committee on, February 9, 1999, unanimously disapproved the subject
application, (3 noes and 0 ayes) and made the following conditions and findings for denial:
CONDITIONS.
1. Asper Modification No. 4538, Condition No. 4 shall remain in effect for storage use only.
2. A building permit shall be obtained within 30 days to remove the following:
• All plumbing, including potable and waste lines;
• All heating sources;
• All electrical sources; and
• The interior circular stairway.
3. All work to remove the above noted items shall be completed within 60 days of the date of this
letter.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
0
E
r
i'1
Page 2
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. The Modifications Committee determined that in this case, the proposal would be detrimental
to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the applicant's request
would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
2. The approval of the proposed conversion could set a precedent for the approval of other
similar requests which could be detrimental to the neighborhood.
3. There is no justification for changing Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538 to intensify
the use of the area over the garage, since adequate space exists within the buildable area of
the site.
4. The proposed change in use would have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
5. The surrounding property owners are opposed to the proposed conversion.
The decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the
date of the decision. Any appeal filed shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $691.00. Please
contact the Planning Department at (949) 644 -3200 for full particulars.
MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
B
E enia Garcia, Associate Planner
Chairperson
EG:jrj
Letters Received in Opposition:
Smith Bacon, 2315 Pacific Drive
Douglas Lax, 2224 Pacific Drive
Phyllis Rodeffer, 2227 Pacific Drive
Mathew Cox, 2235 Pacific Drive
Susan and Jerry Vaughn, 2200 Pacific Drive
Al Ross, 2209 Pacific Drive
Harry and Leann Westover, 2301 Pacific Drive
Mr. and Mrs. Irving Burg, 2301 Bayside Drive
Anonymous
Appeared in Opposition:
Phyllis Rodeffer, 2227 Pacific Drive
Dorothy Westover, 2305 Pacific Drive
Barbara Dawkins, 2329 Pacific Drive
Harry Wallace, 2305 Pacific Drive
%?
t
SFS k � ce �! �.MYr1 YN.. � t � vary }� j , •
i' ...1. -5 -. µJ a .m ..c -•
pig
,-« yJ} j s gy ;$ "jj8f r
JtI1wi'gifl 'RY & #fi `M ?x1 ~ ` ,e� .s `• C
"yr-+ M4.R4,aRMTX � tits "F' "•i i 1 / • } -_
Wf s a dt t �s .� W''at«' r _ a "tea 4 ♦ � r
ti9/. cLKr'f^y,�t t ID� Y •' .•� +. / � i�il 'h 'a A
-� 1�
� •.i' �s`.� 5 �� i+' � t` ' Rte. .�� /. `+ .;
.tx J
r
`. 'vi?
� t
�# i .t. itFri• J r Z^'*(' . s �,� r ?{ 1 4 s k s -.
d {' j j ]j pr ` ^�* �.-. jt� Vii' °4. "•� }E*t�. s�' ,`i
1 � !. }�' ` ♦rf�py /¢j {i.,g8 ��&� {�s 6 t i E411I `�!'• � ! :� ry �C`k1�_�4i
T� si1 r
Ms *`J+ s9'�4am +',t .:as t }4'� .•a }. ,_
��'us�%tc+'�.ab�^1°���$y
s y�.�t�i� 1 � � '� f � 1���'� !r + ♦ 1. • �
„� ♦ ! 0 ! V 4.. i
E
0
0
file : \ \MIS_I \SYS \Users\PLNVSinasek \Digital Photos\2231 Pacific Ave. 110998 \MVC- 008F.JPI1/16/98
.,�!
.-7
r
� 1
IM
`g�C � "`Yf `^ 5X f 5 if "� S _ f
`�..� � �
��
a , � ., i � _
g 3
1 x- ¢�
S nf'° t 4 +..�
((..��__ o. rt .r„ ° e
0.+4 L '� ca � f
i � r
_ �,
� � �:., ��� s 6� ?4 � i r > 6 i x
'Fa � A i� � �� � � t' vex w` .
?� � yf
f° � � �'E � E F R y" � Y -�
1 F. ., it 5 _ q�K
iv,. �'(.1 i^ V' e3
r," i`P �_ gym' .,. '�'��� F. �„J`
Y a
4 " �,
i y� {j;
-� �� ,i
__�.��,�
��
r` 4 z .._ a; •.
n> ask'• rt° : ��+" ::3 - l
+� �� yi
ate'. �, .. .. ...
a�
fil e : \ \MIS_I \SYS \Users\PLN\JSinasek \Digital Photos\2231 Pacific Ave. 1 10998 \MVC- 00IF.JPI 1/17/98
� [
� «r
\�7
171
L
1 of 1 3/30/99 7:37 AM
§/> � .
\� � � � \ ^. � \� � � .
: .e
y� � � � ° \ . � ...
,�� y . � �� � \� a .
. zv §
\ ��
� � :K Z
� �
�_
: � �`
�l ���.
"'..„
�:,. �s,� -�:
.. .,
� -- - - -- 3.A..
A.
r
� :�
'
t
� �
.
� .,_
i �� i T -
�-.
•. �� i
r "r'
r
�- .: r �. � �.Y .
:�:''.
..`..
'i i=�7oo 1�tGG
141l n. I In NmI INU
NICHE MARKETING, INC.
NICHE PLAN SPONSORS, INC.
Phillip D. Rowe, CLU
President
Lic # 0211011
March 29, 1999
Marc Myers, Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Marc:
128 Pbl t•AR 29 99 08:10
(800) 552 -9252
(714) 966.1401
FAX(714) 966 -1422
Via Fax: (949) 644 -3250
You have asked for further clarification on our appeal to the Modifications Committee's ruling of
February 16, 1999, Application #4843.
We do not agree with the Committee's findings for the following reasons:
1. We cannot find any reasons why using the area over the garage as a home office
would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements or the intent of Title 20
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code-
A. The building exists — no views are affected. In fact, the improvements
that are there have significantly improved the property's appearance
and enhanced the neighbor's views.
B. No neighbor is affected any differently than before the improvements.
C. I am not sure what Title 20 is, but if it has to do with multiple usage of
the property, Mr. Sinesek has inspected on this issue.
2. Our property is very unique. It was built originally in 1932. The original structure
(which the city approved) was allowed on the right of way set back line and that is
the only reason the Modification Committee is now involved. When we were allowed
to put the building on the old garage and retaining walls, we did set the building itself
back reducing the usable space we wanted as per the Modification Committee.
It is hard to see how using this space for occassional home office purposes would
set a precedent the city does not want. No other property in the area is restricted as
the Committee is trying to restrict us.
In addition, the City has continual regulatory control on any new structures or usage
as is evidenced by this action.
3. Where does the Modification Committee get the right to say, "adequate space exists
within the buildable area of the site" when, a) much larger homes have and are being
approved on our street and, b) the building in question is already within our buildable
area? Or c) how many bedrooms we have as long as it is within the rules?
3190.1 Airport Loop, Suite G, Costa Mesa, California 92626
Niche Marketing License # OA91400 UVvlPlanning Committee
Secudties offered through Ogilvie SecutityAdOsors Corporation, take Forest Illinois
33
,.
4. The change will have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood. We have stairs to
that area already and we use them. The garage is used by us now and will continue
in that use.
5. There has been a campaign waged against us by a disgruntled neighbor (letter
enclosed) and she has single - handedly sought out the negative letters. Since her
campaign, and the City's denial, I have gone to my neighbors for letters and they
have been filed. As indicated by the letters received by the City. In addition, two of
the letters listed in Ms. Garcia's denial letter are actually for not against out project
(Mr. Bacon and Burg). Also, Mr. Wallace and Ms. Westover live in same residence
and Ms. Dawkins never wrote or declared against.
Marc, the issue raised by some of the letters and the one the Committee seems to be
concerned with is whether or not we are using the property for R2 usage. This issue has been
spread mainly by Phyllis Rodeffer and is not true. We have guests and friends stay with us from
time to time, but their presence is as our guests. In addition, this issue is not a part of the
Modification Application it seems to be a subjective position of the Committee. I can understand
their concern about future transfers of ownership, but I assure you, with the neighbors I have, no
future owner would get away with anything.
For these and other reasons that my attorney, Keith Dawson will present (since we will be
traveling on the 8th) we feel the Planning Committee should approve our request.
Sincerely,
/Phillip D. Rowe
UMPIanning Committee
0
•
7149661422 NICHE MARKETING
An Open Letter to the
Newport Reach Planning Commission
April 8, 1999
200 P03 APR 01 '99 14:34
Let us first say how sorry we are not to be able to appear in person. We did not wish to further
delay resolution of this matter. However, we could not miss this business trip, a company
awards trip that has been scheduled for over a year. However, we believe we are well
represented by our attorney, Keith Dawson.
As many of you familiar with Corona Del Mar history know, when we acquired this property
there was a partially constructed garage on Bayside Drive that had been an eyesore and a
safety hazard for almost thirty years. We have spent considerable resources in completing the
building and in improving the appearance from Bayside Drive and from Pacific Avenue.
We are dismayed that a couple of our neighbors campaigned so actively against our finishing
the lower garage, and now want to prevent us from using the building to its full potential now
that it is complete. It is significant to note that our request for the modification change is
supported by many of our other neighbors as is evidenced by their many letters to the City.
The conversion of the garage to an in -home office in no way impacts anyone on Pacific Avenue.
We find it interesting that no one on Bayside Drive has objected, when it is the Bayside Drive
neighbors who have the largest potential of impact because the building is located on Bayside.
In fact, Mr. Burg who lives across the street on Bayside has written in favor of our request.
Granting our request to use the area over our garage as an in -home office will have no visual
impact since the structure is already completed. Its profile will not change.
We understand and are sensitive to the City's concern regarding multiple use and we are
agreeing again to adhere to the rules. However, we do not believe that the City intends to
restrict how we use our home with respect to our guests and friends. The enforcement of
multiple use is compelling but it is clearly wrong to impose penalties on us based on finger
pointing and insinuations. (The City's Jim Sinasek inspected the property in November and
found no violations.)
It is my intention and desire to use the space as a home office facility as it is quiet, peaceful,
private and just downstairs. There will be no employees or commercial traffic.
Together we find ourselves where we are as a result of a chain of mistakes. The first mistake
was the City's approval of the building's original walls in 1968 on the Bayside Drive setback.
The second was the Modifications Committee originally restricting the building use to storage.
The third was our accepting the restriction instead of fighting it at the time. The fourth was our
improving the space to make it usable believing 'storage" could be used for other than storage.
We now find ourselves appealing to the Commission's good judgment and sense of fairness to
end the chain of mistakes.
U:wlOpen Letter to Planning Gommission2doc ✓5
7149661422 NICHE MARKETING 200 PO4 APR 01 '99 14:34
We are asking not only for a change to the Modification Committee's ruling, but also we are
asking for approval as it is built (any safety hazards excepted). To improve the modifications
change and then have the City put impossible requirements on us to modify what is done would
clearly be winning the battle and losing the war. The space works very well as it is built and it is
structurally sound.
My wife and i believe we should be allowed to use this space for productivity on our property.
We appreciate that there are mechanisms for appealing the Modification Committee's decision
and we hope we do not have to go any further. The commission has the opportunity to now end
a situation that is unfortunately way out of hand and should not escalate further.
We feel the neighbor mentioned earlier is disgruntled and appears to be using the City to create
an economic hardship on us. (Please consider the number of times Phyllis Rodeffer has
complained to the City). We believe it is unfair to have the usage of our property controlled in
this fashion by a disgruntled neighbor, especially in light of the fact that many other neighbors
feel otherwise. Many neighbors we approached did not wish to write a letter because they had
previously been approached by Mrs. Rodeffer and did not want to "get between" neighbors. We
respect their decisions.
My wife and I both thank the Commission for their consideration. We apologize that this matter
has escalated to this point, consuming the Commission's agenda time.
Sincerely,
CDC- 4 2rilA �AwasCr-
E
0
U: Vvt Open Letter to Planning CommissionZdoc yL
FEGtVVcD BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CIV 0=
fir \A rnr.- "' -r1.Cy
I'Ap ° 61999
11
PM
R, 0. &x 176(5-
Szbo j €cl
%Aac/� !I, 99.
emu4 8q1<V CQ%=-r-r -- - -- --
z3,6.AK/,s /�c�Z�e/ Cka. - - --
9�Z5 .
1t1CV1A--/Gt�r1au
223 / C'ACiFIC 7.�2/��
C, o, M,
7"r ME
Is--z€sa)MY, q4UrWD1VZEb
s
tioT
Y::(-UMi!5A)G
7'/4,47'
6JOU(ab 4C(XX J
rJ4
s
& e
/J ?
� .
/it" 7#zer-- axi(b -& zoHE >4674IAjsD-
T,q€ �vZ- Res /a�ur�, ram A) ,AavorZ-
oic .4ao,,WAJG To Go 2t2aad -4AW .
17�tZE #AVF. SMO SO Ajq,uy A1OD11t1CAriaQ.S
T7r- /7 5E91 m 060/;T- 7D 77//s
SEEtij /AJGL.y M7
37
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY nc R! - MEACH
�AZ Z 1999 Melody D. Orr
I
AM 2324 PacRM Drive, Corona Del Mar, California 92625
718,9110,111121112,314,516 O- V-r�k L \SSA
kc-ellc� n , s:rsSQC,ca
FJ�ux7acu— E�v�c�cx� , crC� �i a S S - FS g-
1-to�c— tC -O--M ,.� �o • �L538�
N.•S 5n:- ca •�1
"wcz�t . —_ , ` 'See- `\-a rec�so,r, va1.��
c lea �n -Svll , s h - b -L (31 \10w�J Aa
0�
0
0
CVGNAIN I
March 17,1999
IMPORTS, Lw
Genia Garcia, Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
PO Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Condition No. 4
Modification No. 4538
Dear Ms. Garcia,
MARTA ZIELONKO PHONE 949 673 -9299
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTOR TOLL FMEE 1 800 967-7724
417 BEGONIA AVENUE FAx 949 673 -4392
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 HT : //W .MUGNANI.COM
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY rl' P!; vrcr• ^- 9EACH
F4AR 10 1999
AM Pre
71i3151�01�SI��I' I�i3iajlglg
This letter is in regard to the Phil and Mickey Rowe request to modify their usage of the
structure overtheir Bayside Drive garage as an in -house office and not restrict the
usage to storage only.
As a neighbor who has lived here since 1983, and who has converted (and built via
city of Newport Beach permits) the space above my garage into a studio /office, I have
no objection whatsoever to their similar request for such usage of valuable space.
Their request should have no impact on neighbors and only a positive impact on the
Rowes who wish to use the space for limited office purposes.
Sincerely,
Marta Zielonko
417 Begonia Ave.
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
S P E C I A L I Z I N G IN I T A L I A N WOOD B U R N I N G O V E N S
39
March 30, 1999
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
3300 Newport Boulevard
PO Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF n!E`,grer i 7EA.CH
AM 0 i 1999 PM
7180 110 1111121-112,314,516
k
Re: Modification Permit No. 4843, Phillip Rowe, property owner
I strongly object to the modification requested by Phillip Rowe,
2231 Pacific Drive to change the area over the garage located on
Bayside Drive to a home office. It was to be used as a storage loft
only and that is what it should remain.
Sincerely,
A concerned neighbor
0
1]
LO
4149661422 NICHE NRRKETING
425 birtielh Sheet, Suite 21
Newpat Beath, [A 92663
(949)673 -1369
To Whom It May Concern:
200 P02 );PR 01 '99 14:33
veF:
For the past 23 years I have lived in Corona Del Mar and commuted to work on Bayside
Drive. Bayside, to me, is a small but lovely sample of what makes old Corona Del Mar beau-
tiful. The view of the bay, the yacht clubs, the old trees and the Wheeler property (where
my mother learned to swim) have always been a welcome sight when I travel on Bayside.
For years, however, there was one sight which severely marred the beauty. It was a huge
dilapidated garage cut into the hillside which seemed to diminish the other beautiful homes.
I noticed also that this "scar" on the hillside was visible from the bay.
About a year ago I was encouraged to see that the ugly garage and the rest of the run -down
property (located at 2231 Pacific Drive) was being renovated. I was very impressed with the
design of the remodel and the way it fit into the neighborhood. The positive effect this reno-
vation has had on appearance and property values in the neighborhood is wonderful.
Today when I look at Bayside Drive, I am once again struck by the serene beauty of the area
we live in. So many locals and visitors admire this part of Corona Del Mar — from the bay,
the Wedge, or the street — it is nice to know that a new homeowner took pride in making the
view better.
Thank
for considering the opinion of a long -time resident,
�J
91
�f
PHYLLIS M. RODEFFER
2227 PACIFIC DRIVE
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
MARCH 31st, 1999
City of Newport Beach
Planning Division
3300 Newport Blvd.
P. 0. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1769
roc- ,fay BY '
PLANNING DEPARTMENT .'
CITYOc rl-- -aCH
i�) 02159
7,8,5,10,1111211 12131� 1516
k
Re: Request to Change Condition No. 4 of
Modification No. 4538
Location: 2231 Pacific Drive
Dear Commission Members:
As a next door neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Rowe, I wish to restate
my objections to the modification of the original conditions
which stated three times "This space was for storage space ONLY
and not to be used for additional living space ". These
conditions were agreed to by Mr. and Mrs. Rowe.
Shortly after the final inspection of the garage modifications,
Mr. and Mrs. Rowe started the interior modifications knowing they
were in direct violation of the conditions of approval set forth
by this Commission.
Since Mr. and Mrs. Rowe finished the remodeling of the main house
there have been numerous house guests and renters at this
location. It appears from the degree of improvements done to the
garage and the addition of the overhead living area that this
structure could lend itself to be used for additional rental
income rather than the original permitted use as storage only.
As stated above, I wish to restate my objections to this
modification request and ask you to uphold the original
restrictions to storage only.
Very tri4ly yours,
PHYLLIS M. RODEFFER
0
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 1999
Phillip Rowe
2231 Pacific Drive
• Modification Permit No. 4843
An appeal of the decision of the Modifications Committee, which denied a
request to change Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538. The Condition of
Approval requires that use of an attic space over a garage be limited to
storage only, and that the storage area is not to be used as additional living
space. The applicant is requesting that the condition of approval be changed
to allow the area over the garage to be converted to living area and used as a
home office.
Ms. Temple noted the correspondence the Commission received in the
Planning Department, most of which expressed opposition to the application.
Additionally, in reviewing the Exhibit B for denial of Modification Permit No.
4843 noted that this recommendation for denial, if it were the action of the
Planning Commission, would not actually require a modification to the
structure, but merely the reinstatement of the storage area. Therefore, the
second bullet point is not pertinent to the findings for denial and it is
suggested that it be omitted.
Chairperson Selich, referencing the plans that were approved by the
Modifications Committee, noted the concern of safety from having access
from Bayside Drive.
Commissioner Fuller clarified the following:
The conversion to living area in the storage area over the garage was
done without benefit of proper permits and is therefore considered not -
legal.
The converted storage area was finished and equipped with telephone,
electricity, cable television, a heating unit in the wall, a full size kitchen sink
with hot and cold running water, a garbage disposal, an under counter
refrigerator and cupboard space above and below the sink counter as
part of that non -legal conversion. ; ,
Public Comment was opened.
Mr. Keith Dawson, 2660 East Coast Highway, attorney represented the
applicants stating they were out of town. He noted on the letter from Mrs.
Garcia dated 02/16/1999 that the letters listed from Mr. Smith Bacon and Mr.
and Mrs. Irving Burg were in support of this project. Continuing, he noted the
applicants rebuttal to the reasons for denial:
• Detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood
and not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code - if this was a rental unit, it would be detrimental to
2
INDEX
Item No. 1
Modification
Permit No. 4843
Modification
Committee Decision
Upheld
y3
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 1999 INDEX
person's property in neighborhood. This is a home office project with no
bathroom facilities. The Rowes will submit to building inspections and if
this application is approved; they will have to get permits for the
modifications they have done. They understand that the building permits
may require that some of those modifications be removed.
• The approval could set a bad precedent in the neighborhood - this is a
unique property that has been increased in value by the improvements
done by the Rowes.
• Adequate area exists within the buildable area of the site for this office -
this would mean an addition on the property with a second floor which
would adversely affect the flow of light and air to the adjoining properties
since the roof of the garage was built higher to accommodate the
storage area.
In conclusion, Mr. Dawson suggested that there could be a covenant
recorded against the property to restrict this project to a home office use. He
requests that the Commission find in favor of the applicants.
At Commission inquiry Mr. Dawson stated:
• There is a third level in the house, not connected and is eighty steps
above the garage.
• Family friends have stayed there.
• He does not personally know if it wasn't used as a rental unit.
• The storage area above the garage was for the storage of sail cloth and
art work and was the original request. It was not specified or requested
that it could become a home office instead.
• The plans submitted for improving the structure above the garage did not
include the improvements that were put into the storage area.
• The applicant realizes that the stairway is not to standard nor is the ceiling
height up to standard.
• The Rowes would have to remove staircase and are prepared to remove
any access to the loft area. The ceiling is too low.
Appearing in opposition to this application:
Mr. Henry Wallace - 2305 Pacific Drive
Mrs. Phyllis Rodeffer, 2227 Pacific Drive
For the following
• Threat of rental of proposed project
• Two garages, one on Pacific and one on Bayside
• No ability to monitor
• Cooking facilities on different floors
• Improvements done with no permits
W
City of Newport Beach
. Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 1999
E
• Original building permit states three times, "for storage
Public Comment closed.
At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that this is an older building that has
permits for a completely separate living area. It is very difficult to prove illegal
dwelling units. What the City has, by building code definition, are two
dwelling units that by zoning is single family dwelling since the improvements
were made prior to the definitions regarding independent dwelling units. This
is considered legal, non - conforming. For consideration tonight, this building
which is the subject of the hearing, represents space that is a third living area.
Mr. Edmonton noted that the use of the garage would not be allowed to be
established today in terms of where it is in the setback. It is a very narrow
portion of Bayside Drive, and if it were used as a garage, it would present
dangerous conditions for access onto Bayside Drive.
Commissioner Fuller stated he is not in support of this application because
that after the Modifications Committee denied it, the applicant went in and
finished the unit out with ostensibly sewer pipes, kitchen facilities and
everything else.
Commissioner Ashley stated he was not in support of this application as it is an
egregious violation of the building code and the building permit that was
issued. It is clearly not intended to be storage and it is evident that when the
kitchen facilities were put in, it was an obvious intent to make this into a living
unit. Under the staircase one could add total bathroom facilities. It would be
a violation of the R -1 zoning. Continuing, he stated that all of the
improvements that have been made that went beyond the building permit
that was issued have to be removed. This area can be used for no purpose,
other than storage. It is very dangerous to back out of that garage onto
Bayside Drive because of the curve of Bayside Drive. I am very opposed to
that garage being occupied by a resident, where they would be doing this
with some regularity. He noted that the garage is being used to store two
cars.
Commissioner Kranzley asked about the original modification and was told
that the original modification was approved with a condition that the area to
be added above the previously existing parking space be limited to storage.
Mrs. Eugenia Garcia, as Chairman of the Modification Committee, stated that
at the time of the first modification hearing in 1997 there was a lot of
opposition from the neighborhood. The applicant had expressed that the
project was for storage use, and she did not express that they would be
finishing it or adding any other plumbing. Electrical probably would have
been acceptable for the garage. There was no discussion of the finished
El
INDEX
z1
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 1999 INDEX
product that you see now. The Rowes at that time were very agreeable to
the condition that was placed upon it for storage area only for art pieces and
artwork. They gave no indication that they were going to use this as an
office. Continuing, Mrs. Garcia stated that if they had expressed at the
original hearing they wanted to use this for an office then given the concerns
of the neighborhood and the access point being hazardous as it is, the
Modification Committee may have denied the request. The Modification
Committee felt that the garage was to be used intermittently, perhaps store
an antique car or boat but it was not to be used going in and out of on a
daily basis due to the hazardous conditions on Boyside Drive.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ashley to uphold the decision of the
Modifications Committee and approve Exhibit B. The uses that were
permitted to be constructed for loft purposes be approved and all other
improvements beyond which were allowed by the building permit be
removed.
Chairperson Selich asked if the Commission could include with this denial
some type of notice to be recorded against this property. It would indicate
that this space is to be used for storage only in the event the property is sold
to someone else.
Ms. Clauson, noting that this would be a form of giving notice to future buyers,
•
stated that this approval constitutes a city record and any new buyer would
know that through a Residential Building Report. The Report would have
copies of the Modification Committee decision as well as any other
document affecting the property. To put a restriction of this nature on the
title would be above and beyond what the regular restrictions are.
Ms. Temple clarified that the motion would include the removal of the second
bullet point and the addition of a condition regarding the return to an
"unfinished, non - habitable" condition within 90 days of the meeting.
Commissioner Ashley agreed.
Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund
Noes: None
Absent: Tucker
Abstain: None
EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF
Modification Permit No. 4843
Findings:
1. The approval of Modification Permit No. 4843 will, under the
circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in
5
WE
0
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 1999
the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious' to property or
improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City
for the following reasons:
• The use of the structure for other than storage use will
create undue traffic hazards along Bayside Drive.
• The conversion of the storage area to living area will
adversely effect the use the subject property and those
in the surrounding neighborhood.
• Improvements to the storage area have been
completed without the necessary approvals and
permits.
• The addition of living area within the front yard setback
on Bayside Drive is detrimental to the neighborhood
due to the more intense utilization of the area along
Bayside Drive.
• Additional living area can be accommodated within
the buildable area of the lot.
Additional Condition for Modification No. 4538
The use of the area above the garage shall be limited exclusively to
storage only, and that the area shall be returned to, and remain
"unfinished, non - habitable" storage area only, and shall not be used for
living purposes, and the storage area above the garage shall be returned
to an "unfinished, non - habitable" condition within 90 days of the meeting
which a final decision was made.
Galeos Caf6 (Andrei Leontieff, contact person)
930 West Coast Highway
• Use Permit No. 3649
IIN-13
Item No. 2
UP No. 3649
Request to convert an exists ecialty food service establishment (Specialty I Approved
Food Service Permit No. 61) to a service, small -scale eating and drinking
establishmentwith alcoholic beverage s e. The application also includes a
request to establish a new alcoholic bever service outlet pursuant to
Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code.
Public comment opened.
Andr6 and Gordana Samardzic owners of the caf6 stated that they
/47
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No.
Name of Appellant n_
or person filing: "4 tAtU -1 P - ``-O6Wj^ Phone: - 114/4x 66 -1401
Address: 2231 QPvc-VAC <fbvA,
Date of Planning Commission decision: 4-8 19
Regarding application of. fl-+Au-44 P '-0 e it -LfN2Y K 'ev-%W1 for
(Description of application filed with Planning Commission) P-qq CV*na N
To nk-tE: u,4%A c Fes{ 0r3' Cssrf"*� rTTS °ib ct-tfk,.�re Cce-.5'bM Wr a No 4
Reasons for Appeal': X �C-t=6L- -R-ka Qi-�Jr--JCZ C VT<-m 139 for--.S -s P-L C;
0
Ut`l IAPfl -i�A�Ao'`t
L%-DN-5 t4(z-DTTZPR
-'%r -*
kp4A9 AA-1
GfJ� ON)p t✓ {
MV E
.P� Sc 'ib T:;*ALV CZE
` Z Oe-% R N
.. i�-l��sStbyJ lr,�Fs' NDi (3�'D diJ
ttwrV� N
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date -4 - ti1 ^4_I
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: a� 19
/"7- OF
Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of the
filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec.
20.95.050)
cc: Appellant
Planning (Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing)
File
APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.040B
Appeal Fee: $278 pursuant to Resolution No. 98 -52 adopted on 7 -27 -98
(Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000)
s
ROSS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN .
2209 Pacific Drive
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
(949) 831 -2187
May 3, 1999
City of Newport Beach
Planning Division
3300 Newport Blvd.
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1769
r-CEOJ- I G
'99 MY -4 P3 :32
flC
CITY OF IgEW?ORT REACH
H
Re: Modification Permit No. 4843 as pertains to an Appeal of the decision of the
Modifications Committee which denied a request to change Condition No. 4
Modification No. 4538, Location: 2231 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar, CA
92625
Dear City Counsel:
This letter is to inform you that as trustee for 2209 Pacific Drive, I am in accord and
agreement with the position taken by many property owners as pertains to the matter
before you. I am objecting to the applicants request to convert the use of a storage
loft to use as a home office. If the applicant is allowed to modify his property, which
is contrary to the requirements of your office, then all property owners should be
allowed to alter their properties as they desire. This would affect the R -1 character of
the property in this outstanding neighborhood, which cannot be allowed.
In addition, you are to be informed that the project is not exempt under the Class 1
(Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Quality Act, since this is a new
conversion and there was not an exisiting facility which I was told that your code
enforcement officer, Jim Simecek, knew about.
Very tru y yours,
l Ross, Trustee
AR /sj
DAWSON SC DAWSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOHN HARLAN DAWSON 2660 EAST COAST HIGHWAY
(1907 -1967) NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92625
KEITH ABBOT DAWSON
May 4, 1999
City Clerk
City of Newport Beach VIA TELECOPIER
3300 Newport Boulevard (949)644 -3039
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach VIA_TELECOPIER
3300 Newport Boulevard (949)644 -3039
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: 2231 Pacific Drive. C rona del Mar
Modification Permit No, 4843
Request for Continuance of Public Hearing
Greetings:
TELEPHONE (949) 720 -9414
Te,.=Pm. (949) 759-9144
I represent the Phillip and Mary Rowe, the Applicants in the
above - referenced matter, which is scheduled for a public hearing
before the Newport Beach City Council on May 10, 1999.
Unfortunately, due to an unavoidable conflict in my calendar,
I cannot appear on the Rowe's behalf on May 10th, and I hereby
request that the hearing be continued to the next City Council
meeting which I understand is scheduled for May 24, 1999. Although
I have been unable to speak with Mr. and Mrs. Rowe to confirm their
availability on May 24th, I assume that they are available and I
will notify you immediately if they are not.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
KAU \es
cc: Phil and Mickey Rowe
Very Truly Yours,
DAWSON & DA"
P essio 1 C poration
K
-
TOTAL P.62
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED:" #!I-- 5l/q.4-22 13 E C ! V E D
0
PHYLLIS M. RODEFFER '99 MAY -6 P 1 :56
2227 PACIFIC DRIVE
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
OFFICE OF THE CITYCLERK
CITY OF - KEWPORT BEACH
May 5th, 1999
City of Newport Beach
City Council
3300 Newport Blvd.
P. O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659 -1769
Re: Appeal of Modification of Condition No. 4
of Modification No. 4538
Dear Council Members:
As the next door neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Rowe, I wish to restate
again my objections to the modification of the original
conditions which stated "This space was for storage space ONLY
and not to be used for additional living space ".
In seeing the analysis and picture prepared by the Building
Department showing the extensive interior modifications, I agree
with their conclusions that this property could easily be used as
a living space. I feel if these modifications are left intact
this eventually will be utilized as living space if not by
current owners then future owners, which could set a precedent
for the approval of other similar requests and be detrimental to
the neighborhood.
This was denied on April 8, 1999 by the Planning Commission and
opposed by Public Works due to unsafe traffic conditions in
addition to other issues.
In view of the above it is my sincere hope that you will come to
the same conclusion of those before you and deny this appeal.
S' er ly, ^
PH LLIS M. RODEFFER
•
•
2312 Pacific Drive
Corona del mar, CA
'lay 4, 1999
City Council of the City of Newport Beach "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. PRINTED:
c.0. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Modification permit #4843
May 10, 1999
Phillip Rowe
2231 Pacific Drive
Dear City Council Members:
I am responding to the above modification
request, Dublic
hearing
to
be held May 10, 1999. I object to an office
replacing the
current
storage loft at 2231 Pacific Drive.
• Cur street has always begin a quite residential
area but an
office
with
roughed in 'Plumbing and utilities suggests
other planned development.
I would hate to see additional traffic and
parking as a result
of
an
office at 2231 pacific Drive.
Sincerely,
!1
Eli betelamat =_r
2312 Pacific Orive
Corona del Mar, CA.
C-)
?i
M
zz
a
T
<
m C)
0
D r
m
A
Sz
�O
E
�ewPOq, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
r j>
-L -= PLANNING DEPARTMENT -
+� „�,,..� 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200: FAX (949) 644 -3250
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item No.:
Staff Person:
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: Rowe Residence
2231 Pacific Drive
June 28, 1999
26,
Patricia L. Temple
(949)644 -3200
PURPOSE OF
APPLICATION: An appeal of the decision of the Planning Comrnission which upheld the
decision of the Modifications Committee, which denied a request to change
Condition No. 4 of Modification No. 4538. The Condition of Approval
requires that use of an attic space over a garage be limited to storage only,
and that the storage area is not to be used as additional living space. The
applicant is requesting that the condition of approval be changed to allow the
area over the garage to be converted to living area and used as a home office.
SUGGESTED
ACTION: Concur with the determination of staff related to the changes needed to bring
the project into conformance with the original approval of the Modification
Committee, incorporate as additional conditions of approval of Modification
4538, and remove the appeal from calendar.
The City Attorney's Office drafted the attached Covenant, incorporating the requirements to
determine the project in substantial compliance with the original Modification approval. Mr. Rowe
and his attorney have accepted the language of the Covenant, and will execute it when Mr. Rowe
returns to town. Therefore, the applicant withdraws his appeal.
Submitted and prepared by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
i/ At R W,
Attachment: Covenant
RECORDING REQUESTED AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1768
Space above this line for Recorder's use only.
LAND USE COVENANT
This Land Use Covenant is given by Phil and Mary Rowe ( "Owners ") with regard
to the following facts.
WHEREAS, Owners, are the sole owners of certain real property located in the
City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, described as, Lot 1, block
D, of Corona del Mar Tract, more commonly known as 2231 Pacific Drive, Newport
Beach, California, ( "Property "); and
WHEREAS, The property is located in an R1 district, that allows for one (1)
single family dwelling unit.
WHEREAS, Owners filed an application with the City of Newport Beach ( "City ")
for Modification Permit 4843 to change condition number 4 of Modification Permit 4538
approved on March 4, 1997 by City of Newport Beach Modifications Committee.
Modification Permit 4538 permitted the addition of a storage loft and roof above an
existing garage structure on the Property. Condition 4 restricted the use of the addition
to use as a storage loft only; and
WHEREAS, Owners, prior to application for Modification Permit 4843 had made
various unpermitted improvements to the garage and storage loft area. On April 8,
1999, the Planning Commission determined that the unpermitted improvements violated
condition 4 of Modification Permit 4538, denied Modification Permit 4843 and directed
Owners to return the storage loft area to a non - habitable condition; and
WHEREAS, Owners, appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to City
Council. Prior to hearing on appeal, Owners agreed to remove certain improvements
from the storage loft area, and City agreed that certain improvements could remain on
condition that Owners agree to record a Covenant against the Property promising that
the storage loft area would not be used for any habitable purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, Owners hereby declare that the Property shall be subject
to the following covenants and restrictions and agree as follows:
The garage and storage loft areas are not habitable space and shall not
be used as a living space. The storage loft area may be used for storage
only. 09
2.: All.plumbing and plumbft connections, all cabinetry, carpet, furniture and
telephone connections:.shall be removed from the storage loft area and
may not be permitted to be reinstalled or reconstructed without further
approval from the City;
3. The following improvements are permitted in the garage area;
(a) Water service for water heater, sink and laundry connections;
(b) Cabinetry related to the laundry area; and
(c) A telephone connection.
4. This Covenant shall run with the Property, in favor of and enforceable by
the City of Newport Beach.
5. This Covenant shall be binding upon Owners' heirs, successors, and
assigns and shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of
Orange County.
6. City may terminate this Covenant if Owners obtain subsequent approval
of a Modification, or other approval that allows the conversion of the
storage loft area to habitable space and authorizes termination of this
Covenant.
OWNERS
By:
Phil Rowe
By:
Mary Rowe
:XuserskM,at%sharedWlg\Rowe.doc
Dated:
Dated:
x 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On 1999, before me,
, the undersigned , a Notary Public in and for said County and State personally
appeared known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she/they has executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed
the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public in and for said County and State
(rhis area for official notarial seal)
F:\users \cat\shared W g\Rowe.doc
ii
':� 4