HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - PH-3 - Appeal Zoning ZA-09-37 A1 - 5/17/2011CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MAY 17, 2011
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: APPEAL ZONING APPLICATION ZA-09-37 Al
AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY -APPROVED MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE BLUFF CREST SETBACK
1151 GLENEAGLES TERRACE
DATE: MAY 5, 2011
FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PRESENTATION BY: REBECCA ROBBINS, ASSISTANT PLANNER
KHANH NGUYEN, INTERIM DEV. SVS. DIRECTOR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: REBECCA ROBBINS (714) 754-5609
RROBBINS@CI.COSTA-MESA.CA.US
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution to uphold or reverse Planning Commission's decision to
deny Zoning Application ZA-09-37 Al.
BACKGROUND:
Project Site
The property is zoned Single -Family Residential (R1) and is bounded by Gleneagles
Terrace to the east (front), Aviemore Terrace to the west (rear), and single-family
residences to the north and south (sides). The property is part of the Marina Highlands
neighborhood, with southerly and westerly views to the Pacific Ocean.
Planning Commission Action
On April 11, 2011, by a vote of 4 to 0, Planning Commission denied ZA-09-37 Al, an
amendment to minor conditional use permit for a previously -approved bedroom/bathroom
addition and deck with a patio cover that encroaches into the required setback from the
bluff crest (10 foot setback required; up to 10 feet extending past bluff crest approved) for:
1. 18 inch deep eaves on the sides of the patio cover that extends past the bluff
crest (no eaves previously shown);
2. The bedroom/bathroom addition to encroach further into bluff crest setback (5
foot setback from the bluff crest approved; 4 foot 3 inch setback proposed);
3. The fireplace and solid wall (including support post of the patio cover) to extend
past the bluff crest (4 feet past the bluff crest proposed; 0 feet past the bluff crest
approved); and
4. Additional roof height for both the patio cover (14 feet 6 inches proposed; 12 feet
6 inches approved) and bedroom/bathroom addition (13 feet 6 inches proposed;
12 feet 6 inches approved).
The Commission determined that the amendment to the setback of the
bedroom/bathroom addition and covered decks will impact the visual identity of the bluff,
will increase the bulk and massing of the additions and, therefore, is not compatible with
approvals for similar additions to other homes in the vicinity. The Planning Commission
staff report with attachments from April 11, 2011 can be viewed at: hftp://www.ci.costa-
mesa. ca us/counciUPIannin_g/2011-04-11/041111ZA0937A1.pdf.
Appeal by the Applicant
On April 15, 2011, William and Lea Lowe filed an appeal of Planning Commission's denial
of Zoning Application ZA-09-37 Al. However, the appeal by the applicant is for selected
items from the original request. The applicant is appealing the denial of the following
items:
2. The bedroom/bathroom addition to encroach further into bluff crest setback (5 foot
setback from the bluff crest approved; 4 foot 3 inch setback proposed);
4. Additional roof height for the bedroom/bathroom addition only (13 feet 6 inches
proposed; 12 feet 6 inches approved).
The applicant has stated that the other modifications under numbers 1, 3, and 4
(additional height for the patio cover) will be corrected and is not part of this appeal
request.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
City Council may consider the following alternatives:
1. Uphold Planninq Commission's decision to deny ZA-09-37 Al. If Council denies
the application, the project may not be constructed with the requested
modifications and a similar request may not be submitted for six months. The
applicant can still proceed to construct the project per the approved plans for
Zoning Application ZA-09-37.
2. Reverse Planning Commission's denial decision with modifications, subject to
conditions. This would allow the project to proceed, as modified by City Council,
subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
3. Reverse Planning Commission's decision and approve ZA-09-37 A1. This would
allow the project to proceed with the requested modifications, subject to the
recommended conditions of approval.
0
FISCAL REVIEW:
Fiscal review is not required.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the resolutions and approved them as to form.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
If the appeal request is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15270(a) for projects which are disapproved. If
the appeal request is approved, it would be exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act under Section 15311 for Existing Facilities.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission denied ZA-09-37 Al, based on findings that determined the
proposed amendment to the setback of the bedroom/bathroom addition and covered
decks will impact the visual identity of the bluff, will increase the bulk and massing of the
additions and, therefore, is not compatible with approvals for similar additions to other
homes in the vicinity.
REIAECCA ROBBINS
Assistant Planner
KHANH N(3U.YtN
Interim Developm(
DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
City Attorney
Public Services Director
Transportation Svs. Manager
City Clerk (2)
Staff (4)
Planning Staff (8)
File (2)
William & Lea Lowe
1151 Gleneagles Terrace
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
3
rvices Director
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolutions
2. Appeal Form
3. Planning Commission Staff Report
4. Location/Aerial Map
5. Plans
6. Correspondence Received from Public
7. Planning Commission Denial Resolution
File: 051711ZA0937A1Appeal I Date: 050511 1 Time: 11:30 a.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO DENY ZONING APPLICATION ZA-09-37 Al
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed by William Lowe, owner of real property located at
1151 Gleneagles Terrace, in a Single Family Residential (Rl) zone;
WHEREAS, the proposal was an amendment to minor conditional use permit ZA-09-
37 for a previously -approved bedroom/bathroom addition and deck with roof cover that
encroaches into the required setback from the bluff crest to allow: (1) 18 in. deep eaves on
the sides of the patio cover that extends past the bluff crest; (2) the bedroom/bathroom
addition to encroach further into bluff crest setback (4 ft. 3 in. setback from bluff crest); (3)
fireplace and solid wall (including support post of the patio cover) to extend past the bluff
crest (4 ft. past the bluff crest); and (4) additional roof height for both the patio cover (14 ft. 6
in.) and bedroom/bathroom addition (13 ft. 6 in.);
WHEREAS, a duly noticed .public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
April 11, 2011, with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the
proposed project, and ZA-09-37 Al was denied by the Planning Commission;
WHEREAS, an appeal of ZA-09-37 Al was filed on April 15, 2011 by William and Lea
Lowe, the property owners, for selected items from the original request including: (1) the
bedroom/bathroom addition to encroach further into bluff crest setback (4 ft. 3 in. setback
from bluff crest) and (2) additional roof height for the bedroom/bathroom addition (13 ft. 6
in.);
BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings
contained in Exhibit "A," the City Council hereby UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's
action to DENY Zoning Application ZA-09-37 Al.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of May 2011.
ATTEST:
GARY MONAHAN
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF COSTA MESA
.57
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS (Denial)
ZA-09-37A1
A. The information presented complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections
13-34 and 13-29(g)(2) in that allowing the residential addition and covered decks to
encroach further then previously approved into the bluff crest setback is not
compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the minor
conditional use permit will be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare
of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity.
Specifically, the proposed would increase the mass and bulk of the additions and
detract from the visual identity and integrity of the bluff. Granting the minor
conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity that is not in accordance
with the general plan designation for the property.
B. The proposed project .does not complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section
13-29(e) because:
1. The proposed encroachment is not compatible and harmonious with
uses both on-site as well as those on surrounding properties.
2. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, parking areas,
landscaping, and other site features including functional aspects of the
site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have
been considered.
3. The project is not consistent with the General Plan designation for the
property.
4. The zoning application would establish a precedent for future
development.
C. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has denied Zoning Application ZA-09-37
Al. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project amendment
because it has been rejected and will not be carried out.
D. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System
Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
R
RESOLUTION NO. 11-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA TO REVERSE THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL AND APPROVE ZONING
APPLICATION ZA-09-37 Al
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed by William Lowe, owner of real property
located at 1151 Gieneagles Terrace, in a Single Family Residential (R1) zone;
WHEREAS, the proposal was an amendment to minor conditional use permit
ZA-09-37 for a previously -approved bedroom/bathroom addition and deck with roof
cover that encroaches into the required setback from the bluff crest to allow: (1) 18 in.
deep eaves on the sides of the patio cover that extends past the bluff crest; (2) the
bedroom/bathroom addition to encroach further into bluff crest setback (4 ft. 3 in.
setback from bluff crest); (3) fireplace and solid wall (including support post of the patio
cover) to extend past the bluff crest (4 ft. past the bluff crest); and (4) additional roof
height for both the patio cover (14 ft. 6 in.) and bedroom/bathroom addition (13 ft. 6 in.);
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission
on April 11, 2011, with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the
proposed project, and ZA-09-37 Al was denied by the Planning Commission;
WHEREAS, an appeal of ZA-09-37 Al was filed on April 15, 2011 by William
and Lea Lowe, the property owners, for selected items from the original request
including: (1) the bedroom/bathroom addition to encroach further into bluff crest setback
(4 ft. 3 in. setback from bluff crest) and (2) additional roof height for the
bedroom/bathroom addition (13 ft. 6 in.);
BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings
contained in Exhibit "A," and subject to the conditions of approval contained within
Exhibit "B," the City Council hereby REVERSES the Planning Commission's denial and
APPROVES Zoning Application ZA-09-37 Al.
7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find
and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity
as described in the staff report for Zoning Application ZA-09-37 Al and upon applicant's
compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibit "B" as well as with compliance
of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution
shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that
occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of
approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of May 2011.
ATTEST:
GARY MONAHAN
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF COSTA MESA
U
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS (Approval)
ZA-09-37A1
A. The information presented complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections
13-34 and 13-29(g)(2) in that allowing the residential addition and covered decks to
encroach into the bluff crest setback is compatible with developments in the same
general area. "Granting the minor conditional use permit will not be detrimental to
the health, safety, and general welfare of the public or other properties or
improvements within the immediate vicinity. Specifically, the proposed development
is compatible with other encroachments in the immediate vicinity and, as
conditioned, would not detract from the visual identity and integrity of the bluff. The
decks should not interfere with access for fire protection and a geotechnical report is
required to confirm the improvements will not endanger the stability of the slope.
Granting the minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density, or intensity
that is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property.
B. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e)
because:
1. The proposed development and use is compatible and harmonious with
uses both on-site as well as those on surrounding properties.
2. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, parking areas,
landscaping, and other site features including functional aspects of the
site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have
been considered.
3. The project is -consistent with the General Plan designation for the
property.
4. The zoning application is for a project -specific case and does not
establish a precedent for future development.
C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental
procedures, and has been found to be exempt from Class 1, Existing Facilities, of
CEQA.
D. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System
Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
rI
ZA-09-37A1
l:/alI, lI M:%
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (IF APPROVED — MODIFIED FROM ZA-09-37)
Ping. 1. All structures shall maintain a minimum five-foot setback from each side
property line. The 18 inch eaves on the sides (north and south) of the patio
roof cover shall be removed.
2. Any future residential addition shall not project beyond the bluff crest without
proper City approval.
3. The deck wing wall along the right side (west) property line extending over
the bluff crest shall contain glass panels on the bottom, not exceed
42 inches in height from the decks' floors, and shall remain open on the top,
extending up to the deck roof.
4. The proposed support posts for the decks shall be located as close to the
bluff edge as feasible to minimize visual impacts to the bluff.
5. The eave overhang on the rear (west) side of the patio cover shall be
removed. No portion of the patio cover may extend more than 10 feet from
the bluff crest shown on the approved building plans.
6. The roof height for the patio cover shall be corrected to a maximum height
of 12 feet 6 inches.
7. The fireplace and solid wall shall be corrected as to not extend past the
bluff crest.
8. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not
limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building
articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during
construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to
obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the
requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a
discretionary review process such as a minor design review or a variance, or
in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans.
9. Landscaping shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division,
to screen the decks and support structures. Landscaping material shall
consist of dense, evergreen plants and trees.
10. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be required as
part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be
forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of
building permits.
11. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning
Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets.
12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the
approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance.
13. The conditions of approval and Code requirements of Zoning
Application ZA-09-37 Al shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as
part of the plan check submittal package.
14. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange for Planning
inspection of the site prior to Building final inspection. This inspection is to
confirm that the conditions of approval and Code requirements have been
satisfied.
/O
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, JULIE FOLCIK, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the
City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution No. 10_ as
considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of ,
2011, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City
Council held on the day of , 2011, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the
City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2011
i
j City Clerk, City of Costa Mesa
l�
ATTACHMENT 2
..... ....... ...
6 E, &E
Costa Mesa
City of Costa Mesa
it APR Is ?A 3' 03
V, Appeal of Planning Commission Decision/Rehearing - $1,220.00
❑ Appeal of Zoning Administrator/Staff Decision -$690.00
STA'
ION FOR APPEAL, REHEARING, OR REVIEW
Applicant Name*
Address
Phone 9ga jGg(,g(f 0 -resenting
REQUEST FOR: [I REHEARING W APPEAL . 0 REVIEW**
Decision of which appeal, rehearing, or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the
decision_ if known.)
pj,,4wjr&4 APPI- icArlm) 0A -69 37 PzAMu(" 61DW41,55(6�
pe5ocaroij , Pe-- it -1 -5 j PAMD A&ie- /1) go ' I
Decision by:
Reasons for requesting appeal, rehearing, or review:
N6040W(44 r'09- or wP- zg-4uAZi r-o4ae- MAS
26vz-
xworTox j5LUFjZ:' COZaST'
xpper-�, 5AWf7—A�XWFEW00UAVorw4c
A954qk-rrC4 -09 m4s-rap-' 90>20OV%ff WEOOM Poor" 8 -r&EFF-6 WcMeS P120?b5L2't
.r 2 4, mcwas M,0eveix
4
SIC)G.Ig ap, g P ( r
0 cove72 7&
Law cRogr •w e -a- ag majxover
1A 2QS
WAct P/ -r s 8cap 0 -r&)r"
-ro Rlomov& AMP &-X70.-):x16AJ Pdsr ?r-iff &-aFF:- c4zasr
Otpe-noAAt oxr malcpf rror 7" PA -no 64 re--g-r C. (rocWas ivc)POs,
�r G N4s APPOov&) W (L4. � F'C-1,;'W-paLet� -a pc; -r- a:y
12 XgL�-r & xa wa� '4j0PR'6V625
Date: f 5 A PRf (- Z01(__ Signature: _&/�W
,e 4
__(4/�f4f rt,_<
If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization.
Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member
For office use only — do not write below this line
SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF:
If appeal, rehearing, or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of. hearing of
appeal, rehearing, or review:
15 April 2011
Khanh Nguyen
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Mr. Nguyen,
My wife and I own the residence at 1151 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa, California. We
submitted a request to the Planning Commission for approval of changes to our approved plans
for a remodel of our residence. Planning Application ZAQ 09-31 Al was denied by the Planning
Commission (Resolution PC -11-13) on April 11, 2011.
The purpose of this letter is to document that my wife and I will correct the exceptions from the
approved plans for the Deck Cover, fireplace, and solid wall that were identified in that Planning
Application. These exceptions include:
The 18 inch eaves on the sides of the patio cover that extends past the bluff crest will be
removed
The fireplace and solid wall that extends past the bluff crest will be revised/relocated to
remove any extension past the bluff crest
The additional roof height of the patio cover roof (14 feet 6 inches proposed, 12 feet 6
inches approved) will be remodeled to not exceed the 12 feet 6 inches height approved
We will be appealing the Planning Commission decision denying the request for the Master
Bedroom/Bathroom addition to encroach into the bluff crest setback: 4 feet 3 inches proposed,
5 feet approved; and the request that the height of the Master Bedroom/Bathroom roof be
increased to 13 feet 6 inches proposed, 12 feet 6 inches approved.
We look forward to completing the construction of the deck cover and side wall.
0'4�n //" Oa6-e" *�r
Lea and William Lowe
1151 Gleneagles Terrace
Costa Mesa, CA 92627-4030
cc: Rebecca Robbins
15
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMM/SS/ON
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: APRIL 11, 2011
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: ZONING APPLICATION ZA-09-37 Al
AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY -APPROVED MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AN ENCORACHMENT INTO THE BLUFF CREST SETBACK
1151 GLENEAGLES TERRACE
DATE: MARCH 31, 2011
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: REBECCA ROBBINS, ASSISTANT PLANNER
(714) 754-5609 (RROBBINS(a UCOSTA-MESAX
DESCRIPTION
Amendment to minor conditional use permit for a previously -approved bedroom/bathro
addition and deck with a patio cover that encroaches into the required setback from the b
crest (10 ft. setback required; up to. 10 ft. extending past bluff crest approved) to allow:
1. 18 in. deep eaves on the sides of the patio cover that extends past the bluff crest
eaves previously shown);
2. The bedroom/bathroom addition to encroach further into bluff crest setback (5
setback from the bluff crest approved; 4 ft. 3 in. setback proposed);
3. The fireplace and solid wall (including support post of the patio cover) to extend p
the bluff crest (4 ft. past the bluff crest proposed; 0 ft. past the bluff crest approvE
and
4. Additional roof height for both the patio cover (14 ft. 6 in. proposed; 12 ft. 6
approved) and bedroom/bathroom addition (13 ft. 6 in. proposed;. 12 ft. 6
approved).
APPLICANT
William and Lea Lowe, the property owners.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny by adoption of Planning Commission resolution.
•..
Assistant
Planner
�y.
KHANH NGUYEN
Asst. Developmente)'
s Director
)m
uff
no
ft.
ast
d);
in.
in.
BACKGROUND
Project Site
The property is zoned Single -Family Residential (R1) and is bounded by Gleneagles Terrace
to the east (front), Aviemore Terrace to the west (rear), and single-family residences to --he
north and south (sides). The property is part of the Marina Highlands neighborhood,with
southerly and westerly views to the Pacific Ocean.
History
On December 24, 2009, the Zoning Administrator approved Minor Conditional Use Per it
ZA-09-37 for a single story addition, setback five feet from the bluff crest, and a deck the
width of the residence with a 21 -foot wide patio cover both projecting 10 feet past the b uff
crest. A deck wing wall along the right (north) property line was originally proposed; howe er,
it was the Zoning Administrator's determination that this was inconsistent with prior approv Is
and would obscure the view of the abutting neighbor to the north. Consequently, plans we -re
revised — and approved — consisting of a solid wall to the bluff crest, with the safety rail ng
extending past the bluff crest to be constructed of glass or plexiglass. Overall height for both
the cover and--bedroom/bathroom addition was -limited to 12 -ft. 6 -in. .1
The Zoning Administrator approved the request since there are several other properties in
the vicinity with homes built to the bluff crest including decks that cantilever over the buff
edge. The abutting properties on either side received approvals for additions and cove led
decks in January 2008.
During the public review and comment period for the project, staff received dne
correspondence from an Aviemore Terrace resident based on concerns with slope stability.
To address this concern, conditions were included to ensure that construction is properly b ilt
to maintain the stability of the slope.
Late January 2010, approximately one month after the public review period and the expirat on
of the appeal window, a neighbor voiced concerns about the patio cover (including its roof pi ch
and extension of 10 feet past the bluff crest), and the impact on his privacy and views. Late
2010 (September and December), two comments were received by neighbors with conce ns
regarding the size and mass of the project.
On' March 21, 2011, the property owner submitted an application to amend the previou$ly-
approved minor conditional use permit to legalize modifications made to the project dur�ng
construction. The City's Zoning Administrator typically reviews minor conditional use permits
and amendments; however, staff referred this request to the Planning Commission due to the
sensitivity'of construction on a bluff property and concerns raised by neighbors.
Zoning Code Provision
Any construction closer than 10 ft. from the bluff crest requires a minor conditional L se
permit; approval of the permit requires satisfaction that the building or structure t lat
encroaches into a bluff crest setback does not:
(a) Endanger stability of the slope;
(b) Substantially interfere with access for fire protection; and
(c) Detract from the visual identity and integrity of the bluffs.
AKIAI YSIS
Project Description
The property owner proposes the following modifications to the previously -approved pro
1. 18 in. deep eaves for a patio cover that extends past the bluff crest (no eaves
previously shown);
2. The bedroom/bathroom addition to encroach further into bluff crest setback (5 ft. from
the bluff crest approved; 4 ft. 3 in. proposed);
3. The fireplace and solid wall (including support post of the patio cover) to extend past
the bluff crest (4 ft. past the bluff crest proposed; 0 ft. past the bluff crest app rov �d);
and
4. Additional roof height for both the patio cover (14 ft. 6 in. proposed; 12 ft. 6 in.
approved) and bedroom/bathroom addition (13 ft. 6 in. proposed; 12 ft. 6 in.
approved). The increase in roof height will result in a 1 ft. 10 in. height increase for the
chimney, as required by Building Codes. With the proposed 14 ft. 6 in. height, he
chimney will need to be approximately 16 ft. 4 -in. high.
Although there was an eave constructed on the west end of the patio (facing Aviemore
Terrace) the contractor has confirmed that this will be cut back and will not extend beyond
10 feet from the bluff crest as approved on the approved building plans; a condition has b len
included reminding the applicant of this requirement.
Justifications for Denial
As analyzed by staff, the following are justifications for denial of the proposed amendment to
the previously -approved minor conditional use permit.
• The proposed is not consistent with -past reviews for encroac
setback typically approved for additions and decks with covers.
Although there are several approvals for single -story additions to the bluff crest and de�'ks
that extend beyond the bluff crest for properties in the vicinity, staff is unaware of any
approvals for solid walls that extend beyond the bluff crest.
• The accumulation of all the rec
the bluffs.
detract from the visual identity of
The Zoning Administrator carefully reviewed the original submittal in 2009 requirng
several revisions to reduce the visual impact of the project on the bluff. The plan that as
ultimately approved was determined to be in keeping with the architectural style of he
house while maintaining the visual identity of the bluff. It is staff's opinion that any furt er
encroachment would detract from the visual identity of the bluffs.
and massing.
Staff has received several comments with concerns from neighbors regarding the Size
.and mass of the existing project; the proposed modifications would further encroach and
increase the overall coverage of the bluff.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY
The proposed modifications to the previously -approved encroachments into the bluff c
setback are not consistent with General Plan Land Use Objective LU -2A.13 in that
encroachments impact the visual identity of the bluff crest.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Planning Commission has the following alternatives:
1. Deny the proposed amendment to the previously -approved protect. The applicant
then -be -unable to apply -for -the same requests for -6 months. .
2. Approve the proposed amendment to the previously -approved project, su
conditions. This would allow the project to proceed, subject to the recom
conditions of approval.
3. Approve the proposed amendment to the previously -approved proiei
e
5
ed
modifications, subject to conditions. This would allow the project to proceed, as modiied
by Planning Commission, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. I
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
If the request is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Qu,
Act (CEQA) Section 15270(a) for projects which are disapproved. If the request is approve,
would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Sec
15311 for Existing Facilities.
CONCLUSION
It is staff's opinion that the proposed amendment to the setback of the bedroom/bathrc
addition and covered decks will impact the visual identity of the bluff, will increase the bulk
massing of the additions and, therefore, is not compatible with approvals for similar addition
other homes in the vicinity. However, resolutions for approval and denial are attached to
report for the Commission's consideration.
17
`II ity
it
ion
nd
to
he
Attachments: I-. Plt r .
2. Applicants Letter/Site Photos
S. Lecatiom Map-
--4--Plans-
5. Zoning Administrator's Letter
cc: Development Services. Director
Deputy City Attorney
City Engineer
Transportation Svs. Mgr.
Fire Protection Analyst
Staff (4)
File (2)
William & Lea Lowe
1151 Gleneagles Terrace
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
File: 041111ZA0937A1 I Date: 032911 1 Time: 11:30 a.m. _ I
24 March 2011
PlAnning Commission
Ci� of Costa Mesa
Post Office Box 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
wife and I are remodeling our residence located at 1151 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa
Terence Permit No.: BC10-00292). The remodel involves expanding our current Master
[room and Master Bathroom and constructing a deck on the rear of our property. Since we
located on a bluff on the west -side of town, we applied for, and received, a Minor
iditional Permit.
e original designer that we employed to design this remodel, as well as guide us through the
y approval process, was incapable of completing the effort. We then employed a licensed
;hitect to complete the design and prepare the detailed plans for submittal to the city for Plan
Leek to obtain the Building Permit. In response to concerns identified by the City and a
ighbor during the Plan Check, the plans were modified. We incorporated these design changes
the extent that we felt was practical to accommodate city staff concerns regarding bluff
velopment and to minimize impacts to the view angles of the neighbor while maintaining our
E�ferences. These modifications are described below:
The solid sidewall of the deck cover was reduced in length and moved back to the edge
of the bluff to reduce any impact to the neighbor's view angles. We considered this
change as affecting our design negatively. We preferred the original larger wall area.
The solid sidewall is desired to block view lines from the adjacent neighbor's deck
into our dining room, living room, and bedroom. We also desired to minimize
noise from the adjacent neighbor's house when his sliding doors are opened since
the interior of his house is concrete floors with cinder block walls. With the
sliding doors opened, the house is a like a amphitheater.
The support posts for the deck cover were moved from their original design location at
the edge of the deck to closer to the bluff crest, again, to minimize the impact to the
neighbor's view angles. This revision resulted in a significant impact to the design and
complexity of construction of the deck foundation.
We incorporated glass panels in the deck railing design. Our adjacent neighbor has solid
wood railings and we desired a similar railing design. In response to a request from the
city staff, we incorporated the requested glass panels to minimize the impact to the
neighbor's view angles.
The deck cover support beam was raised in height from the code required seven (7) foot
height to eight (8) foot constructed height. This increased the view sight line through our
property, again, to minimize any impact to the neighbor's view angles. This increase in
height of the roof support beam contributes to the raised roof height which is an issue.
e have obtained the Building Permit and are well along with the construction. Several issues
ve been identified with the construction that can be traced to the change in designers and the
Lnlementation of the design by the contractor and subcontractor.
The deck cover has been constructed with eaves. The approved plans do not reflect eaves
on either side of this cover.
We were recently told by city staff that there were discussions between our original
designer and city staff regarding the property coverage of the deck, its cover, and the
bedroom/bathroom expansion prior to the approval of the Minor Conditional Permit.
During these discussions, apparently it was agreed that eaves would not be incorporated
on the deck cover in order to minimise the area covered within the bluff setback area by
our construction. We had no knowledge of these discussions or the agreements that were
made. What was also omitted at this time was the installation of gutters for rainwater
control and drainage.
Our original designer, as well as the architect that replaced him, were told that we
considered the rain runoff issue a major item to be addressed in the design. A review of
the original design shows drains in the deck but no description of gutters to capture the
rain runoff.
At the initiation of construction, the issue of how to handle the rain runoff of the deck
cover was discussed with the contractor and sub -contractor. This discussion was to
determine how to handle the rain runoff and the prevention of erosion of the bluff by
identifying all aspects of a bluff erosion control system. It was envisioned that this
system would consist of the installation of gutters on the eaves of the bedroom/bathroom
expansion, the rear of the existing house structure, and on the deck cover. These gutters
covering the entire rear portion of the completed structure would collect rainwater and
channel it to drains on the deck. These drains would then conduct the rainwater to drain
pipes running from the deck down to Aviemore Terrace at the rear of our property and
then into the storm drain located at the bottom of our property.
An additional reason for the eaves is to provide weather protection from rain and, to some
extent, sun to the sidewall and door on the west -side of the deck. This protection would
reduce the possibility of weather damage to the stucco and door, and the development of
mold. The approved plans reflect eaves on the bedroom/bathroom expansion and on the
existing house structure, but not on the deck cover. Eaves were constructed on the deck
cover without realizing that they were not on the plans.
The addition of eaves, with planned gutters, will result in an increase in coverage of the
property surface area within the ten (10) foot bluff setback on the west -side of the
property.
We are requesting that the Planning Commission approve the incorporation of eaves and
gutters on the deck cover. As noted in the discussion, the addition of eaves would make
the implementation of the rain runoff control system much simpler and much more
efficient than alternative designs. Gutters could be installed without eaves but significant
effort would be required to accomplish the installation and the efficiency of the system
would be significantly diminished. In addition, the incorporation of eaves on the deck
cover results in an architecturally pleasant design and blends in with the current house
structure design, especially the bedroom/bathroom expansion.
Without approval of this request, even the installation of gutters on the westside of the
deck cover would not be permitted due to the encroachment into the bluff setback area on
both sides of the deck cover.
We feel that the increase in coverage of the surface area within the bluff setback area is
minimal and the increased efficiency of the rainwater collection system would offset any
other affects.
This issue concerns the height of the roofs on the bedroom/bathroom expansion and on
the deck cover. The approved plans show a height dimension of 12 feet 6 inches for the
deck cover. The measured height of the bedroom./bathroom expansion is 13 feet 2
inches; the measured height of the deck cover is 14 feet 4 inches.
During the construction of the bedroom/bathroom expansion, my instructions to the
contractor were to "provide more than adequate vent openings and to provide sufficient
headroom for me to access the expansion area for maintenance and whatever else I would
need to do in that area". The design for the expansion reflects the bedroom.heater duct
being routed to the outside wall and sufficient access would be required for its installation
and maintenance. The roof was constructed with a pitch to match the existing house
structure and to provide adequate access and ventilation in the expansion attic and from
there into the existing house attic. This bedroom/bathroom roof exceeds the plan
dimension by eight (8) inches but is well below the existing house roof height.
The construction of the deck cover followed a similar path. Again, I instructed the
contractor to provide the same features as the bedroom/bathroom expansion. This roof
was also constructed with a pitch similar to that of the existing house structure and a
height to provide adequate access and ventilation to the existing house attic. There are
electrical lines and a natural gas line installed in this new area and access'to these lines is
required from a safety standpoint. This structure exceeds the plan dimension by one (1)
foot 10 inches and does not exceed the height of the current house roof.
We are requesting that the Planning Commission approve the height exceedances of the
bedroom/bathroom expansion roof and the deck cover roof.
The bedroom/bathroom expansion roof matches the existing house roof and results in a
pleasing, uniform design consistent with the existing house design. The pitch of the roof
helps guide rainwater into the gutters attached to the eaves. In addition, the height
provides adequate clearance for access to the expansion attic for maintenance of the
heater duct and efficient air movement within the attic for cooling and ventilation without
appearing unnecessarily high or exceeding the current height of the house roof.
M
The deck cover roof also matches the existing house roof and, again, provides a pleasing,
uniform design consistent with the existing house design. The pitch of this roof will
guide rainwater into the attached gutters and also provide adequate access to the electrical
lines and gas line in the extended attic area.
In addition, the Planning Commission is requested to approve the installation of rain
gutters on the bedroom/bathroom expansion since these gutters are located within the
bluff setback area.
3:
The fireplace extends beyond the bluff crest by approximately 13 inches. The rear wall
of the fireplace extends towards the easterly property line approximately 16 inches. The
fireplace dimensions were changed to reflect the requirements of the fireplace insert
purchased. The width of the fireplace was reduced from six feet six inches to five feet.
In addition, the fireplace insert was located slightly different in height from that shown
on the approved plans.
During the construction the base for the fireplace was centered in the middle ceiling bay
between two roof beams. The ceiling fan will be located within this same bay. This
resulted in a stronger roof structure design while providing a more pleasing visual
appearance. The base was incorporated into the side support foundation for the deck and
was formed as part of the concrete pour for the foundation and the grade beam. The
fireplace base was also moved outboard approximately four inches from its original
location.
Rationale:
The fireplace base was cast as an integral part of the deck foundation and is located
approximately 19 inches from the grade beam. Although part of the base extends beyond
the bluff crest, the edge of the fireplace is behind the line of the neighbor's residence
structure and no impact to view lines is expected. Also, the structure of the fireplace base
is secure and no danger. of movement is anticipated in spite of partially extending beyond
the bluff crest. The clearance from the fireplace to the westerly property line is
approximately 61 inches. The clearance from the house and deck structure to the
westerly property line is approximately 77 inches. We feel that the location of the
fireplace is acceptable considering the structural design and the location of view lines.
The portion of the deck sidewall between the fireplace and cover support post is proposed
to be a solid wall. This solid wall extends beyond the bluff crest but is not considered to
be interfering with view lines. The approved plans show an opaque glass railing.
As a result of the redesign of the attachment of the cover support post to the grade beam
and the revised location of the fireplace described above, approximately 17 inches of
clearance exists between the fireplace structure and the cover support post. We
considered this space too narrow to install the opaque glass railing. We are requesting
that the solid wall be extended from the fireplace structure to the cover support post.
We request that the Planning Commission accept this change to the approved plans.
Extending the solid wall would also contribute to making the sound wall more effective
in providing a barrier to the noise from the adjacent neighbor's residence.
The Master bedroom/bathroom expansion extends out 7 feet 10 inches, the drawing
shows 7 feet 2 inches.
During the layout of the foundations for the Master bedroom/bathroom expansion, the
outer wall of the expansion was located to accommodate the installation of a wider door
from the bedroom, the construction of a toilet compartment, the installation of an outer
door accessing the deck, and the relocation and installation of the existing vanities and
medicine cabinets. This resulted in the expansion being 8 inches longer than the
approved plans show.
The wider door from the bedroom into the bathroom was required to meet code
requirements. The outer door from the deck to the bathroom was required to facilitate
using the bathroom by people out on the deck. The only other access to bathroom
facilities would be by traveling through the living room and down a long hall to a
bathroom. We desired to reuse the existing vanities and cabinets since they were fairly
new and in great condition. The toilet compartment was desired for privacy concerns.
We are requesting that the Planning Commission approve the additional 8 inches. The
size and mass of the foundations will ensure that no ground movement will occur and the
setback from the bluff crest will range from 4 feet 4 inches to 4 feet 6 inches. The
majority of the setback will be in the 4 feet 6 inches range. The original setback was 5
feet 0 inches to 5 feet 2 inches. This addition projection of the structure will not,impact
any neighbor's view sight lines.
The building plans were not as complete and clear as they should have been. In addition, the
arkhitect did not appropriately address the topography of the bluff in the design drawings. This
is I contributing factor to the conflict between the existing building and the details on the
drawings. From the beginning the contractor and foundation subcontractor had to use their
experience and technical knowledge to overcome deficiencies and omissions in the plans. Our
concrete subcontractor and general contractor were forced to use "best design practices" in
consultation with the structural engineer to layout and construct the caissons and foundations
including the grade beam. This resulted in changes to dimensions and locations of structural
components and contributed to several of the issues described in this letter. One of the most
3ig991nificant changes was the location and attachment of the cover support posts to the grade beam.
That change was documented in a revision to the approved plans reviewed and approved by the
;ity.
a3
Pictures are provided in a Planning Commission Presentation to illustrate the concerns and
support our requests.
We appreciate your attention to these requests. My wife and I cordially invite the members of
the Planning Commission, and their staff, to visit our home to see for themselves what we have
accomplished and how these requested changes would contribute to a more attractive remodel.
you have anyJ questions, please contact us.
ea and William Lowe
151 Gleneagles Terrace
osta Mesa, CA 92627-4030
49-631-8630
0Y
a-5�
5;
0
O
NOz
a
m
0
0
0
w
m
•
9
z
O
V)
z
r
x
W
U
W
0
LL
O
z
LUV
W
N
W O
> J
°V a z
V z 3 o
LLJ
LL.O Q
O " z
z°a
O � Q
P a
oNz
aY�c
z O W
a°a
° O W
Z W a
a � z
a W c
C.
W X W
W
O 0
°ao
W
mz
ILr) a
c W
O n
LLJ
�cc0
W W W
m W
W
a
z
s
J
W
0
W
r)
z
W
Z
—
z
V)
w
r)
CC
w
0
U
SNOOOU
LU
0
V)
W
Z)
V)
V)
LU
V)
0
z
J
m
ccCL
oR 7
H
Z W
z Q
o a
� a
O W
O W
Z a
p
LLJW
� a
O GC
J O
v
O
0
LLI
o
v� 0 Lu
W
W La
~ m W =
UJ
Q Q W
o -�a
a o W z
� p cc a
0 z W
�Z 0
w > Q V
z-;QUi
°o
W �
C7 p = p
cn cc _
z
O
H
J
0
W
cc
W
cc
W
H
°o
U
0 (�
m Z
00
0 � W
Z ztD W
V
Wa
oQ
W
V
W Ljj
O
Z
O LLJ
L N
O
0 z
ao
J f -
J Q
Z
a
� W
J z
O _
vA J
O
LLJW
CL
LL
O
O
w
z
O
7A
z
a
x
W
LL
O
2
c�
W
z
O
N
z
W
5;
W
z
Q
a
W
O
a
LLJ
a
Q
c/1
0
W
V
x
W
VA
z
J
a
O
W
O
a.
a
Q
z
O
H
O
z
ix
LLI
F-
F-
M
Q
LL
O
tI�
J
pc Q O
z
Z W -
L9 m
W 2 O
- = O Z
®LL U. Q
O O
z o � z
CL F- a F -
Q
W ei Q
5 Q cr
O OC W Y
w Z LL
O o. O
V Q J
CO QZ Z L-
W w O O
O 0 a z w
O Q V d Y
GCLLI X aQ
LLJ® CC LU W G
LLJ
CCQ � �
�� ��0
CL O
LL,O = Q cr. v
I- C7I-
O— I- CL
—
=Ouj=
LL iZ V) W
—cc0U >�-
LL 0.. ccz 2
00
�
d ■ ■ ■
71
LLJ
M
Q
z
a
LL
O
Z
O
a
J
J
H
Z
Cf
w
J
w
CL
Q
Z Z
J O
a z
O WW
LU
00
> G
cic
Z
O. J
Q a
Z
O W
00
Z a
� a
W Q
�o
W
� V
�W
Z�
Q =
W CJ
Q =
W
LL LL
O0
0
CCoc ac
W
W >
> 0
O V
V V
W W
o�
0
V
W
0
0
Z
0
0~C
a
M
Z
crf
W
cl
V
LLJ0
0
V
H
LL
0
■
LLI
cc
H
M
W
M
0
Z
H
t/1
X
W
0
Z
LLIa
DG
H
M
H
N
0
m
0
Z
Q
Z
a
a
cr
Y
0
0
LL
O
LLI
Q
G
0
0
V
H
a
W
Q
LL
n
W
W
Z I-
D
� V
Z Q cc
zC7 V)
O j LL
Q 0
J
Q
BZW
Z � �
Z
� Q
0 Z Z
W—
V
a�0
Q c0
J V D.
F- Z
® W W
Jui
�
> W Q
o W
a v >
=zo
Z V
W—
ui
=Ia-a
W Z LL
OO aQ O
C W
■ Q
W
■
cc
H
C7
Z
R
oc
oc
0
Q
Z
H
Z
M
00
uiC
a
W
Q
W
■
O
Z
O
Z
W
X
W
uiV
CLQ
J
W
LL
0
z
Q
LLI
cc
LL
LL
J
m
0
Z
0
uim
W
x
uiW
a
J
G.
W
N.
Z
J
G.
ui
ix
CL
Q
0
V
W
Z
V
Z
W
V
ujc
Ln
30
Z
0
a
0
z
M
O
U.
W
V
L.L.
LL
J
m
W
>W
O =
m V
Qz
W
m N
W
V Z
Q J
ui
W
LL O
O a
Z
O�
c V
c
a z
z
QLLJ
V
H
cc
a
a
LL
O
w
O
Q®
0o
O
LL
O
aQ
zUJ
J=
W
I-
W
ZCC
O
OC
jWW
—
m
o
�
0
W
Z
a°
W
Z
;�
Z
W
J
za
UJ
m
jV
J
>j
d
J
Z
Z
a
V1
V
a
Z
W
V
Z
<a
('
W
m
V
�
�
z
V
a
W
V)
V
�.
W
W
LL
LL
■
■
Z
0
a
0
z
M
O
U.
W
V
L.L.
LL
J
m
W
>W
O =
m V
Qz
W
m N
W
V Z
Q J
ui
W
LL O
O a
Z
O�
c V
c
a z
z
QLLJ
V
1:2
m
D
LL
0
D
z
Q
W
a
J
W
w
LL
W
W
W
m
0
LLIV
0
O
z
0
H
0
a
J
a
�c
W
LL
uim
0
uiO
0
O
a
a
c~
a
MFA
0 Z
z V
az
V
ui
a�5
m W ccUJ D.
OQ O Jcn
Q� L aW
z~
X O 0
®c0c HQ
Z
0 a Q O Q
Q cn V
O
Q O W z
O_
Wco 0 V
� �
w 0
Z Zo.m
C W W J 0
Q V Q ,j z
Q
W J W � Q
CD W O j ON
Qj
aL` O�Q
dV L 0
p O 0 j
Q z 0 >
LL. N.
0- W O Q o
cc V
LSO Qz�
0p z � FZ w O
Q�z1WQ
W
WW d ■ ■
D cc 0
U
CO
W �
= W
V
Z H
00 W
� V
O L-
Lj-
Z m
W N
X ~
W Q
Z a
O
Z o
a Q
W z
G O
Oz
0 W
a�
Z
�Q
O a
O LLu
W 0
m a
W Q
Q Z
G 0
W
m
W
W
Z LL
WC Re
J
O
„ LL N
OC to O to W
C W W uj
N U
V Z Z
Q
V Q w to
Z V cn �— L~u
O W D Q W W
z Q z �
ZLLJ Q V
x W 2 2
Q
W Z P 0 0O
W aza �a
>
V OG WF-
(
z 0.F(A
NO o h Q W
W N V W O
LWL W Q (A F
ui CC
�V0 -- °CO
H = _
0 ? W O LLo
Q
coif W cn (n Z O m =
ZLL. a R 0 0LLJ 0~
a F- 0 J C W
0� N
j _ V
W a w Co V
oD
N H W Z
CIC UJ
? ? LO
a
a x ■ ■
Q W
3Z
N
W a
= W CC
H H G
W
> Q 0
0 LL O
o =
z Q
Q Q o m
> z Q
0 J o
GC < o0c
a z W
Q o z
WH
0 O
z §
W
z z
LL. � Q
Q Q�,cOc z m
LLJ
G. W
V W LL
Z LVu LW 0 W
O z xo W
W Q V 0 LLJH Y Q
CA u
FM W (7 W 0
N - J
W z W Q W Q W
— = W = z ac
Cr N crLL LL Q LL
W W O 0 0
Wz
Cf(DQ ao Q
pCcc LL, z0 Oz 0
LLJ 3:a a a a
Qo
-j aW a
W 0
LL
J
Q
o~c
a
z
Q
V
z
W
V
a.. W
W
oLL
W
J
W m
W 0
LL W
O Co
QO
> Vi
o0c z
d. W
C. ~
Q LLQ
33
LL
LL
J
m
0 LL.
O �
oc z
0 O
z
Q z
W a
a W
J
CLW
O
W
W m
W
m 0
J 0
Q 0
3 LuLu
W 0 m
o (A cc
Lu ui
Y m ~
LVu 0
Q
� � G
00 0
a� a
00 0
ac a cc
CL
a a
Q� a
W
a
V
m
W
W
V
W
V
z
W
LL
d'
0
W
V
z
W
ui
LL
W -
LL
LLIm
J
J
V
m
W
0
LyooL
F—
z
0
U
LL
LL
0
z
D
3y
HLL
Z
LL
�LLI o m
W W Li
,,L��—ccOL�OZ
LLQ OC CC pLL. Z p
OCL O cc O
ZOO ocZZ�O
m pC w 0 0 0 2 oG
W Li a Z LL CC V I- W
s • •
V)
OG
O
�
CC
W
Z
W
Z
�
z
Z
Oo
p
W0
�
L
OC
W
Q
>-W
LL J
Q
O
a
3�
W
J
W
0
Z
v -
W
3y
HLL
Z
LL
�LLI o m
W W Li
,,L��—ccOL�OZ
LLQ OC CC pLL. Z p
OCL O cc O
ZOO ocZZ�O
m pC w 0 0 0 2 oG
W Li a Z LL CC V I- W
s • •
ember 24, 2009
CITY OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200 - 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200
�S`�i^Rii:Jri?nL.::,i31:i11Siu.S::KC4:!P^..':K3+_^.T'.^..::::l�:U::',Q'.i^�rv.1:J:T _�:.J2:4i L4lL'd::.IIAII:'�':,'•::'r•:`F:.\':�J'.Clii..":,i.{tt„�,!n't.R.2i5:_u1N5^�YIY:::!'iYt•ICZS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Tim Johnson
515 River Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
ZONING APPLICATION ZA-09-37
MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
CLOSE TO AND EXTENDING OVER THE BLUFF CREST
1151 GLENEAGLES TERRACE, COSTA MESA
r Mr. Johnson:
Review of the minor conditional use permit for the above -referenced project has been
completed. The application, as described in the attached project description, has been
aproved, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval (attached).
T -ie decision will become final at 5 p.m. on December 31, 2009, unless appealed by an
ahected party (including filing of the necessary application and payment of the
a Dpropriate fee) or by a member of the Planning Commission or City Council.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact the project
planner, Rebecca Robbins, at (714) 754-5609 or rrobbins(a ci.costa-mesa.ca.us.
Sincerely,
1161
ILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP
ming Administrator
hments: Project description
Findings
Conditions of approval
Approved conceptual plans
Engineering
Fire Protection Analyst
Building Division
Bill Lowe
1151 Gleneagles Terrace
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Building Division (714) 754-5273 • Code Enforcement (714) 754-5623 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245
FAX (714) 754-4856 - TDD (714) 754-5244 - www ci.costa -mesa.ca us
9-37
ember 24, 2009
ECT DESCRIPTION:
The property is zoned Single -Family Residential (R1) and is bounded by Gleneagles
Terrace to the east (front), Aviemore Terrace to the west (rear), and single-family
residences to the north and south (sides).
The applicant proposes a single story addition setback, five feet from the bluff crest,
and decks projecting 10 feet past the bluff crest. A deck wing wall will extend along
the right side property line. The wall is to be solid to the bluff crest, with a safety
railing extending over the bluff crest constructed of glass or plexiglass and open at
the top to the roof. Decking along the left side property line is open, aside from the
safety railing, starting five feet from the bluff crest, and extending 10 feet past the
bluff crest. Since the addition and decks encroach within the required bluff crest
setback and includes decks that extend over the bluff crest, a minor conditional use
permit is required.
Staff supports the addition and covered decks .because there are several other
properties in the general vicinity with homes built at the bluff crest and decks
projecting 10 feet beyond the bluff crest. The abutting properties on either side have
received approvals for similar additions and decks in January 2008.
Conditions have been included to ensure that the structure is properly built to
maintain the stability of the slope and that dense landscaping will be provided at the
property's rear to screen the decks.
The covered decks and residential addition are consistent with General Plan Land
Use Objective LU -2A.13 in that a geotechnical report will be required to ensure that
the integrity of the existing slope is protected. The natural topography and views will
also be protected because the residential addition will be setback five feet from the
bluff crest, the solid wall of the deck along the right side property line will not extend
past the bluff crest, and only decks will cantilever, with their transparent railings, over
the bluff.
FINDINGS
a
11
The information presented complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-34 and
13-29(g)(2) in that allowing the residential addition and covered decks to encroach into the
bluff crest setback is compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting
the minor conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general
welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity.
Specifically, the proposed development is compatible with other encroachments in the
immediate vicinity and, as conditioned, would not detract from the visual identity and
integrity of the bluff. The decks should not interfere with access for fire protection and a
geotechnical report is required to confirm the improvements will not endanger the stability
of the slope. Granting the minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density, or
intensity that is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property.
The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e)
because:
1. The proposed development and use is compatible and harmonious with uses
both on-site as well as those on surrounding properties.
2. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, parking areas,
landscaping, and other site features including functional aspects of the site
development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been
C
M
C
9-37
:tuber 24, 2009
considered.
3. The project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the property.
4. The zoning appli.cation is. for a project -specific case and does not establish a
precedent for future- development.
The project.has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the GEQA ,GUidelines, and the City environmental procedures,• and has
been found to be exempt from Class 1 of CEQA.
The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation .System Management,
of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
NDITIONS OF APPROVAL
g. 1. All structures shall maintain a minimum five-foot setback from each side
property line.
2. Any future residential addition shall not project beyond the bluff crest without
proper City approval.
3. The deck wing wall along the right side property line extending over the bluff
crest shall contain glass panels on the bottom, not exceed 36 inches in
height from the decks' floors, and shall remain open on the top, extending up
to the deck roof.
4. The proposed support posts for.the decks shall be located as close to the bluff
edge as feasible to minimize visual impacts to the bluff.
5. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not
limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building
articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during
construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to
obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the
requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a
discretionary review process such as a minor design review or a variance, or
in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans.
6. Landscaping shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, to
screen the decks and support structures. Landscaping material shall consist of
dense, evergreen plants and trees.
7. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be required as part
of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be
forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of
building permits.
8. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning
Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets.
9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved
plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance.
10. All construction -related activity shall be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m.
and 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday.
Construction is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Exceptions may
be made for activities that will not generate noise audible from off-site, such
as painting and other quiet interior work.
11. The conditions of approval and Code requirements of Zoning
�37
-37
nber 24, 2009
Application ZA-09-37 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of
the plan check submittal package.
12. The applicant shall . contact the Planning Division to arrange for Planning
inspection of thea site prior to Building final inspection. This inspection is to
confirm that the, conditions- -of approval and Code requirements have been
satisfied.
DE -REQUIREMENTS
The
following list of federal, state, and local laws applicable to the project has been
compiled
by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the
City
of Costa Mesa.
Ping.
1. Approval of the planning application is valid for one (1) year from the effective
date of this approval and will expire at the end of that period unless applicant
establishes the use by obtaining building permits for the authorized
construction and initiates construction. If the applicant is unable to obtain
building permits within the one-year time period, the applicant may request an
extension of time. The Planning Division must receive a written request for the
time extension prior to the expiration of the planning application.,
B
s. 2. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do
Lilc.
business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and
utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained.
Bldg.
3. Comply with the requirements of the 2007 California Building Code.
4. Submit a soils/geotechnical report Submit a soils report as part of the building
plan check package. One boring shall be at least 10 feet deep. Soils report
recommendations shall be blueprinted on the plans.
5. Submit grading and drainage plan.
6. Provide erosion control measures and plans.
Eng.
7. A Construction Access Permit and deposit of $730.00 will be required by City
of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division prior to start of any on-site work,
necessary during construction for street sweeping and to guarantee
replacement costs in case of damage to existing public improvements.
Fire
8. Provide approved smoke detectors to be installed in accordance with the 2001
Edition of the Uniform Fire Code.
9. Comply with all Fire Code requirements.
PECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMEN
he requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant:
ani. 1. It is recommended that the applicant contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary
District at (949) 645-8400 for current district requirements.
QMD 2. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District
(800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for
additional permits required by the district.
Ile f��
4 I :.�
AL
P y
lill j
G � �ir lt•�'9
,
ATTACHMENT 5
Y/
J
yz
a
77
ATTACHMENT 6
Z A- 09- - )
From: Colm OConnor [mailto:firstcolm@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 20115:05 PM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
Subject: ZA-09-37 Al
I am a neighbor of William Lowe 1151 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa; I have seen the
work that has been completed to date and I have read the Offical City Notice. I have no
objection to the proposed amendment as described in the notice.
Colm O'Connor
1129 Gleneagles Terrace
Costa Mesa, Ca. 92627
7.5
04/05/2011
aq - 01 -54 -Al
From: Simon Bibeau [mailto:sbibeau@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 20118:19 PM
To: FLYNN, CLAIRE; BOUWENS-IQLLEEN, WILLA;.ROBBINS, REBECCA
Subject: 1151 Gleneagles
Dear Planning/Committee, hope all is well. Unfortunately l will not be able to• attend the hearing
tomorrow regarding the 1151 Gleneagles additions.
Please make sure the attached letter is read during the meeting tomorrow.
i
Please call or email me with any questions
Thanks Simon
y�
04/11/2011
Dear Planning/Committee,
We are opposed to the request for additional modifications for 1151 Gleneagles, (Application Number
ZA-09-37 Al) for the following reasons:
We don't believe that this addition is compatible with the neighborhood,
i
nor would we want such a bluff intrusion of this.extent next to our home ,
or elsewhere in the neighborhood.
This approved addition was already more than elsewhere in the
I
neighborhood. The deck is larger (a single depth of i10'+ for the entire
width of the property) and it has a larger deck roof (covering the full
depth of the deck) than any previous home in our neighborhood. To allow
this additional modification would only worsen the issue and is
unacceptable,
A wall extending past the bluff edge, particularly right next to the
neighbor's property Dine, should not be allowed.
The original notice sent to the neighborhood was not indicative of the
size of the project --it did not mention the deck cover at all, so, at
the time, we and several neighbors did not object. j
It appears that the deck is actually already much more that approved 10'
at the SE end.
Please add to the non -compliances that the deck cover currently actually
goes even further over the bluff than the deck. The'cover is the bigger
issue and has to be limited to the 10' restriction (though we believe
this is much to far).
y7
It is our recommendation that the deck consider the Actual bluff line and be limited to the 10' as
originally approved. Further, the roof cover is not harmonious with the neighborhood and if allowed
would open the way for more such additions which would all detract from the identity of the bluffs.
W,ibest regar ,
n wyt .
Simon Bibeau
1167 Aviemore Terrace, Costa Mesa 92627
P&
From: Cicero, Geri[mailto:Geri.Cicero@ceoit.ocgov.com]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:35 PM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: susie.cicero@sbcglobal.net
Subject: ZA.09.37 Al 1151 Gleneagles Terr
Importance: High
My concern about the conditional use permit amendment for the above property is that there is more
weight on a hill that is above me and related safety. What does the geo-technical report allow and have
the new dimensions been discussed with the company that performed the report?
My address is 1147 Aviemore Terrace
Thank you for your attention to detail and caution.
qvti C'icexa,
Administrative Assistant
Orange County Data Center
Affiliated Computer Services
A Xerox Company
1400 S. Grand Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92705
email: geri.ciceroceoit.oc,gov.com
y9
04/11/2011
consultants
CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 Fair Drive 2"d Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Received
City of Costa Mesh.
Development Services Department
APR 11 2011
Attention: Rebecca Robbins, Building Planner
Ts -.3
ZA-3701
-
p yngineering
11 i geotechnical
applications
April 9, 2011
Project No. TJ580.1
Subject: Project Consultation - Approved Pier and Grade Beams, Setbacks and Drainage
FOR NEW REAR YARD DECK EXTENSION and ADDITIONS
AT 1151 GLENEAGLES TERRACE
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
Application No. ZA-09-37- Al
Reference: "Geotechnical Investigation For Proposed Residential Additions - Rear Yard Deck Extension at
1151 Gleneagles Terrace, Costa Mesa, California," by EGA Consultants, LLC, dated November
11, 2009.
Dear Ms. Robbins,
In accordance with the 2010 CBC and the City of Costa Mesa building requirements, we are
submitting this Compliance Report to certify that we have observed and approved the caisson
drilling operation as well as the grade beam and foundation trenches and hereby verify that
such work is in conformance with the approved Soils Report (referenced above).
The new rear yard deck, bedroom/bathroom addition and fireplace foundations are supported
by the drilled, cast -in-place caissons and grade beams. On December 8, through December 9,
2010, a total of four (4), 24" diameter caisson boreholes were drilled by Peter Drilling, Inc. each
to total depths of 15 feet below lowest adjacent slope grade. Representatives from our firm
inspected and confirmed that the four boreholes extend a minimum 12 ft. into competent native
materials. The caisson embedments meet or exceed the specifications outlined in the above -
referenced Soils Report and the Foundation Plan by Shucri Yaghi, Consulting Engineers (dated
July 9, 2010 and revised on August 6, 2010 and on September 30, 2010).
Note: The new construction locations in relation to the rear yard, southwest -facing slope are as
follows:
1. New bedroom/bathroom foundation setback 4 ft. 3 inches from top of slope.
2. New deck fireplace foundation extends 4 ft. past the top of slope.
The above foundation elements are tied -in and supported by the new pier and grade beam
system. Therefore, from a geotechnical standpoint there is no added surcharge to the slope.
The underpinning and new construction is approved from a geotechnical standpoint.
375-C Monte Vista Avenue - Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - (949) 642-9309 - FAX (949) 642-1290
0
U
We recommend installing additional rain gutters and down spouts along the residence
perimeters. All downspouts should be tight -lined into area drains. All drains should be directed
to a suitable discharge, such as the curb -face at Aviemore Terrace. Under no circumstances
should water be allowed to pond adjacent to the residence slabs, standing structures, and the
rear slope.
Based on the findings of our geotechnical investigation and our continuous observations and
testing during the pier, grade beam, foundation and steel doweling phases, the on-site new
construction will not impact the geologic stability/safety of the subject or surrounding sites.
Geologic hazards such as landsliding, settlement, or slippage are not present or future factors
at the subject or adjacent sites, provided the proposed drainage diverts surface and roof gutter
runoff to a suitable outlet, away from the slope and foundations.
This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
EGA Consultants, LLC
DAVID A. WORTHINGTON CEG 2124
Principal Engineering Geologist
Copies: (2) Addressee
(1) Mr. William Lowe, Homeowner
1,eRED CSO
Qalrid t
4�A. O
No c�hin9ton'�
CFC 2124
CO G
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTATION - Lowe Residence Rear Yard Additions
1151 Gleneagles Ter, Costa Mesa, CA
Project No. T.1580.1
April 9, 2011 Page 2 of 2
✓/
Ms. Kimberly Brandt
Development Services Director
City of Costa Mesa
Post Office Box 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
Ms. Brandt -
� ♦ 9--3 A 1
3 April 2011
RECT SPR °-
5'2011
My wife and I have reviewed the material being submitted for the Planning Commission Hearing
scheduled for April 11, 2011, regarding our Zoning Application ZA-09-37AL We take
exception with Item 3 in the Description: "The fireplace and solid wall (including support post of
the patio cover) to extend past the bluff crest (4 ft. past the bluff crest proposed; 0 ft, past the
bluff crest approved)".
The approved plans clearly show the support posts for the deck cover to be located beyond the
bluff crest. These posts were identified in the initial proposals for our project at the edge of the
deck and were relocated back towards the bluff crest to minimize the impact to our neighbor's
view line. To portray them in the manner stated is misleading. In addition, as the photographs in
the attached briefing demonstrate, the proposed fireplace extends 13 inches beyond the bluff
crest. The proposed extended solid wall at the edge of the fireplace would be approximately 17
inches wide. The summation of the two proposals is 30 inches.
Please provide a set of the enclosed presentation to each Commission member in order that they
may be able to consider the facts when making their decision.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
'Le4 and William Lowe
1151 Gleneagles Terrace
Costa Mesa, CA 926274030
wwlowe@earthlink.net
enclosure
5a�
r
0
z
z
W
X
LU
J
J
a
z
Q
W
U
Q
J
U.j
nro
LL
I—
V)
L1J
o�
U
LL
LL
D
J
m
0
z
O
L1J
m
w
Q
Ln
m
2
w
F -
z
O
I -
Ln
W
CL
LU
W
a
0
0
z
z
a
J
reo
W
O
U
O
a w
LL w
O LL
O J
CL m
O
o~c = >
d F-
V
V) a Q
z W W
p d oC
U
J (LL
U w LL
z U J
`, LL m
LL W
O J Ln Co
C)
= Q
wNF- CL
LL
Q C O
x -M0
UJ z W
W Ln
LUX
cc
i=—
O
.
n
L^
C
CL V)
(�
V)
z_ LU
CCU
Li -
O LL -
V) V J
(D
z O
Q W
re U)
Q U
zLU
o
Q)Or_ � Q
O 0 O
V- W
u O oc
J W �LL
w 0 W
W
� Q u
W cn
_>
Z 0 of
O ac O
O a -
LL
W D
:D LI)
0
LL a -
W
0
a
J
a
a
0
LU
Q
O
J
LU
Cf -
(D
c
z
O
a
J
LU
O
Q
G
LL
0
U
W
LCJ
D
C7
•
0
0
V)
V)
LU
LL
LL
m
z
0
LU
m
z
w
X
W
0
0
LUO
CCQ
W
W
0
0
[7
J
J
0
J
O
0
Q
W
U
Q
LU
oc
LL
0
LUO
0
CL
W
J
LL
W
W
W
0
0
O
00
W
LU
LL
Q
w
U
LL
J
m
z
Dc
Q
W
Q
J
W
UL
O
W
z
0
z
z
O
J
J
W
0
2
cr-
LL
V)
U
z
z
a
LU
d
O
OL
Q
G
w
LL
N
J
U
U
LU
0
0
Lu z
LU Q
D �
O Q
U -r
w
LL
O
N U
ZZQ
oz
z a
O�
F— N
w
Z)Z
oiz
.
515.
J
J
O
J
O
z
a
LU
Q
J
W
LL
0
O
CL
Ow
�z
J
ULu
J >
LL
w
0
Ln CO
w
=
w-
=w
cn z
o°
d- w
0�
O Q
=w
LU
Q
J
w
LL
LL
O
LU
LU
O
J
LU
J
J
OaG
a
cn
J
J
a
LU
cn
m
w
z
W
U
z
w
0
Ln
W
O
0
z
V)
O
O
d
LL
O
0
w
z
w�
>z
0 -
LU w
Q>
LULL
Ww
U D
z
_m
z O
a z
J
a
2
Z
W
z
w
O
J
CO
J
0
O
LL
O
0
ui
w
x
LU
LU
O
z
z
a
z
E
W
CL
Z
w
LL
F-
m
^
DC
cr-
0
w
V)
w
U
z
.
m
F—
w
U-1
U
w
O
LL
z
DC
LL
LL
z
U
V)
_
m
O
z
F-
U
z
o
z
z
w
wz
00
O
W
F-
W
I—
W-
Com
J
X
I—
w
LU w
(1)
__j
W
L/)
Q
"-
_
�:
J
w
z
o
_J
a
U
Q
m
0
LL
LIO w
r -i
`n
cn
D
L.L
LnZ
U
V)
J
O
w
O
_J
LCL
J
x
w
0
�m
U°
-
L
FN-
Q
0
z
U
J
CC
a
w
U
-j
w
-
z
0
J
:E
2
"mow
�
a'�
w
crU
N
W
CO
�-a
oma=
U
w
w
W
=
J
J
J
a
W
w_
z
a
F
3:
m
�
(A
LL
oNr-i
zzzLn
0
ocn
w
O
J
W
N
w
z0
Z)
m
-�
a
LL
O
O
a
a
J
U
U
LU
0
0
Lu z
LU Q
D �
O Q
U -r
w
LL
O
N U
ZZQ
oz
z a
O�
F— N
w
Z)Z
oiz
.
515.
J
J
O
J
O
z
a
LU
Q
J
W
LL
0
O
CL
Ow
�z
J
ULu
J >
LL
w
0
Ln CO
w
=
w-
=w
cn z
o°
d- w
0�
O Q
=w
LU
Q
J
w
LL
LL
O
LU
LU
O
J
LU
J
J
OaG
a
cn
J
J
a
LU
cn
m
w
z
W
U
z
w
0
Ln
W
O
0
z
V)
O
O
d
LL
O
0
w
z
w�
>z
0 -
LU w
Q>
LULL
Ww
U D
z
_m
z O
a z
J
a
2
Z
W
z
w
O
J
CO
J
0
O
LL
O
0
ui
w
x
LU
LU
O
z
z
a
z
E
W
CL
Z
w
LL
F-
m
^
DC
cr-
0
w
V)
w
U
z
.
m
V
z_
z
W
F.—
x
W
Q
0
J
0
V)
0
z
w
U
Q
W
nC
LL
1 � i
'o
b
Me
U � FLOOR AND ®ECK PLAN
1
LL
m
zL7. .x 1
U.J o j
76
S4
Ei
V)
Q
J
0
N 0
cr-
w a.
�CL
a
(D 2i
LL- 0
cr-
u.
z
0
w
V)
z
Q
r-Iz
WLr)
0
0
LL
z
0
W
V)
0
z_
z
W
X
w
J
J
a
O
V)
0
z
a
W
U
a
J
LU
w
LL.
LL.
LL.
m
n
z
O
LLJ
m
-57
N
0
0
w �—
OC Ln
LU
U U
LL
� J
W m
Q z
EL Lu o
�m
L�
0 Z
W
(j)o
Oz
CL O�
= x
a- LU
a W
U
1 00
��4f
,J LU 4-
O r -i
Ul
CZ
Q W
< LL
J ,1
CL
°i
L(D
0 z z
LU
O z
o- O a
0 o- 5;
To
744
r! �, �� it � ,� `r � k �y, yy)) 1.>Iiqa �.'• ,� � e '{"i�+ � y'`��
w ti�
r-
p
p w
p
oc Q ? OO
wp U p
O
z w
® LL Q � z Q p a_ uz re
W
z w w W O m � z O
W w LL= ww Q-� I> -
oz WQ 2� oc
I W C/i LU
O Q o m p> U
z U
J W LU
O 0 V) Q Q o= Ln
p w 1� z Q O p
Q U J w Z Q o J= z
L Q o 0 Q>.
N O >w U
LL O w p z Q
C) Z a_ cr
W J >
re
_I 0 �w >Z 0E- a_
LU
0 F-
O p� J U I— p U p
cry p zQLU Q< ocv,z z�
z Wo
p � .� O Q >
W U z p LL- = 1— w 0
z O QU- o J �LL-W Qre
Q °-
>- � p z O cn LL. � � p
W w m w p J W w-
W CO oc p X W �- m p oc z O
U w z W N � p W IL
J z p Q o p z p Q 5. a.
O az v �w
D O m O�
z 0_
U.jp O w O cn
-� C= w oC w
U a_ U- a_ oC
LL z
O .
U
0
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. PC -11- 1,3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF COSTA MESA DENYING ZONING APPLICATION ZA-09-37 Al
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FO LI LOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed by William Lowe, owner of real property located at
1151 Gleneagles Terrace, in a Single Family Residential (R1) zone;
WHEREAS, the proposal is an amendment to minor conditional use permit ZA-09-37
for a previously -approved bedroom/bathroom addition and deck with roof cover that
enc oaches into the required setback from the bluff crest to allow: (1) 18 in. deep eaves on
the sides of the patio cover that extends past the bluff crest; (2) the bedroom/bathroom
addition to encroach further into bluff crest setback (4 ft. 3 in. setback from bluff crest); (3)
fire i lace and solid wall (including support post of the patio cover) -to extend past the bluff
crest (4 ft. past the bluff crest); and (4) additional roof height for both the patio cover (14 ft. 6
in.) and bedroom/bathroom addition (13 ft. 6 in.);
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on April
11, 2011 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the
proposal;
BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings
con,ained in Exhibit "A," the Planning Commission hereby DENIES Zoning Application ZA-
09-37 Al with respect to the property described above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of April, 2011.
Z�7�� 'a�2L ,
Colin McCarthy, Chair,
Costa Mesa Planning Comm on
RM
TATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)ss
OUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, Claire Flynn, Assistant Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of
Esta Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted
a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on April 11, 2011, by
e following votes:
COMMISSIONERS: MCCARTHY, CLARK, DICKSON, SALCEDO
OES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
SENT: COMMISSIONERS: FITZPATRICK
STAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Claire Flynn, Assistan ecretary
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
M
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS (DEN
ZA-09-37A1
A. The information presented complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections
13-34 and 13-29(g)(2) in that allowing the residential addition and covered decks to
encroach further then previously approved into the bluff crest setback is not
compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the minor
conditional use permit will be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare
of the public or other properties or improvements within. the immediate vicinity.
Specifically, the proposed would increase the mass and bulk of the additions and
detract from the visual identity and integrity of the bluff. Granting the minor
conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity that is not in accordance
with the general plan designation for the property.
B. The proposed project does not complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section
13-29(e) because:
1. The proposed encroachment is not compatible and. harmonious with
uses both on-site as well as those on surrounding properties.
2. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, parking areas,
landscaping, and other site features including functional aspects of the
site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have
been considered.
3. The project is not consistent with the General Plan designation for the
property.
4. The zoning application would establish a precedent for future
development.
C. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has denied Zoning Application ZA-09-37
Al. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project amendment
because it has been rejected and will not be carried out.
D. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System
Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
M