The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20180118_PC Staff ReportCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 18, 2018 Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) SITE LOCATION: 358 Dahlia Place Staff Approval No. SA2017-009 APPLICANT: Andrew Goetz, Architect OWNER: The Myers Family Trust PLANNER: Gregg Ramirez, Principal Planner 949-644-3219, gramirez@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The Applicant requests approval of alternative front and rear setbacks pursuant to NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) and Section 21.30.110(C). The request is due to the orientation of the lot and the lack of public right-of-way access that results in undue development limitations created by the Code-required setbacks. Specifically, the proposal is to reduce the 20-foot front setback along Bayside Drive to 7 feet and increase the Code-required 10-foot rear alley setback along a private alley to 12 feet. The requirements for 6.5-foot side yard setbacks would remain unchanged. RECOMMENDATION 1)Conduct a public hearing; 2)Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), which consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent (%), which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including but not limited to, minor lot line adjustments and setback variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel; and 3)Adopt Resolution No. 2018-003 approving Staff Approval No. SA2017-009 (Attachment PC 1). 1 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2 VICINITY MAP Insert image GENERAL PLAN ZONING LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE RM (Multiple Unit Residential) RM (Multi-Unit Residential) Single Unit Dwelling NORTH RM (Multiple Unit Residential) RM (Multi-Unit Residential) Single Unit Dwelling SOUTH RM (Multiple Unit Residential) RM (Multi-Unit Residential) Single Unit Dwelling EAST N/A N/A Bayside Drive Right-Of-Way WEST RM (Multiple Unit Residential) RM (Multi-Unit Residential) Single and Multi-Unit Dwelling Subject Property 3 INTRODUCTION Project Description Pursuant to Sections 20.30.110(C) and 21.30.110(C) (Setback Regulations and Exceptions – Alternative setback area location) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), the Community Development Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties in cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity. Application of the default setbacks to the subject property for an RM (Multi-Unit Residential) property results in a floor area limit lower than other residential properties in the vicinity and the Corona del Mar area. The Community Development Director has referred this application to the Planning Commission for review and action. The setbacks required by the Zoning Code are 20 feet from the front property line (adjacent to Bayside Drive), 6.5 feet on the sides (8% of the property width), and a 10- foot rear setback. The lot is rectangular in shape, 81 feet wide by 70 feet deep with a lot area of 5,670 square feet. The RM zoning for the site (20 du/acre) allows one single family home or a duplex. The property is gently sloping to a depth of approximately 50 feet then the slope gradually increases. The steepest portion of the slope is located on the public property adjacent to Bayside Drive. Using the default setbacks, the buildable area1 of the lot is 2,720 square feet. If the requested 12-foot rear alley setback and 7-foot front setbacks are approved, the buildable area would be 3,468 square feet. In addition to the base floor area limit (FAL), the RM zoning district development standards do not count 200 square feet of floor area when required parking is provided in a garage. Therefore, a single family home could be 400 square feet larger and a duplex 800 square feet larger if complying 2-car garages are included in the final design. Using the default setbacks and taking advantage of the garage area provision, redevelopment could result in a maximum floor area of up to 4,880 (2,720 x 1.5 + 800) square feet for duplex and 4,480 (2,720 x 1.5 + 400) square feet for a single family home. Using the proposed setbacks, redevelopment could result in a maximum floor area of up to 6,002 (3468 x 1.5 + 800) square feet for duplex and 5,602 (3468 x 1.5 +400) square feet for a single family home. Exhibits included in Attachment PC 3 depict the required (default) and proposed setbacks. The attached topographic and boundary survey (Attachment PC 4) is a more detailed exhibit and includes the following information: 1 “Buildable area” is defined by Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) of the Zoning Code as the area of a development site, excluding the minimum front, side, and rear setback areas as applied to residential properties only. 4 Property boundaries and lot dimensions Topography Existing (default) setbacks Proposed setbacks Location and setbacks of existing home Distance of property to Bayside drive (curb) Dahlia Place dimensions and easement notes Background The subject property and surrounding area were originally subdivided in 1904. The original lots were 30-feet wide and 118-feet deep and were oriented with the longer dimension parallel to Bayside Drive and Seaview Avenue (see figure below). Many properties in the area (northerly of Seaview Avenue southerly of Bayside Drive and easterly of Fernleaf Avenue) have been re-subdivided since the original 1904 subdivision. This, along with the County of Orange vacating the public roads and alleys in the block before annexation of the area, has resulted in a variety of lot shapes, sizes, and orientations. Most of the re-subdivisions occurred prior to the adoption of state and local subdivisions codes. Additionally, like the subject property, vehicular access to many lots in the block are provided through a combination of public and private easements. The re- subdivisions and vacated right-of-ways have resulted in an area almost unrecognizable from the original 1904 tract map. Original Block 231 Current Block 231 5 According to County Assessor records, the existing home was constructed in 1943 and City records show a bathroom addition in 1965. The home is approximately 1,150 square feet and maintains the following setbacks from property lines: Front (Bayside Drive);26 feet Right Side: 0.92 feet; Left Side: 34.91 feet; and Rear (centerline of easement): 13.81 feet. DISCUSSION Analysis To determine whether the proposed rear setback is appropriate, staff analyzed the following: 1) the compatibility of the proposed setbacks with the required setbacks on lots within the surrounding area; and 2) the resulting true floor area ratio (maximum building square footage allowed divided by lot size) to ensure that the proposed setbacks do not result in more floor area than neighboring lots with typical lot configurations. Setback Compatibility Front Setback (Bayside Drive) Staff has determined Bayside Drive to be the front yard, which requires a 20-foot setback area. Although not a public alley, the 14-foot wide Dahlia Place vehicular easement (private) functions as a typical rear alley supporting the front yard determination. Front setbacks typically abut a public sidewalk or street and provide direct vehicular and/or pedestrian access to private property. In this case, City owned property comprised of a steep slope between Bayside Drive and the property negates the opportunity for vehicular or pedestrian access so all property access is via Dahlia Place. In considering the request for a 7-foot front setback, staff considered three issues: 1) What the setback of the original subdivision would have been; 2)Does the requested setback provide adequate separation from the public right- of-way; and 3)Will the requested setback be consistent with the pattern of development in the block. If the original subdivision pattern was maintained, the Dahlia Place property line would have been a 3-foot side yard. The property is separated from the improved Bayside Drive sidewalk and street by a large City owned parcel comprised a steep slope and landscaping. At its closest point (southeasterly corner), the rear property line is over 40 feet from the Bayside Drive sidewalk. Applying a 7-foot rear setback would result in a 6 building over 45 feet from the public sidewalk at the nearest point, which is much greater that a typical 20-foot front setback applied to most lots in Corona del Mar. The two adjacent properties, 348 Dahlia Place (southerly) and 314 Carnation Avenue (northerly) abut the Bayside Drive slope. 348 Dalia Place is very similar to the subject property because it abuts the Bayside Drive slope and takes access from Dahlia Place. The existing home at 348 Dahlia Place maintains a 17-foot front setback (Bayside Drive) and Code-required setbacks would be the same as the subject property. The home at 314 Carnation Avenue maintains the original 1904 subdivision lot orientation and has a required 5.2-foot side yard setback to Bayside Drive. The existing home maintains a 5.5- foot side yard setback to these abutting lots. Staff believes that a 7-foot front setback can be supported due to the separation of the property from the Bayside Drive slope and that future construction would be setback farther than the adjacent home at 314 Carnation Avenue, which maintains its original lot orientation. Side Setbacks Standard side yard setbacks in the RM Zoning District for lots greater than 50-feet wide are required to be eight percent (8%) of the average lot width. In this case, the required side setback for the 81-foot wide lot is 6.48 feet. For analysis purposes and as proposed by the applicant, the number was rounded to 6.5 feet. Staff believes the standard 6.5 foot setbacks are appropriate for the development of this property. Rear Alley Setback The Code-required 10-foot rear setback is not consistent with how Dahlia Place is developed or with other rear alley setbacks in Corona del Mar. Dahlia Place is a 14-foot wide ingress/egress and public utility easement that provides access to the subject property and others. It is essentially identical in design and function to the typical 14-foot wide public alleys found throughout Cornea del Mar. Seven feet of the easement is located on the subject property and another 7 feet is located on the property opposite Dahlia Place. The apartment development opposite the alley provides a 5-foot setback on the ground level. In Corona del Mar, homes abutting standard 14-foot wide alleys are required to maintain a 5-foot rear alley setback. In addition to the home/garage being setback 5 feet, the Code stipulates that these rear alley setbacks must be kept clear of obstructions (no buildings, fences, planters, etc.). The intent is to improve vehicular maneuverability that allows for 2-way traffic and provide an adequate turn radius for vehicles entering and exiting garages and parking spaces. The application of the requested 12-foot rear alley will encompass the 7-foot wide easement and provide the standard 5-foot rear alley setback. Staff believes the requested 7 12-foot alley setback is compatible with the existing and required setbacks of the other properties along Dahlia Place. Additionally, it will facilitate and maintain adequate vehicular access to other properties along Dahlia Place. FAR Comparison Due to the difference in lot size and variation in setback areas between the subject property and surrounding lots in the block area, staff has employed a true floor area ratio (FAR) method for analytical purposes. This method allows for a more direct comparison of floor area to lot area. A comparison of typical lots in Corona del Mar with the required and proposed setbacks and the floor area limits of the subject property is provided in Table 1: Table 1 - FAR Analysis Table Typical CDM R-1, R-2 and RM Lots Lot Size SF Buildable Area SF Floor Area Limit (Buildable SF x 1.5) Floor Area Ratio Required Setbacks RM 30 x 125 Lot 3,750 (30x125) 2,400 4,400 (Incl. 2 Car Garage Exception 400SF*) 1.17 F:15 R:10 S:3 R-1/R-2 – 30 foot width w/ 20ft Front Setback 3,540 (30x118) 2,232 3,348 0.94 F:20 R:5 S:3 R-1/R-2 - 45 foot width w/ 20ft Front Setback 5,320 3,441 5,161 0.97 F:20 R:5 S:4 R-1/R-2 w/ 15ft Front Setback 3,540 (30x118) 2,352 3,528 0.99 F:15 R:5 S:3 358 Dahlia Default Setbacks 5,670 2,720 4,880 (Incl. 4 Car Garage Exception 800SF*) 0.86 F:20 R:10 S:6.5 358 Dahlia Proposed Setbacks 5,670 3,468 6,002 (Incl. 4 car Garage Exception 800SF*) 1.05 F:7 R:12 S:6.5 *Up to two hundred (200) square feet of floor area per required parking space devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in calculations of total gross floor area. As shown in Table 1, the floor area analysis was based on comparing the proposed buildable area and resulting floor area limits with standard RM, R-1, and R-2 lots in Corona del Mar. The results show that 0.86 FAR using the default setbacks is lower than all the standards lots. It also shows the 1.05 FAR using the requested setbacks is within the RM and R-1/R-2 FAR range of typical lots in the area. Therefore, staff believes the proposed setbacks and resulting buildable area and floor area limits are compatible with the surrounding development and greater Corona del Mar area. 8 Summary Staff believes the requested setbacks and resulting floor area are compatible with the nearby lots. As illustrated in the Table 1, the requested setbacks result in an FAR of 1.05, which is within the range of consistent with FAR of lots in the area. The requested alternative rear setback is consistent with the existing development on surrounding properties and the width of the Bayside Drive right-of-way will provide additional separation for the street and new construction. The proposed setbacks will allow re- development consistent with the scale and floor area ratio (FAR) allowed on other properties within residential zoning district throughout Corona del Mar. Alternatives Should the Planning Commission find the alternative setback requested by the applicant or recommended by staff to be unreasonable, the Planning Commission should either prescribe more appropriate setbacks for the property or determine the property should be subject to the default RM zoning district setbacks applicable to this property. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt under Section 15305, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), which consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent (%), which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including but not limited to, minor lot line adjustments, side yard, and setback variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. The Alternative Setback Determination does not constitute a major change that would require environmental review. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: 9 ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval including Exhibit “A” PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial PC 3 Required and Proposed Setback Exhibits PC 4 Topographic and Boundary Survey with Setback Information :\Users\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2017\PA2017-184\CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH.docx09/21/17 10 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Planning Commission Resolution including Exhibit “A” - Determination of Alternative Front and Rear Setbacks 11 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE12 RESOLUTION NO. PC2018-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING STAFF APPROVAL SA2017-009 FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 358 DAHLIA PLACE (PA2017-184) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by The Myers Family Trust (“Applicant”) with respect to property located at 358 Dahlia Place, and legally described as: Those portions of Lots Thirteen (13) to Eighteen (18), inclusive, in Block Two Hundred Thirty-One (231) of Corona del Mar, as per map thereof recorded in Book 3, at pages 41 and 42, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County, together with a portion of the alley in said Block which was vacated and abandoned by Resolution No. 366 of the Board of Trustees of the City of Newport, requesting approval of a Staff Approval for an Alternative Setback Determination in accordance with Sections 20.30.110(C) and 21.30.110(C). 2. The Applicant requests approval for alternative front and rear setbacks due to the orientation of the lot and the lack of public right-of-way access that result in development limitations created by the Zoning Code required setbacks. Specifically, the proposal is to reduce the twenty (20) foot front setback (Bayside Drive) to seven (7) feet and increase the Code-required ten (10) foot rear setback to a twelve (12) foot rear alley setback. The requirement for six and a half (6.5) foot side yard setbacks would remain unchanged. 3. The subject property is located within the Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Multiple-Unit Residential (RM). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Zoning District is Multi- Unit Residential (RM) and the Coastal Land Use Plan category is Multiple-Unit Residential Detached (20.0-29.9 DU/AC). 5. A public hearing was held on January 18, 2018, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15305, of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). 13 2. Class 5 exempts minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than twenty percent (20%), which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including, but not limited to, minor lot line adjustments and setback variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. The Alternative Setback Determination does not constitute a major change that would require environmental review. 3. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City’s CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys’ fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. NBMC Section 20.30.110(C), Alternative Setback Area Location, states the following: “In cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with the surrounding properties.” NBMC Section 21.30.110(C), Alternative Setback Area Location, states the following: “In cases where the application of the setback area is not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. The reorientation of setback areas is not applicable to the Bluff Overlay District and Canyon Overlay District.” Pursuant to NBMC Sections 20.30.110(C) and 21.30.110(C), the following findings are set forth: Findings 1. The NBMC does not establish required findings for the review of a staff approval for an alternative setback determination. The front and rear setback requests were reviewed for consistency with lots in the vicinity and based on the application of standard setback areas, the resulting floor area ratio (“FAR”), and other development standards. 2. The use of the default front and rear setbacks for the RM Zoning District limits development on the lot and results in a FAR inconsistent with other lots in the vicinity and other RM, R-1, and R-2 zoned properties throughout Corona del Mar. 3. Re-subdivision and reorientation of the lots that constitute the property made no provision for vehicular access from a public right-of-way. Access to the property is provided via a fourteen (14) foot wide private ingress/egress easement (Dahlia Place), 14 which runs parallel to the rear property line and is the equivalent size of a typical alley in Corona del Mar. Seven (7) feet of the Dahlia Place easement encroach across the rear of the property. The increase of the rear setback from ten (10) feet to a twelve (12) foot rear alley setback will ensure this seven (7) foot portion of the easement is maintained and that the equivalent of a five (5) foot rear alley setback is provided. This five (5) foot setback from the Dahlia Place easement is consistent with the typical required five (5) foot setback from fourteen (14) foot alleys in Corona del Mar. 4. The proposed seven (7) foot front setback fronting the Bayside Drive right-of-way will offset the seven (7) feet of reduced buildable area used to maintain the Dahlia Place private alley and the additional six (6) foot reduction (thirteen (13) feet total) will allow the property to be developed with a single family home or duplex similar in size and scale with what is allowed on properties throughout Corona del Mar. 5. Due to the extraordinarily wide Bayside Drive public right-of-way and intervening City property (approximately 45 feet from the property line to the sidewalk at the closest point), the application of the seven (7) foot alternative front setback will result in the principal structure being approximately thirty-five (35) feet from the public sidewalk, which is a greater distance than typical residential development in Corona del Mar and the City. 6. Any development would be required to maintain a seven (7) foot front setback (Bayside Drive), twelve (12) foot rear alley setback (Dahlia Place), default six and a half (6.5) foot right and left side yard setbacks (eight percent (8%) of property width), and comply with all applicable development standards. 7. The proposed alternate setbacks combined with the 1.5 times the buildable area floor area limit will allow for the development of a single family home or duplex that is comparable and proportional to the floor area ratio allowed for homes on nearby lots and lots throughout Corona del Mar. The setbacks also provide a reasonable space to provide light and air to adjacent properties and vehicular access along Dahlia Place. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves SA2017-009, subject to the front and rear setbacks set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 15 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY:_________________________ Peter Koetting, Chairman BY:_________________________ Erik Weigand, Secretary 16 EXHIBIT “A” Determination of Alternative Front and Rear Setbacks SA2017-009 for PA2017-184 Date: January 18, 2017 Site address: 358 Dahlia Place NBMC Section 20.30.110(C) (Setback Regulations and Exceptions – Alternative Setback Area Location): “In cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the [Community Development] Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. The reorientation of setback areas is not applicable to the Bluff Overlay District.” NBMC Section 21.30.110(C) (Setback Regulations and Exceptions – Alternative Setback Area Location): “In cases where the application of the setback area is not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. The reorientation of setback areas is not applicable to the Bluff Overlay District and Canyon Overlay District.” For this Setback Determination, the Community Development Director referred to the Planning Commission to establish the following alternative front and rear setbacks: Yard Setback Description Front 7’ (Alternative) Bayside Drive Side 6.5’ (Standard) Northerly Property Line Side 6.5’ (Standard) Southerly Property Line Rear Alley 12’ (Alternative) Dahlia Place On behalf of Peter Koetting, Chairman By: Erik Weigand, Secretary Attachment: Setback Exhibit 17 47'46.5' 46.5' 41270'81' 14" Sewer / Water Easement &Private Ingress & Egress Easement14'14'Private Ingress & EgressEasement DA H L I A P L 0 10 20Feet I358 Dahlia Pl - PA2017-184Alternative Front and Rear Setbacks PA2017-184_setback_determination Date: 12/22/2017 BaysideDrive 18 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial 19 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE20 RESOLUTION NO. PC2018-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING STAFF APPROVAL SA2017-009 FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 358 DAHLIA PLACE (PA2017-184) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by The Myers Family Trust (“Applicant”) with respect to property located at 358 Dahlia Place, and legally described as: Those portions of Lots Thirteen (13) to Eighteen (18), inclusive, in Block Two Hundred Thirty-One (231) of Corona del Mar, as per map thereof recorded in Book 3, at pages 41 and 42, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County, together with a portion of the alley in said Block which was vacated and abandoned by Resolution No. 366 of the Board of Trustees of the City of Newport, requesting approval of a Staff Approval for an Alternative Setback Determination. 2. The Applicant requests approval for alternative front and rear setbacks due to the orientation of the lot and the lack of public right-of-way access that result in development limitations created by the Zoning Code required setbacks. Specifically, the proposal is to reduce the twenty (20) foot front setback (Bayside Drive) to seven (7) feet and increase the Code-required ten (10) foot rear setback to a twelve (12) foot rear alley setback. The requirement for six and a half (6.5) foot side yard setbacks would remain unchanged. (See Exhibit “A” Alternative Front and Rear Setback Determination.) 3. The subject property is located within the Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Multiple-Unit Residential (RM). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Zoning District is Multi- Unit Residential (RM) and the Coastal Land Use Plan category is Multiple-Unit Residential Detached (20.0-29.9 DU/AC). 5. A public hearing was held on January 18, 2018, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. 21 SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. 1. Municipal Code Sections 20.30.110(C) and 21.30.110(C) do not establish required findings for a review of a staff approval for an alternative setback determination. The setback areas requested were reviewed for consistency with lots in the vicinity based on an application of standard setback areas, the resulting floor area ratio (FAR), and other development standards. In this case, the Planning commission was unable to find that the proposed setbacks were consistent with lots in the vicinity. 2. The alternative setback determination will be detrimental to the surrounding properties. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Staff Approval No. SA2017-009 (PA2017-184). 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY:_________________________ Peter Koetting, Chairman BY:_________________________ Erik Weigand, Secretary 22 Attachment No. PC 3 Required and Proposed Setback Exhibits 23 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE24 25 26 Attachment No. PC 4 Topographic and Boundary Survey with Setback Information 27 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE28 29PA2017-184Attachment No. PC 4 - Topographic and Boundary Survey with Setback Information 1 From:Vince Capizzi <vincec@capizziinsurance.com> Sent:Saturday, January 13, 2018 12:11 PM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Set backs Set backs should not be altered unless there is unusual circumstances. Vincent Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Vicki Ronaldson <v.ronaldson@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 14, 2018 9:20 AM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:exception to zoning rules on dahlia Dear Planning Commissioners, Please do not approve the request for setback changes for 358 Dahlia. Corona del Mar has a unique charm that is being erased by big box building, and cannot be recovered. In this case, the code section that is being used to make the change is not appropriate. This situation calls for a variance as it is increasing the size of the house that will be ultimately built. Thank you for supporting our quality of life, vicki and don ronaldson 506 san bernardino ave nb ca 92663 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Lynn Lorenz <lynnierlo@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, January 14, 2018 12:21 PM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:358 Dahlia Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing to appeal to you to not approve the request for setback changes for 358 Dahlia. In the case of this request, the code section that is being used to make the change is not appropriate. This situation actually calls for a variance as it is increasing the size of the house that will be built. Furthermore, past experience shows that when you open the door for one exception, you are inviting others in. We can't afford to allow fragmentation and favoritism to affect city zoning. That is why you must follow the guidelines in order to conserve the quality of life in our beautiful city. Thank you, Lynn Lorenz, 434 Redlands Avenue, Newport Beach, 92663 Lynn Lorenz lynnierlo@aol.com, 949 646 2054 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Herbert Fischer <herbfischer912@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 14, 2018 2:00 PM To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Cheryl Fischer; susanskinner949@gmail.com Subject:NO TO INAPPROPRIATE ZONING! It has come to my attention that a request has been made to reduce the setbacks at 358 Dahlia Place in CDM, as a resident of CDM on 240 Heliotrope I urge the staff and Planning Committee to not allow this request as it is an exception to our zoning rules. Thank you for considering my request. Herb Fischer Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Cheryl Fischer <chfulfisch@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 14, 2018 2:17 PM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Fwd: NO TO INAPPROPRIATE ZONING! I understand a request has been made to reduce the setbacks at 358 Dahlia Place in CDM. I own a home at 240 Heliotrope and I urge the staff and Planning Committee to NOT allow this request as this would be an exception to our zoning rules and start a precedent. Thank you for considering my request. Cheryl Fischer Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) Ross and Janice Billings 314 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949.673.0125 January 12, 2018 Mr. Peter Koetting, Chair, Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Concerns with request for 358 Dahlia Place Dear Mr. Koetting, We are writing with concern regarding the request for the setback on Bayside Drive for the property at 358 Dahlia Place. Our property is directly adjacent to the one in question. We would like this correspondence to be placed in the record for the upcoming Planning Commission Hearing scheduled for January 18, 2018. Since our home is our primary asset, we are vitally concerned with the integrity of the hillside and the placement of a structure on a coastal bluff. We are seeking assurances from Newport Beach city staff and leadership that the hill will be geologically stable and can withstand the mass and weight of any approved structure on the site. In addition, we want to make sure that the City requires the property owner to provide the appropriate indemnifications to the City to insure against any bluff/hillside failure in the future as a result of development at 358 Dahlia Place. Finally, we are relying upon the City of Newport Beach to protect our home against any potential adverse impact resulting from development at 358 Dahlia Place. Thank you for your attention to an important issue for us and our family. Sincerely, Ross and Janice Billings c. Erik Weigand, Planning Commission Secretary, Commission members The Honorable Mayor, Duffy Duffield, and City Council David Kiff, City Manager Leilani Brown, City Clerk (hard copy to follow) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Valerie Hutcheson <valerie.hutcheson@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2018 11:30 AM To:Planning Commissioners Cc:susanskinner949@gmail.com Subject:Stop Inappropriate Zoning Exemptions in CDM Please stop allowing the adjustment of setbacks in order to allow larger homes being built in CDM! Thank you. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Donald Santacroce <dsanta323@twc.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2018 11:48 AM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:re 358 Dahlia Place Dear Commissioners: As a resident of Corona Del Mar I am strongly opposed to allowing the property at 358 Dahlia Place to enlarge building area by 27%. Please vote against this request. Donald Santacroce 232 Larkspur Avenue Corona Del Mar CA 92625 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Rich LaPorte <61group@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2018 2:01 PM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Response / 358 Dahlia Attachments:FACTS.pdf Attached is response to Susan Skinner. Thank you for reviewing. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 358 DAHLIA PLACE FACTS PA- 2017-184 1 – ALL LOTS IN CDM HAVE A BUILDABLE RATIO OF APPROXIMATELY 1 TO 1. 2 –THIS MEANS YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD APPROXIMATELY THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE AS LOT AREA. 3 –THIS WAS THE STANDARD USED FOR SEVERAL GENERAL PLAN UPDATES AND ACROSS DECADES OF DEVELOPMENT. 4 – THE CITYS GENERAL PLAN ALLOWS FOR CONSISTANCY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES APPLY , LIKE NO STREET FRONTAGE, OR POTIONS OF LOTS JOINED TOGETHER. 5 –SETBACKS ARE ALLOWED TO BE ADJUSTED FOR GENERAL PLAN CONSISTANCY 6- THIS IS NOT A ZONING EXEMPTION 7 –THIS DOES NOT PROMOTE BIG BOX HOUSES 8- THE CITY IS FOLLOWING ITS OWN RULES 9 –SKINNER MISREPRESENTATIONS HURT THE FACTS FOR RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Stephen Perkins <sperkins@royalsg.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2018 2:56 PM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:358 Dahlia Place Attachments:FACTS.pdf; Resized_20180114_165615_1470.jpeg To Whom it may concern Normally I do not get involved but when a family member of mine is arbitrarily handed a piece of paper just walking down the Street by Mrs Skinner it is quit alarming. Realizing the Job that the Counsel has in approving these processes I felt compelled to reach out and give my Input. My Father visiting from another state was handed this piece of Paper from Mrs Skinner, SEE ATTACHED. This information is very misleading and there should be rules that need to be followed. I am not an expert by any means but I’ve done a little homework of my own and you will find out what Facts I have been able to address, Please see the attachment named FACTS. I’m not really sure why Mrs Skinner feels compelled to try and mislead the Neighbors but its just not appropriate. More importantly why was a person who doesn’t even live in the State of California even handed a Piece of Paper just walking down the Street. I believe that Mrs Skinner is simply trying to stir things up and felt I should speak up. Regards Steve Perkins, 237 Carnation Ave, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 358 DAHLIA PLACE FACTS PA- 2017-184 1 – ALL LOTS IN CDM HAVE A BUILDABLE RATIO OF APPROXIMATELY 1 TO 1. 2 –THIS MEANS YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD APPROXIMATELY THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE AS LOT AREA. 3 –THIS WAS THE STANDARD USED FOR SEVERAL GENERAL PLAN UPDATES AND ACROSS DECADES OF DEVELOPMENT. 4 – THE CITYS GENERAL PLAN ALLOWS FOR CONSISTANCY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES APPLY , LIKE NO STREET FRONTAGE, OR POTIONS OF LOTS JOINED TOGETHER. 5 –SETBACKS ARE ALLOWED TO BE ADJUSTED FOR GENERAL PLAN CONSISTANCY 6- THIS IS NOT A ZONING EXEMPTION 7 –THIS DOES NOT PROMOTE BIG BOX HOUSES 8- THE CITY IS FOLLOWING ITS OWN RULES 9 –SKINNER MISREPRESENTATIONS HURT THE FACTS FOR RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Gregri Joel Easterday <gjeasterday@roadrunner.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:08 AM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Big box homes Please no big box homes! Enough already. Let’s preserve what is left of our quaintness. Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) January 12, 2018 Dear Planning Commission, Once again, I am writing to you about an inappropriate application that will be before you on Jan 18. The application for a reduction in setback at 358 Dahlia should never have been processed as an alternative setback request, but should have been processed as a variance request to reduce setbacks. The alternative setback request exists to reorient setbacks within the property, not to reduce setbacks. Section 20.30.110 states: Alternative Setback Area Location. In cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. The reorientation of setback areas is not applicable to the Bluff Overlay District. (emphasis added). However, our city has allowed multiple properties to receive an increase in buildable area using this mechanism. As an example, 3200 Ocean Blvd will be seeking a reduction in setbacks using this section of code in the immediate future (or at least the initial application asked for changes under this part of code). Jim Mosher has a list of properties already granted setback changes under this code and has already shared them with you. Since a reduction in setbacks results in a larger buildable area and less open space around the homes, these applications change the character of old CdM, potentially without the review of the Planning Commission. The code allows these reorientations to occur at the discretion of the Planning Director and you see them only when he chooses to forward them on to you. This also creates an inequitable situation. If a property does not have an odd orientation, it theoretically is not a candidate for an alternative setback request. When some setbacks are modified under this code and other setback requests (2607 Ocean Blvd) are required to go through a variance process, you no longer have a level playing field for owners. This seems to me to create an unnecessary legal liability for the city as well as being patently unfair. This particular application does not even ask for a reorientation of setbacks, but retains the front setback off of Bayside Dr. and the back setback on Dahlia. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) Based on this information alone, it is inappropriate to process this as an alternative setback request. The current front and side setbacks are standard setbacks, the same as every other rectangular lot. The back setback could be 5 feet instead of 10 feet, if I am reading the code correctly. There is no odd shape to the lot that requires particular attention and no logic whatsoever to reduce the front setback from 20 feet to 7 feet except that the owner would like to build a larger house. The staff indicates that they considered what the setback of the original subdivision would have been, but as the lot was subdivided in 1904 and quite a lot has changed since then, it seems completely irrelevant what our ancestors originally planned. They ask if the requested setback allows enough separation from the public right away but this question is also irrelevant to a property that is consistent with current code. It could be argued that the back setback is a candidate to change, but even that seems as though it should be changed through a variance. If a property has standard setbacks and a slightly different buildable area due to being wider or longer in a community where there are many different lot sizes and shapes, why are we seeking to grant exception after exception in this community? The zoning rules are there for a reason and I grow increasingly discouraged that our city engages in what appears to be a willingness to bend and break the rules at will. Please also note that this property falls under Title 21 as well as Title 20, leaving open the option of taking this issue in front of the Coastal Commission for adjudication as well. I would appreciate having you reject this application and require a variance for setback relief if setback changes are felt to be an appropriate action to take. Thank you, Susan Skinner 2042 Port Provence Place Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Larry Webb <lwebb@nwhm.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:49 AM To:Planning Commissioners Cc:susanskinner949@gmail.com Subject:358 Dahlia Setbacks I am opposed to reducing the setbacks at 358 Dahlia in Corona del Mar. I believe there has been a consistent trend of overbuilding on lots that destroys the fabric of a community. I have a Master`s in Urban Planning from Harvard and spent most of my career as a home and community developer throughout the Western US. We live at 219 Goldenrod in CDM and have been watching this trend as it has evolved over the years. I hope the Planning Commission would only grant variances in rare cases to avoid losing the sense of community that makes Corona del Mar so unique. Thank you. Larry Webb Larry Webb | Chief Executive Officer The New Home Company 85 Enterprise, Suite 450 Aliso Viejo , CA 92656 Office: 949‐382‐7810 Website: www.nwhm.com This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipients. If you are not an intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e‐mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e‐mail if you have received this e‐mail by mistake and delete this e‐mail from your system. E‐mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error‐free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e‐mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard‐copy version. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Portia Weiss <portiaweiss@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:25 AM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:358 Dahlia Dear Planning Commissioners, The proposed setback changes for 358 Dahlia do not respect the architecural integrity of Corona del Mar. It appears that utilizing the code section to implement setback changes is inappropriate and will encourage more big box structures - thus threatening the intimate atmosphere of the entire neighborhood. Since the size of the structure appears to be the focus of this request, please utilize a variance to address this proposed change for the development of this lot. Thank you for continuing to respect and the support our unique and charming coastal community. Portia Weiss 421 San Bernardino Avenue Neport Beach, CA 92663 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:TOMLU BAKER <tomlubaker@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2018 10:35 AM To:Planning Commissioners Cc:TOMLU BAKER Subject:358 Dahlia Dear Planning Commissioners, Please not approve the request for setback changes for 358 Dahlia. The City should follow its zoning rules. Zoning rules should be consistently applied (unless unusual circumstances exist ) to preserve the character of the City, specifically CdM. Tom Baker Newport Beach Get Outlook for Android Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Tim Stephens <tastephens@roadrunner.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2018 10:53 AM To:Planning Commissioners Dear Planning Commissioners, As an 18 year resident of Corona del Mar, I am upset with residents who receive special favors with regard to building zoning rules. I am also upset with the Planning Commission that allow these zoning variances to occur. The house at 358 Dahlia should be asking for a building variance rather than a zoning allowance because the owners are seeking to increase the size of the house that they are building. Please do not allow their request for setback changes. Respectfully yours, Tim Stephens, Seaview Avenue, Corona del Mar Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Pimpa Tara <pjtara@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:15 PM To:Planning Commissioners Cc:susanskinner949@gmail.com Subject:" No" to big box houses Dear Planning Commissioners, I would like to send an objection to granting exceptions to our zoning rules and allowing big box houses in Corona del Mar. A recent request has been made to reduce setbacks at 358 Dahlia Place , which will allow a 27% larger home to be built on that lot. We believe zoning rules should be consistently applied to all properties unless unusual circumstances exist. Yours sincerely, Pimpa Tara Goldenrod avenue resident. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:mat <tankermanmat@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:45 PM To:Planning Commissioners; susanskinner949@gmail.com Subject:358 Dahlia I oppose the zoning extension at 358 Dahlia Place and hope you reject it. The alley was built years ago, has access at only one end, is narrower than most, already has traffic issues if residents are going opposite directions at the same time and too small for emergency vehicle access There are several significant problems brewing regarding this location as follows: 1.The alley is old, narrower than the newer alleys and has only one entrance. There is not enough room for two way traffic. There is already high potential for parked vehicles to block access for emergency vehicles! 2.The new construction at 324 Dahlia Place has already proven that new owners/builders/contractors are irresponsible about blocking access to the alley. This would block emergency vehicle access as well as blocking day‐to‐day access to the current residents. 3.Forty years ago, a home on this side of Dahlia Place was taken over by eminent domain for slippage issues on that hill and to benefit the retaining walls needed to support Fernleaf Street hill. 4.The eleven residents at China Cove Condominiums own the alley. They have already requested that the city take ownership to bring the alley up to code and provide much needed maintenance and the city has refused to take it until the residents pay for certain upgrades. The residents can't afford the upgrades and the city continues to allow further higher density housing needing the alley to access the units. The continued increase in usage of their alley is causing it to deteriorate beyond repair. The developers and city need to participate in the cost, maintenance and ownership of the alley. Therefore I request that the city deny any exceptions to zoning ordinance at 358 Dahlia Place or any other address on Dahlia Place. I also request that the city take over the alley ownership and maintenance as they already have allowed further density without regard to the cost of maintaining the alley to the residents of China Cove Condominiums. Thanks Mathew Cox and Courtney Watson 323 Dahlia Place Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 From:Fred Armstrong <FArmstrong@ar-ins.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:37 PM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:RE: Zoning/Setback Rules I am writing to urge the planning commission to consistently apply the current Zoning Rules to the CDM community. Setback requirements should not be reduced. When current Zoning Rules are not followed it changes the character of our quaint CDM Community. Two recent examples which increase density and parking are: 1. 302 Iris: change from single family to two unit condominium. 2. 358 Dahlia Place: reduce setbacks which will allow a 27% larger home. Most of these changes are being requested by developers with the priority of maximizing the sales price of an individual property rather than retaining and enhancing the charm and character of the overall community. Please resist granting exceptions to current Zoning Rules. At best, a Variance Request should be necessary requesting the ‘reorientation’ not the ‘reduction’ of the Setback Requirements. Thank you. Fred Armstrong 232 Iris, CDM, CA farmstrong@ar‐ins.com Cell 714‐812‐6618 This communication, together with any attachments hereto or links contained herein, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e‐mail message and delete the original and all copies of the communication, along with any attachments hereto or links herein, from your system. Thank you. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) January 18, 2018, Planning Commission Item 4 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 4. MYERS PROPERTY ALTERNATIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION (PA2017-184) In my mind, this request for a discretionary approval, like Item 5 on the present agenda, raises questions of both merit and process. Setbacks are presumably intended not to regulate building size, but rather to guarantee a city in which buildings are surrounded by open space and breathing room. The City’s policies regarding setbacks in situations like the present one are murky and not easy to understand. But it seems clear the process for granting “relief,” if relief is due, is not the one proposed by staff in the present agenda item. As Vice Chair Zak has repeatedly pointed out, there seem to be two largely independent questions in situations like this: 1. Is the applicant’s complaint that the codes are requiring too much open space? In that case, the Commission, if it agrees, could respond by allowing buildings to encroach into the code-required setback areas without allowing an increasing in floor area. 2. Is the applicant’s complaint that, given the peculiar circumstances of their lot, the code has not provided them with enough floor area? In that case, the Commission could respond by allowing more floor area, but without decreasing, or perhaps even increasing, the required amount of open space. The Commission could, course, consider a combination of the two, but there does not appear to be any logical or legal reason it would be forced to do so – that is, that a relaxation of the requirement to observe the normal setback requirements would automatically allow or require an increase in Floor Area Limit, or a request to increase FAL force a decrease in setbacks. The problem here is that granting either of these forms of relief, or a combination of the two, would appear to require publicly making the findings for a modification permit (if the deviations requested are minor) or a variance (if larger deviations are desired). Instead, the Commission is being asked to confirm a “staff approval” of what appear to be major changes in development standards, subject to no particular findings other than a vague need to make the property “consistent” with others – and under a code section, NBMC Section 20.30.110.C/21.30.110.C, that allows changes in “orientation,” but does not address the size of setbacks or increases in floor area (it explicitly deals only with “location,” not size). Many, including me, might think a variance is needed to approve what is requested. In addition, it is not normally the practice in Newport Beach for changes in land use standards to be granted in the abstract, but rather as part of a specific development proposal for which additional approvals may be required. Indeed, the codes direct that when additional approvals are needed, the entire package is supposed to be reviewed by the highest review authority Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) January 18, 2018, PC agenda item 4 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 needed for any of them. The problem here is that by bifurcating the present approval from the project approval, the setback and floor area decisions will likely be regarded as “settled” and “unappealable,” when in the context of the later project the relaxation of standards may be seen to have undesired consequences. Regarding setbacks, the City’s codes specify the size of front, rear and side setbacks and contain rules intended to determine which of the three applies to a given lot line. The sizes are unambiguous. The rules as to which size applies to which lot line may be less clear, which is perhaps the origin of the “staff approval” provision that seems to have been added to the Zoning Code in 2010. In the pre-2010 Zoning Code, the Director’s discretion appears to have confined to deciding which of two “substantially equal length” street frontages on a corner should be deemed the “front” (see “Lot, corner” in Ordinance No. 97-9). Whether the more generalized authority in the 2010 Code was intended to go beyond that is unclear. But it seems clear the authority was not intended to allow staff to arbitrarily change the size of setbacks, since the code explicitly provides that even minor encroachments into the code-required dimensions require a modification permit (and larger ones, presumably, a variance). In the present case the lot in question appears to be either an “interior lot” or a “through lot” (if the private “alley” is regarded as street). In the latter case, it would have two “front” requirements. So the “default” setbacks mentioned in the staff report (in which the “real” front of the house is regarded as a “rear”) could be regarded as already something of a concession. However that may be, staff seems to be misusing a section of the 2010 Zoning Code to process what is clearly a request for a variance from that code (a 7 foot front setback where the code requirement is 20 feet) as something other than a variance. I object to that. As to the merits of granting a variance, should the item come back as that, in an area of the city where a sizable part of the public is concerned about the allowed size of buildings already being too large for the lots, the Commission may wish to think hard about allowing construction even larger than the currently allowed size, especially on a lot with no obvious physical peculiarities. Regarding the draft resolutions, I would note that it appears decisions are being made under NBMC Titles 20 and 21, yet Decision Section 4.2 describes only the appeal rights under Title 20. In addition, the Findings of Section 3.2 of the Draft Resolution of Denial make it sound like the Commission is obligated to modify setbacks unless it can positively find the result would be detrimental to neighboring properties. That could be, but I am skeptical the Commission has such an obligation. Indeed, I would think the existing limits prescribed by code are intentional and to be modified only under unusual circumstances. Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 Ramirez, Brittany From:Mark D. Simon <markdsimon@roadrunner.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:43 PM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:RE: 358 Dahlia Pl Dear Planning Commissioners, I am asking the city to follow its existing rules and planning staff's recommendation for approval of the proposed development of 358 Dahlia Pl. The limit on the size of homes in CDM is based on the size of the lot and it is roughly about 1 to 1.05 ratio. Dahlia Pl. is basically the narrow alley, not a street. This lot has no access to Bayside Dr., only to this "alley". This lot meets city's requirements for "Alternate Setback Area Location". To have the enough space to turn the car in to the garage from the narrow Dahlia Pl, the developer is willing to set back the house further away from the alley toward the bayside drive. With this setback alteration the planning staff have recommended the approval of the new building. This is not a zoning exception, it is city doing business by the current rules. The proposed project on 358 Dahlia Pl. meets the rules for development in CDM. Please vote for approval of the proposed development of 358 Dahlia Pl. Thanks, Mark D. Simon, CCS V(949) 872 - 8322 F(949) 675 - 2156 Skype:mark.d.simon BRE License # 00816134 Certified Commercial Specialist www.MarkDSimon.com markdsimon@bhhscal.com www.linkedin.com/in/markdsimon Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties 3301 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Try My Free Mobile App: http://app.bhhscalifornia.com/marksimon CHAIRMAN'S CIRCLE AWARD WINNER‐TOP 2% OF THE BERKSHIRE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 Ramirez, Brittany From:kent moore <kentmoore@roadrunner.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 17, 2018 7:28 AM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Zoning Exemptions in Corona del Mar January 17, 2018 Re: 358 Dahlia Place, Corona del Mar Dear Commissioners: In my almost 48 years residing in Corona del Mar I have witnessed the City giving approval on numerous questionable projects, some of which barely met code requirements, required variances and defied what many would consider to be architecturally and esthetically appropriate. Some of these structures fall under the category of “mansionization.” City rules have also been bent while certain influential individuals in the community had the fees waved when appealing their cases to the City Council when the Planning Commission had turned down their particular projects. In one case, the applicant was a former high ranking elected official and the project was approved. Time and time again my neighbors and I have watched this manipulation and lobbying take place with the City. In fact, in 2015, CDM attorney, Melinda Luthin, stated in the Daily Pilot that the City appears to have given over $100,000 to a local non-profit without receiving grant applications, adhering to the City’s review and approval process or abiding by the City’s criteria for determining eligibility. This happened without informing the public or allowing public comment. What a terrible Civics lesson for our kids?! Is it any wonder why the public has lost confidence in city government and their elected officials? My neighbors and I just got through questioning the proposed Ocean Blvd. project above China Cove with your Commission and now we find that zoning exemptions have been proposed regarding setback distances nearby. Again, we find the City granting exceptions to well-established zoning rules instead of them being consistently applied to all properties here in town. Face it, Commissioners, the unique character of Old Corona del Mar is being dismantled and, in some cases, ruined. Why not do the right thing and start following your own zoning rules? My neighbors and I believe that zoning rules need to be consistent! Please stop bending and modifying the existing guidelines. Kent Moore 210 Carnation Ave. Corona del Mar 92625 (949) 244-1832 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 Ramirez, Brittany From:Sandy Haxby <smoxie7@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:59 AM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:358 Dahlia Place Dear Commissioners, I recently received a letter from a Susan Skinner, who is concerned about "big box houses" in Corona del mar, specifically 358 Dahlia Place. My address is 2515 First Street and is DIRECTLY ACROSS this subject property and with-in 300 feet. I happen to be very aware of the proposed project at 358 Dahlia Place and am VERY MUCH in favor of what new architecture can do the neighborhood. As mentioned, I look directly at this property and have the utmost confidence in the architect Mr. Andrew Goetz. His skill and creativity will only ADD to the aesthetics from my view point. I have personally walked Mr. Goetz's projects and a recognize his ability to bring beauty and sensitivity, which is good for the area, and not the "BIG BOX HOUSING" as Ms. Skinner refers to in her letter. Although I appreciate the concern of a Corona Del Mar resident, I do not understand why someone living in the Port streets would take the time to make such an uninformed comment against an appropriate planning request. Please take my position into consideration as a REAL impacted neighbor. I strongly hope for Commission Approval of the request. I hope to attend the hearing. Sincerely, Sandy Haxby 949.422.5053 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 Ramirez, Brittany From:susan power <spowershoe@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 17, 2018 10:45 AM To:Planning Commissioners Cc:susanskinner949@gmail.com Subject:Inappropriate Zoning Exemptions: 358 Dahlia Place Corona Del Mar Commissioners: I am a 50 year resident of Corona Del Mar. I strong object to a reduced setback on this new property located at 358 Dahlia Place, CDM. The city should consistently follow its own zoning rules. Request for narrower setback should occur with a variance request, not using an old section of code to grant properties the right to adjust setbacks and build larger homes. This practice is changing the character of of Corona Del Mar by changing the setbacks and building larger box homes. Please correct this misuse of the code. Sincerely, Barbara A. Power 300 Heliotrope Corona Del Mar, CA Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 Ramirez, Brittany From:Karen James <kjdelmar@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 17, 2018 11:30 AM To:Planning Commissioners Cc:susanskinner949@gmail.com Subject:Zoning Exemptions Dear Planning commissioners, I am formally protesting the variance, which you will no doubt allow for 358 Dahlia Place. You have allowed so many exemptions to zoning rules, I wonder why we even have a planning commission. Corona del Mar is now overrun with these giant houses that require these rules to be broken and the character of our town is being rapidly obliterated. The fact that you allowed the owner of 2607 Way Lane to construct a monstrous home on a lot that does not support it, is a travesty. If you think his transparent privacy wall will not be covered with plants and or shades as soon as he moves in, you are living in a fantasy world. Please have a care. Sincerely, Karen James 2627 Cove CdM Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 Ramirez, Brittany From:Jerry - TA Edison <jerry@taedison.net> Sent:Wednesday, January 17, 2018 11:46 AM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:358 Dahlia Pl. Good morning, I would like to express my support of planning staff's recommendation for approval of the proposed development of 358 Dahlia Pl. I am also supporting planning department's decision to implement "Alternate Setback Area Location". Our entire neighborhood would benefit if we get a new building on that lot and if Dahlia Pl. gets couple extra feet in width. Sincerely Dzevad Sirbegovic (Jerry) 2526 Seaview Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 Ramirez, Brittany From:Ramirez, Gregg Sent:Wednesday, January 17, 2018 2:27 PM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Myers Residence Alternative Setback Determination - Agenda Item No. 5 Attachments:Myers Residence Setback Exhibit.pdf Good afternoon, The applicant has placed stakes and ribbon to depict the locations listed below on the property to help better understand where a future building could go under the proposed setbacks. Due to the dense vegetation, the northerly portion of the lot is more readily visible. Please open the attached exhibit for more details.  Northlery Property Line Corner (Approx.)  Northerly Corner of Proposed Side and Rear Setbacks (Approx.)  Line of Proposed Front Setback (Approx.) Best regards, Gregg GREGG RAMIREZ Community Development Department Principal Planner gramirez@newportbeachca.gov 949-644-3219 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Bay B, Newport Beach, California 92660 | newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) Myers Residence Setback Determination (PA2017-184) Property Line Corner and Setback Staking View From Below Property - Bayside Drive (Above) View From Across Bayside Drive (Below) 1/17/2018Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 Ramirez, Brittany From:Joe <udinvestments@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 17, 2018 5:00 PM To:Planning Commissioners Subject:358 Dahlia Development Dear Planning Commission members, I have lived in Corona Del Mar for 30 years and have lived in the same house at 611 Poppy since 1993. (25 Years) As you can imagine I have seen a lot of changes since then. In my opinion “ALL” for the better. I have seen the wonderful gentrification of run down and dilapidated housing units into beautiful architecturally designed homes. I have visited 358 Dahlia personally and don’t think that I have seen a much worst structure in CDM that’s is in desperate need for redevelopment. This home is blocked by large apartment complexes in front of it and deserves the love and care that only a properly designed home can offer to allow it to have the views and add to our city of new architecturally designed homes that offer the buyer the best of the best!! I have personally seen the homes that Mr. Andrew Goetz has designed and am confident that his design will only add to the existing portfolio of homes he has designed for the care of the existing neighborhood. I fully endorse the proposed development!!!! Thank you, Joe Garrett (949)205‐9237 Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184) 1 Ramirez, Brittany From:Graham Rennison <graham.rennison1@googlemail.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 17, 2018 9:08 PM To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Jessica Rennison Subject:Opposition to development at 358 Dahlia Place To Whom It May Concern: We're writing to protest the proposal to reduce the setbacks at 358 Dahlia Place. Our family lives across Bayside from the structure and we are greatly concerned about both the construction entailed in such a change as well as it's impact on our privacy and view. As parents of 10 month old twins we'd prefer not to live across from what it sure to be a noisy major construction zone. More importantly, given the orientation and set up of our home, we seem due to lose any privacy we currently have since the hillside is now mainly trees and ground growth. We worry how that may affect our home's value and appreciation. Additionally, while this may seem petty, we're quite saddened by the tree trimming of the large tree at the back of the property that eradicated what was once a nest for multiple, beautiful and graceful herons. Corona Del Mar is already impacted by an overabundance of renters and residents in homes built too large and too closely together. Our hope is the commission will adhere to the spirit of the zoning and setback rules from the time they were established instead of giving into what can only be deemed greed and excess by those proposing these changes. Thank you, Graham & Jessica Rennison 2514 Bayside Drive, Corona del Mar Planning Commission - January 18, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Myers Property Alternative Setback Determination (PA2017-184)