Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180208_PC Staff ReportCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT February 8, 2018 Agenda Item No. 3 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 DISCUSSION This item was continued from the January 18, 2018 meeting to February 8, 2018 by the Planning Commission at the request of staff. Staff now requests that this item be removed from calendar to allow further review of the proposal and, procedural and permitting requirements. Public Comments Since the January 18, 2018 meeting, staff has received eight comment letters from the public. That correspondence is included as Attachment PC1. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Planning Commission remove this item from the calendar. Prepared by: Submitted by: ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Public Comments 1 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial Attachment No. PC 1 Public Comments 3 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4 From:Ramirez, Brittany To:Ramirez, Gregg Subject:Fwd: 358 Dahlia Place Corona del Mar Date:Friday, January 19, 2018 9:22:53 AM For your staff report when this item goes back to PC. Brittany Begin forwarded message: From: <beagymnast@mac.com> Date: January 18, 2018 at 9:57:44 PM PSTTo: <planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 358 Dahlia Place Corona del Mar I am writing in support of the changed/reduced setbacks that have been proposedon the property. Corona del Mar is not a cookie cutter community where every lot is the same size and shape, on the same terrain, and all built en masse during ashort time period. There are lots of all sorts of size parcels and houses built at varying times over the last century. The City is correct to look at eachcircumstance on a case by case basis and actually look to see what sort of impact, if any, will be made to the community. On this unique lot, it is appropriate togrant the builder to utilize more of the land because it does not block anyone’s view or come closer to anyone’s house. Allowing the additional building areawill hardly create a “big box” house, but it WILL allow the builder to sell the property for a higher price because he has built a larger house. That results inhigher property taxes for the City and higher property values for the neighbors. This is a unique circumstance that is a win-win for everyone. It’s a shame thatsome people have such a knee-jerk negative reaction to something being built that will ENHANCE the community that they can’t open their mind to the facts of thecase and they just want to start another letter-writing campaign. Respectfully submitted, Paula Tribble 5 From:Ramirez, Brittany To:Ramirez, Gregg Subject:Fwd: 358 Dahlia. CDM Date:Saturday, January 20, 2018 1:40:36 PM For your staff report when this item goes back to PC. Begin forwarded message: From: Rich LaPorte <61group@gmail.com> Date: January 20, 2018 at 1:07:19 PM PSTTo: <planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 358 Dahlia. CDM "Skinner misleading posts" Here are some real FACTS AND HISTORY about the zoning request unbiased and true. Lots in our City were subdivided long ago, not just in CDM, but down the Peninsula, Balboa Island and other areas. Thru history many long and skinny lots were broken up, turned around, merged, and modified. Building setbacks are applied as blanket over ENTIRE AREAS. Setbacks are not micro-managed to EVERY LOCATION OR PROPERTY ORIENTIATION. ! Lots, or portions of lots that are 30' wide or 40' etc. CAN have a 20' setback on the long direction. This condition would limit a house to LESS THAN 10 FEET WIDE. !! thus a worthless piece of land. 6 Before the 2010 City code update, planners and commissioners would HAVE TO go thru the variance process, to allow a proportional development . This is expensive and time consuming, especially in light of the net result was MOSTLY looking at the lot size and applying a proportional analysts. THERE WAS NO SPECIAL PRIVILAGE. THE CITY LEADERS, CITIZEN COMMITTIEES , PLANNERS reviewed the process and VOTED, BY A MAJORITY that the setback issue and allowable development can be better managed by a director review. It is ignorant to assume 1 size fits all (building setbacks), and anytime a unique location , or non typical property is evaluated, hoards of protestors are warranted. CLAIMING SPECIAL PRIVIALGE, IS A NOT TRUE THE WHICH HUNT MENTALITY NEEDS TO STOP -- Rich LaPorte, Realtor®Founder 60 One Property Group Tel: 949.903.9314Fax: 949-264-1198 61Group@gmail.com www.60one.net DRE#01465403 7 From:Ramirez, Brittany To:Ramirez, Gregg Subject:Fwd: 358 Dahlia Date:Sunday, January 21, 2018 5:33:31 PM For your staff report when this item goes back to PC. Brittany Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Skinner <susanskinner949@gmail.com> Date: January 21, 2018 at 5:24:06 PM PSTTo: <planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 358 Dahlia Dear Planning Commissioners, Thank you for continuing the hearing for 358 Dahlia on Thursday night. I don'tknow if that was to allow you more time to hear the Koll project or to have more time to consider this project, but I hope the latter is the case. I'd like to share with you that I took the time to go back to the origins of20.30.110C, which was part of the complete revamp of the code in 2010. There was a study session with the city council on Oct 13, 2009 in which this wasdiscussed and a powerpoint was presented. (Ironically, my parent's home was used as the example of a lot that would fall under this code.) The video andpowerpoint are here: http://newportbeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php? publish_id=a8c51c4f-72b6-11e5-8170-f04da2064c47. This was item #3 in thestudy session and there is a hyperlink to the powerpoint in the adjacent agenda. There was not any discussion that I heard about the reduction of setbacks as part of this, but this is how code 20.30.110C seems to have been applied recently. Certainly, in the case of 358 Dahlia, in which no apparent changes in setback location (front/back, etc) have been even asked for, it seems inappropriatelyapplied. The application for a larger house for 3200 Ocean Blvd has started as an alternative setback request, although I am aware of this only through thedeveloper sharing his application with me and no info through the city, so that may have changed. Information about these applications are NOT available untilthe staff report is posted a few days prior to the meeting, per Mr. Ramirez when I asked him for data in advance of the staff report. So you know, before I passed out flyers in CdM, I reached out to 3 staff membersvia Email and phone to let them know that I would be passing out flyers in a few days and asking why this wasn't a variance request. I did not get a reply. I didask the Planning Director about this on Thursday night and had a very cordial conversation. He indicated that there had been discussion as to whether this 8 needed to be a variance or not, but that this is how it had been done in the past. I appreciated that honesty and do recognize that this is how similar requests wereprocessed in the past and that it might have been seen as a routine request that didn't generate substantial consideration for anything but an alternative setbackrequest. However, having now had this called to your attention, I how you will agree that this request is most appropriate for a variance rather than an alternativesetback request and require this of the applicant going forward. I would point out, as I did in my first letter, that if only some properties can be processed as an alternative setback request and receive increase in buildable areaand others are in standard locations and cannot, you are creating an unequal privilege for some homeowners and I would expect that would create anunnecessary legal liability for the city. Finally, we come to the issue of trust. Seimone and Jim and I have had some conversations about trust and how development issues at the city are handled. Iwould propose to you that the best trust building tool the city can have is crystal clear rules that are transparently applied equally to everyone. From myperspective, that does not currently exist. That becomes much, much more important when we consider the upcoming General Plan update. Those of you who lived in Newport Beach in 2014 will remember Measure Y, thelast General Plan update that went down in flames at the polls because it asked voters if they would like to remove traffic and density when it actually addedsubstantial new developments to the city. The 2006 General Plan update (in which the 2200 'floating' dwelling units, some of which will be used for Koll,were added) barely passed (by 53%) without any substantial opposition. The lack of opposition was because it was not recognized at the time what the GP wasactually doing. That error will not occur again. I currently have very little trust that the next General Plan will have transparency and accountability and issues like 358 Dahlia, 2607 Ocean Blvd and even Mr.Torres' inaccurate legal advice all contribute to an increasing suspicion rather than improving trust. It is going to be a huge challenge in this environment to pass thenext General Plan and the only way that I see that happening is if that trust is re- established prior to the GP vote. All of that last bit is a bit off topic for 358 Dahlia, of course, but I wouldappreciate having your consideration for a variance (or have someone give me a meaningful answer as to why a variance is not necessary in this situation.) I appreciate your consideration, Susan Skinner 9 From:Ramirez, Brittany To:Ramirez, Gregg Subject:FW: NO to Big Box Houses Date:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:21:25 AM Attachments:image002.png For use in your staff report when this item goes back to PC. Thank you, BRITTANY RAMIREZ Community Development Department Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director bramirez@newportbeachca.gov 949-644-3232 From: mwroosev [mailto:mwroosev@uci.edu] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 4:36 PM To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: susanskinner949@gmail.com Subject: NO to Big Box Houses I would like to support Susan Skinner in her efforts to stop destroying everything that isspecial about Corona del Mar village.I have lived here for thirty years, and it saddens me to see these enormous homes fill theentire lots that they are built on. Some of them are not even occupied. They do not represent the village, which has been one of the attractions of living andvisiting here. They are destroying it. I walk the area daily, and I listen to the comments ofother walkers, and they are not complimentary. I was not able to attend the meeting, but I do hope that those folks who make decisionson the size of future homes will take into consideration the wishes of those of us whomanage very well, in smaller attractive homes that do represent what Corona del Marmeans to this community.Thank you.Mary Roosevelt Virus-free. www.avast.com 10 From:Ramirez, Brittany To:Ramirez, Gregg Subject:FW: 358 Dahlia Pl Date:Monday, January 22, 2018 2:22:58 PM Attachments:image001.png For use in your staff report when this item returns to PC. Thank you, BRITTANY RAMIREZ Community Development Department Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director bramirez@newportbeachca.gov 949-644-3232 From: Ross Armstrong [mailto:rossstjohnarmstrong@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 2:17 PM To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Andrew Goetz <goetzarch@earthlink.net> Subject: 358 Dahlia Pl Dear Sir, I wanted to add my thoughts, as well as personal note, regarding the proposed development of 358 Dahlia Place. As a licensed Real Estate Agent in Newport Beach, I have been helping the Myers Familysince 2015. Over the last two and a half years, through no fault of their own, they have been harassed by developers and had to fight litigation to remove a Lis Pendens placed on the property by oneof these unscrupulous outfits. Mr Goetz was brought in to help the Myers produce a top quality design to enhance the site. This will not be a Big Box Mansion but a well designednew home that will improve the overall appearance and property values for all the surrounding neighbors. The property is, as some other residents have pointed out, in extremely bad condition anddesperately needs attention in the shape of a new structure. The site is unique both in respect of access and proximity to other homes (especially as this lot backs onto Bayside). The Myers are elderly and in poor health and the negative campaign created by Susan Skinnerhas delivered extreme discomfort, anxiety and stress for these wonderful people. I strongly urge the City to grant this alternative setback approval so the Myers can move on and they can experience the same benefits that other CdM homeowners have enjoyed throughsimilar development requests. Best,Ross 11 Ross St.John Armstrong Berkshire Hathaway California PropertiesNewport Beach CABRE# 01909131 +1 949.689.1669RossStJohnArmstrong@gmail.comwww.RossStJohnArmstrong.com 12 From:Ramirez, Brittany To:Ramirez, Gregg Subject:FW: 358 Dahlia Place Date:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 11:28:34 AM For use in your staff report when this item returns to PC. Thank you, BRITTANY RAMIREZ Community Development Department Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director bramirez@newportbeachca.gov 949-644-3232 -----Original Message----- From: Troy Wu [mailto:troywu@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 8:56 PM To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: susanskinner949@gmail.com Subject: Re: 358 Dahlia Place > On Jan 22, 2018, at 8:42 PM, Troy Wu <troywu@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear CDM planning commisioner, > > My name is Troy Wu and I am the homeowner at 419 Begonia Avenue. I was recently notified that project plans at 358 Dahlia call for a reduction in setback which will in turn allow for a home to be built facing my property instead of a green cliff in Bayside impacting my privacy. I am opposed to granting this exception and would like to discuss further. I can be reached via email at troywu@gmail.com or 2137123895. > > Troy Wu, MD 13 From:Ramirez, Brittany To:Ramirez, Gregg Subject:FW: Setback variances Date:Friday, January 26, 2018 7:44:48 AM Attachments:image001.png Hi Gregg, I’m not certain this is regarding Dahlia specifically, as it is a general message about setbacks, but wanted to forward it on for your interpretation. Thank you, BRITTANY RAMIREZ Community Development Department Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director bramirez@newportbeachca.gov 949-644-3232 From: Lisa Walker [mailto:lisaflys@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 7:41 PM To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Setback variances Dear Newport/CDM Planning Commissioner, I am writing to express my concerns over the exceptions & variances to setbacks beingapproved in CDM. It has come to my attention that the following section fo the code which was written to allowfor reorientation has been being misapplied to allow for reductions in setbacks. The code section is: “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.” Note that this code section does NOT allow reducing setbacks from the edge of the property, but just reorienting them. Requests for narrower setbacks should occur with a variance request, which requires a much higher standard to be met, but the city has been using this section of code to grant properties the right to adjust setbacks and build larger homes. The city should consistently follow its own zoning rules. Thanks, Lisa Walker 616 1/2 Begonia Ave 14 Corona Del MarMobile 949.275.1830 Thanks, Lisa 15 From:Ramirez, Brittany To:Ramirez, Gregg Subject:FW: Zoning Rules for Setback of property 358 Dahlia Date:Friday, January 26, 2018 11:51:09 AM For use in your staff report when this item returns to PC. BRITTANY RAMIREZ Community Development Department Administrative Specialist to the Community Development Director bramirez@newportbeachca.gov 949-644-3232 -----Original Message----- From: Danielle Miller [mailto:daniellekmiller3@icloud.com] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 11:34 AM To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Zoning Rules for Setback of property 358 Dahlia Hello, My name is Danielle Miller. I am a home owner in Corona Del Mar. I have owned various homes in CDM over the last 18 years. I am reaching out about oposing granting exceptions to our zoning rules to reduce setbacks. The zoning rule for required setback distance protects the beauty and long term value of our community. Giving exception to this the rule for 358 Dahlia Place will negatively impact the beauty and value of our community. I hope my input is helpful in keeping the zoning rule in place. Thank you! 16